1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Digging a well.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salamander, Dec 20, 2008.

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

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heal thyself, physician.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Knock it off Salamander.Mexdeaf is a gentleman.He's just pointing out facts.You are the one who has attacked translations other than the KJV's.You are the one who habitually slurs fellow believers who use versions other than the KJV's.

    Sometimes I think you regard this as a game.It's hard to conceive with all the good solid information which other posters have given you about the KJVO stuff -- that you still hold onto such wacky ideas.It occurs to me that maybe,just maybe you really gave up on being a KJVO'er long ago.But you just enjoy baiting posters.It's fun for you -- the scriptural injunctions against your conduct notwithstanding.

    However,I could be wrong.Perhaps you are really a KJVO and no amount of factual data can sway you.In that case we (the non-KJVO folks here) will continue to refute KJVO'ism because of lurkers who may never become members.I think many of non-Christians may be in that number.They need to know that the KJVO-mentality does not characterize the majority of Christians.And some lurkers may be in the beginning of their Christian years.They need to know what more mature believers really think about this issue.
     
  3. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are you using smoke and mirrors to sidestep my position? Acts 8:37 is not found in the main text of most MV's. It has been reduced to a footnote in the majority of new versions. What will be reduced to a footnote in the next generation of newer versions? Maybe salvation without works. Maybe the fact that Jesus is God. Who gives man the right to decide what is a footnote and what remains in the text?

    When someone has sat down to read their "bible", a vast majority will not take the time to study the notes and helps. They will simply be ignorant that verse 37 is not there (except in the footnote).

    Whereas if they read the KJV, they will read the eunuch's confession of faith in Jesus Christ, which, BTW, is essential for salvation.

    Explain this for me if you can...Mark 1:2 (MV) clearly says that verse is found in Isaiah when in fact that verse is found in Malachi which the footnote acknowledges in most MV. From my understanding, knowingly making a false statement is lying. My Bible says God cannot lie. So tell me, are the MV's wrong, or is God a liar???
     
    #43 Abell, Dec 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2008
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Allow me. Notice Matthew 27:9 (KJV) --
    Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; ​
    You will not find a referrence to "thirty pieces of silver" in Jeremiah; you find it in Zechariah (11:12-13). Did Matthew make a mistake? Did God lie? No, what we have in this passage are 'mixed' prophecies (the purchase of a "field" is found in Jeremiah 32), similar to the one found in Mark 1:2 (a mixture from Isaiah & Malachi). Why does Matthew only cite Jeremiah, and Mark only Isaiah? Perhaps, the custom was to give only the more prominent prophet's name, or the one whose writing is found in its own scroll (Isaiah and Jeremiah are long enough works to each to occupy a single scroll). In the Hebrew Tanakh, Zechariah & Malachi were identified as a group with 10 other 'minor' prophets.
     
    #44 franklinmonroe, Dec 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2008
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So your contention is that we should add to Scripture?
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    It would only be "added" if your contention is that the TR is wrong.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's my point. There is an assumption being made that MVs have deleted things. But such an assumption depends on the assertion that the TR is right. That's not a proven fact, and there are in fact many good reasons to doubt it in some places. Out of the three major textual options (Eclectic, Majority, TR), the TR is far and away the worst option, yet it still can rightly be called the Word of God.

    When someone says that the MVs omit something, they are assuming that it was there to begin with. We cannot make such an assumption.
     
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's my point. I have never seen any proof that one set added or the other set took away. They are simply different. The why seems to be a mystery.
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really?

    Salamander, you made a sweeping generalization without checking the facts. This doesn't do much for your credibility.
     
  10. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can you consider yourself "doctrinally correct" when you support the KJVO position, Sal? They're at opposite ends of the spectrum.
     
  11. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just how do modern Bible translations deny Christ's deity? If you make the accusation you should be able to show us some concrete proof.

    The Holy Spirit has guided me to use mainly the NKJV, the NASB and one of the KJVs. There's just as much meat in the modern Bible translations as there is in the various KJVs. It's a shame KJVOs are stuck in the milk of the word and can't enjoy the meat.

    The NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB and other legitimate modern Bible translations are God's "inerrant, infallible pure word" just as much as the various KJVs. All the legitimate modern translations I've read teach Christ's deity, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His horrible death on the cross, His burial, His glorious and triumphant victory over death and the grave, His ascension, His current place on high, His intercession for us and His eventual return. I've never read a legitimate modern Bible translation that teaches "another gospel."

    BTW, when I refer to legitimate Bible translations I'm not referring to the Cotton Patch Version or other gimmic "translations" - those are a "horse of a different color" altogether. Nor am I referring to the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Joseph Smith Translation (aka the Inspired Version) of the Mormons, or the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists. These versions were "translated" so that these errant cults could finally have a "bible" that agrees with their errant teachings.
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, you certainly don't stay silent, do you? The problem is that you take every opportunity to promote the false KJVO teaching while denigrating modern translations of God's word. THAT, my friend, is much more offensive to God, IMHO.

    It appears you're proud of your stance against God's word in its modern translations. And I certainly wouldn't call Christian correction "persecution." It's the KJVOs who persecutes those who don't use only one of the KJVs. I'll pray for you, my friend.
     
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm convicted the KJVO position is grave error because it casts doubt on God's word. Neither do I make apologies for my convictions.

    The problem here, Abell, is that the witness of the KJVO position ISN'T true. It certainly isn't sound doctrine because it isn't found in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the KJVO position stands in defiance of God's word. It casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His inerrant word in more than one Bible translation. It also casts doubt on God's wisdom in graciously providing modern translations so His word may be just as fresh and vibrant for today's readers as it was for readers of past centuries. The KJVO position is an extra-biblical teaching dreamed up by a Seventh Day Adventist over 70 years ago.

    Are the KJVs the inerrant word of God even though they use different words in some places? Absolutely! Are legitimate modern Bible translations God's inerrant word although they use different words? Absolutely!
     
  14. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Franklin
    Thank you very much for bringing this portion of scripture to my attention. It was one that I was unaware of. I was somewhat puzzled as I began to research this seeming contradiction. With the help of much more learned scholars than myself, the answer was provided. Allow me to share with you:

    The Hebrew scriptures, as you know, were divided into three sections: The Law, the Psalms (Poetry), and the Prophets. The Hebrew "Prophets" section began with Jeremiah whereas our Bibles begin the Prophets with Isaiah. According the Dr. Lightfoot it was common practice to attribute prophecies of minor prophets to Jeremiah as his book was first.

    Another point I would like to make is that in Matthew 27:9 Jeremiah is not credited with writing this prophecy, but speaking this prophecy. It is very probable that this spoken prophecy of Jeremiah was passed on through oral tradition and recorded less than one hundred years later by Zechariah.

    Now, notice the difference in regard to the writing of Mark 1:2 in the MV. Firstly, Isaiah was not the first book of prophecy in the Hebrew order. It would have been more correct to name Jeremiah if only the Prophecy section of scripture was being referred to. Secondly, in the MV it clearly says this prophecy was written in Isaiah, which it is not.

    You spoke of mixing the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi. There is nothing of similarity to mix in these two books of prophecy in regards to what is recorded in Mark 1:2. There are similarities in this fulfilled prophecy recorded in Matthew as it relates to both Jeremiah and Zechariah. Jeremiah was involved in the purchase of a field (32:6); also with a potters house (18:1-3); and with a burial ground (19:1-12). The price is recorded in Zechariah 11:12-13.

    Clear explainations are provided for supposed contradictions in the KJV. No explaination for the outright lie found in Mark1:2 in the MV. Thaks again. Better luck next time.
     
  15. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith,
    You wrote:
    My friend, I'm not persecuting anyone for the Bible they choose to use. Use your MV if you like. I'm pointing out the fact that MV's [Bible attack deleted]. I don't see very much difference in them and any other book written by man. Both contain truth, both contain errors. I choose to use the book inspired by God. It is inerrant, infallible, and perfect. If you decide to continue using MV's, that's fine by me. Good luck with that.

    And Merry Christmas.
     
    #55 Abell, Dec 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2008
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, this gets into a more technical and in depth discussion, which this forum is not well suited for. We know that the different textual families differ, and that there are differences within a textual family. We don't always know why they differ, or which was original. There are several different ways that one determines which reading is original.

    For instance, when someone says, "The TR reads ..." we have to ask "Which TR?" There are many, and they are not all the same. When someone says "X verse was omitted," it may or may not have been. It may not have been original, but added in later. The KJVO folks tend to forget that sometimes.

    But the point is that "X verse was taken out" is an assumption. It may be that it was never there to begin with.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You see incorrectly, in this case. The MVs, just like the KJV, are translations. They have the same types of issues.

    I think we all do. Using a modern version is using the book inspired by God.
     
  18. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is it that when I stated the fact that MV's are inaccurate and misleading, my post was butchered? I don't see the same treatment towards those who attack the KJV. Please note this quote:
    I was not attacking the Bible. I made a factual, proveable statement. My, my...why is there such a fear of the truth?
     
    #58 Abell, Dec 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2008
  19. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word of God does not lie. Shame on you for this terrible accusation.
     
  20. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, in your fantasy world, using an MV and speaking against KJVO is equated with "attacking the KJV." Since your accusation is preposterous, it is ignored.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...