Bible Question.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ehud, Jul 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ehud

    Ehud
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Bible would you recommend as 100% Gods word, inherent infallible. That someone could go out and purchase for themselves. This Bible could be held up and proclaimed as 100% God’s word without era.


    Ehud
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The original title had my name, which is a violation of BB rules.

    As to your question, I am not going to be drawn into this tired old debate which we have gone over ad naseum.

    I have a feeling this will soon be a discussion of the same issue and faces early closure.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well ,the KJV ( in its various revisions ) was basically a 17th century "era" Bible . But it has a great number of errors within its still reliable pages .
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Language Cop says that should actually be "ad nausea", C4K.

    'Cause he's done got sick of hearing the same argument over and over and over, ad nausea.

    Ed
     
  5. Ehud

    Ehud
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is God's word?????

    So I guess there is no 100% infallible inherent God's word in a book I could go buy. Anybody, or would I have to buy several version have the abilities with the Hebrew and Greek and try to put together my opinion of what I think is the best.


    EHUD and CO.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Ad naseam actually :) http://www.answers.com/topic/argumentum-ad-nauseam

    On the topic...no, I am not going back in ;)
     
    #6 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2007
  7. Ehud

    Ehud
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ad Naseam

    "Ad naseam" Ah Yes, this is how Rome felt toward Tyndale, Martin Luther, Wycliff, Lollards, and others who stood and died for absolute authority of an infallable inherent Bible.:applause:


    Ehud.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    It's not going to work Mr Ehud - you aren't going to draw me in to an issue we have discussed here 100s of times.

    BTW, how did I become your personal object of scorn? You don't even know my view on the blessed KJV.
     
  9. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV...

    Are we supposed to assume that when you say "inherant" you actually mean "inerrant" (without error)?

    Ehud, just like Will Kinney (who, BTW, you seem to almost quote with your errant and deliberately misleading posts) and others with your definition of inerrancy, you errantly apply it only to the words of one particular English Bible version. God's definition of inerrancy does not restrict itself to mere English words. With your own errant definition of inerrancy, there can be only one Bible version you perceive to be inerrant and that is one of the various KJVs. But please tell us, which of the various KJVs is it that you consider to be perfect? Since there are various renderings of God's word with various wordings all going by the name KJV, then you must be able to tell us just which of those various KJVs it is that is perfect and which editions are not perfect. After all, since there are differences in the various KJVs then that means, by your definition, they cannot all possibly be the inerrant and perfect word of God.

    Just like the KJVO thinking you support, Ehud, your guesswork is all wrong. The entire radical KJVO stance is nothing but guesswork and error. You base your entire KJVO stance on your opinion and not on true facts. Anyone who can look at the facts and still support the KJVO belief is in serious error, Ehud.

    This is true, Ehud. But not one of these folks supported anything that even remotely resembled the errant onlyism you support. You pride yourself when you erroneously place yourself in the same category with these great Bible translators, Ehud. Can you please quote just one time when Tyndale, Luther or Wycliffe claimed their version to be the only true word of God in English or any other language? And even if you can quote just one instance where one of these folks claimed their particular version was the only true word of God in English or any other language, then that would mean that they, or you and KJVO supporters, had to be wrong. After all, if a version prior to the 1611 KJV was perfect then there was no need to replace it with another version. And if you believe those versions prior to 1611 were in error, then you don't believe God got it right until 1611. In either situation, Ehud, you're wrong.

    Roger's right, the radical and errant KJVO position you support has been beaten to death. It should be about ready for the glue factory now. And those of you who support this radical and errant KJVO position are no closer to being right than you ever were. It's sad you support a radical position based on error while denying the validity of God's word as He has graciously provided it for us in various English Bible translations. You should be on your knees thanking God for the various English Bible translations rather than demeaning them and calling them less than God's word and less than perfect. Your errant KJVO position comes very close [snipped], Ehud.
     
    #10 Keith M, Jul 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2007
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ehud, you're tryingta glue feathers onto a hippo, hoping it'll fly. There's only ONE valid reason to be KJVO, & that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE. The lacka SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO makes every other reason untrue.

    Please feel free to studythe issue in this forum's archives.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Fellas, is there really a need to be dragged back into this?
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    No, but a hog does like to waller in the mud occasionally.
     
  14. Gwyneth

    Gwyneth
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/gwyneth.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    era .......... error

    Welsh language cop thinks this may also be an error: "100% God’s word without era."
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    >
    >
    >
    [​IMG]
    This is a veternarian working on a horse with a special horse tool. The horse is much better now!

    Ed
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:
     
  17. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was the statement about "the glue factory" meant to state that the KJV is washed up, or tha tthe KJVO issue is washed up?

    ANd what are all these "errors" people keep talking about? I have read through that blessed old book many times and have yet to find an error or to be shown one. Please elaborate.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been a Christian for 55 years.
    I've used the following 100% inerrant God's Holy Written
    Word 10 years or more (except the one that
    hasn't been out ten years yet):

    King James Version (KJV1769 Edition)
    New International Version (NIV)
    new King James Version (nKJV)
    HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)

    Each of these bibles I recommend as 100% God's word, INERRANT
    and infallible. Any difficulty I have within one of them or
    between two of them - I beleive to be my misunderstanding
    NOT GOD'S FAULT. I beleive that the version/translation
    Forum of the BB (Baptist Board) is a place where reasonable
    human beings can discuss that our Bible
    problems might be
    with out the sheepish bleating of "one-and-one-one Bibile".
     
  19. Bro. Williams

    Bro. Williams
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can they all be inerrant when they contradict one another on certain points?
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Which is correct?

    12 He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (KJV1769)

    or


    12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (KJV1611)

    Which is perfect?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...