Could the SBC "railed" ON Niv 2011 Because have OWN Bible the HCSB?

Possibly because it attempts to destroy the deity of Christ?

Which version is the worst case scenario to you and why?

The NWT's agenda is clear and cultic.

- Peace

 

No. Why would it?

 

Because it is the singular legitimate Word of God in conterdistinction to other versions which water-down the Bible in comparison --according to your oft-expressed views.

 

You want to show me where I said that?

 

Here's some alternative candidates for "Worst Bible Translation"- with examples:

The Inclusive New Testament - Colossians 3:18-19 "You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness between you."

The Cotton Patch Version- Matthew 2:13 "After they had checked out, the Lord's messenger made connection with Joseph in a dream and said, "Get moving, and take your wife and baby and highball it to Mexico.""

The Black Bible Chronicles- Genesis 1:1 "Now when the Almighty was first down with His program, He made the heavens and the earth."

A New and Corrected Version of the New Testament, or... - Luke 1:41 "And it happened, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the embryo was joyfully agitated."

So there's lots of candidates out there... unfortunately.

 

Okay,let's start with your constant refrain :

all the different translations DO say different things. So saying they ALL are the Word of God is ridiculous to me. (4/17/10)

I don't believe ALL translations are the Word of God. (5/30/10)

I do not believe they can all be the Word of God. (5/30/10)

BOTH cannot be the INSPIRED Word of God. (7/31/10)

Both translations CANNOT be the Word of God! One is RIGHT,one is WRONG. (9/23/10)

What I DON'T do,...is to declare them BOTH to be the inerrant Word of God. (9/23/10)

...hundreds of different Bible versions. They lead to confusion,doubt...Common sense tells me they ALL cannot be the "Word of God" when they differ so much... (12/26/10)

I'm told and expected to believe,that ALL these different Bible versions are the Word of God ...but I've got enough common sense to know that makes no sense. (6/20/11)

 

^^^^That^^^

Is NOT

THIS:

Never ONCE in all those quotes you posted did I mention that I thought the KJV was

I still believe those statements BTW. I know there are different manuscripts that Bibles are translated from. Some have certain passages, some do not. I really DO NOT KNOW which manuscripts are the correct ones, but I do know ONE of them IS, and ONE of them ISN'T. I know they BOTH cannot be. I just don't know for sure which one is the correct one.

I'll await your apology.

 

Hence the reason that some translators found the need to translate in a dynamic fashion.

Prior to translations that were primarily dynamic a preacher would consult multiple (hopefully, some only consult one or none!) commentaries in order to get the gist of the meaning of any given text. WIth a dynamic translation, one can get that meaning in plain English while reading the text. Of course, there is always the issue with the worldview and doctrine of the translation team or person, with the dynamic equivalence sometimes skewed because of that view. It is there that more scholarly study makes the difference.

I'm going to toss out something here that will probably set a few teeth on edge, but from what I've seen, both on this board and in multiple other experiences in and out of the churches I've worked with or known about, there is now a decided anti-scholarly bias. This bias has put forward a simple proposition; that it is more pious to try to figure out the Word of God from an archaic text (read that an ancient translation that has its own worldview) than it is to study, use additional resources prepared by most learned men, and to use a proper hermaneutic for the study of the Word. Where this came from is largely a mystery to me, but it seems to stem from the revivalist arm of the baptistic movement during a time when "effects" were largely more important than "truth" discipled into believers. The cry seems to be "Get saved and perpetrate" instead of "become a disciple of Christ." And, with that cry comes a decided anti-scholarly bias, as if learning more than the mere surface of the Word of God is somehow a dangerous activity.

As one who has progressed through both of these stages in my Christian life, I have come to see and know the difference between "me and God," and an informed scholarly view of the Word in context. I once was taught that God would "just use" any particular reading of His Word, no matter if it was in context or not -- much like we often find here on the board. I now know that doing so "divides God" in a way that cannot be. The answer is to reconcile all Scripture to the extent that one is able, understanding that a finite human view can never truly reconcile all, but that at the point of God's throne, all IS reconciled whether or not we agree or understand.

 

(Apologies in advance for the hijack, but this is a point that deserves to be emphasized, IMHO).

As one who has been in Fundamental Baptist circles for over 30 years (although I am now excluded from their ranks by their accounting since I am now SBC), I have had the experience of seeing the degradation of learning.

The old-time fundies who came out of the SBC in the 40's, 50's and 60's were educated in the SBC seminaries and were well-learned men. They were proficient in Greek and Hebrew, and had studies in Logic and other "non-Biblical" subjects. I heard some of them preach- some would preach from the NASB or quote other versions other than the KJV for clarity, they also were not afraid to say, "this word in the KJV would be better translated as...", and they were not afraid to read books that challenged their faith. Dr. R.G Lee comes to mind, but there are others not quite as well known.

Unfortunately, the men who followed them as leaders in the IFB movement by and large have lacked their depth of education and wisdom. IFB colleges have produced very few men and women who are able to discuss theological issues and think clearly, accurately and Biblically without using logical fallacies in their defense of the faith.

There is nothing wrong with being a scholar- Paul was one and he emphasized the need for Timothy to be one also. God CAN use an unlearned man in His service, but no true man of God should choose to remain unlearned- "to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin". A carpenter can use a dull saw, but he will not make much progress, and a wise carpenter will show pride in his craft and take the time to sharpen his saw. Would to God that all of us would spend time daily on God's grindstone being honed for His service!

 

What do you mean by scholar here?

 

That's a good question. The basic definition of scholar is 'a student'. Other definitions are (from Google):

1. A specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic
   
2. A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study
   
   

A Biblical example: 1 Timothy 4:11-16

 

I guess it depends on who uses the term.

 

That sounds about right. Now I'm curious- what would your definition be?

 

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion, I do appreciate the additional thoughts. I have been thinking- can one be a scholar if they are not also a teacher- or the converse?

 

I read Rhet's contribution. Now if we're talking about how academics employ the term, I'm with Rhet.