Great Read

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Baptist4life, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    The name of this book is

    WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?

    by FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.

    other info:
    1999
    Seventeenth Edition
    Revised and Enlarged
    (First Edition 1989)

    It is 296 pages long. (just so you know you won't be reading it in a sit down - there is long and there is LONG ;) )
     
  3. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea, guess I should have put L-O-N-G in there! :smilewinkgrin:
     
  4. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I do have it open to read later. We have a company pagan holiday ritual to go to in a bit :tongue3:
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    WARNING to any thinking of opening the link - this "book" is rabid KJVonly sect material in pseudo-scholarship and some of the most ridiculous arguments and support (think GA Riplinger is your "source" material). It is very sad reading.

    Just making sure folks know the gist of the content before settling in for a long read. Or avoiding it.

    That is what this forum is for - can share BOTH sides of the issues dealing with inspiration.
     
    #5 Dr. Bob, Dec 20, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2008
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't get the link to open.
     
  7. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    My gosh, the "administrator police" are issuing WARNINGS again! Can't ANYONE of you just let a thread go without your "opinions" being posted? I put the link there to give you MY view of what I thought was an interesting read, just as Rippon does CONTINUALLY with NO WARNINGS about his thoughts. Goodness, you're paranoid on this forum! :tear:
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Jones' claims concerning Acts 12:4 considered

    Floyd Jones claimed that “the King James translators realized that to render ‘pascha’ as ‘Passover’ in this instance [Acts 12:4] was both impossible and erroneous” (Which Version, p. 51). Is that claim correct?


    Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it will become clear that Luke, who was also the human writer of the book of Acts, clearly used the Greek word pascha to refer to either the entire period--the one day of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread or as an acceptable name for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). Along with Luke 22:1, many KJV-only authors seem to ignore Ezekiel 45:21 where the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days.” In Ezekiel 45:21, the name “Passover” was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days. In Matthew 26:17, the name “Passover” was used for a time described as “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.” After Jesus and his disciples had already observed the feast of Passover (Luke 22:14-15; John 13:1), the same Greek word was still used for a time when the feast of unleavened bread was in progress (John 18:28).


    KJV-only author Jack Moorman declared: “As the Passover had already been observed, and the days of unleavened bread were in progress, and yet Herod was still waiting for ‘after pascha;’ we can only conclude that the word must be taken in a broader sense” (Conies, p. 14). Is that the only valid conclusion? In his tract entitled “Easter or Passover,” Raymond Blanton wrote: “Herod did not intend to bring Peter forth to the people after the days of unleavened bread but after ’pascha’” (p. 2). Jones, Moorman, and Blanton’s statements are based on their incorrect assumption that the Greek word pascha could not be used to include or as a name for the days of unleavened bread. In Acts 12:3, Luke stated: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” In the context and considering Luke 22:1, there is no problem with understanding Luke to be using “pascha” in Acts 12:4 as a name for or including the feast of unleavened bread. Thus, Herod could have been waiting for the end of the days or feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1). On the other hand, concerning “after Easter” in the KJV, Edmunds and Bell wrote: “Neither Herod nor Peter nor any other man in Judea could have told when that would be” (Discussion, p. 33). KJV-only author Charles Turner wrote: “There was no such holiday as Easter at the time of the writing of the book of Acts. The translators have introduced a meaning into the text which was not intended by Luke the author” (Biblical Bible Translating, Assignment 26, p. 4).


    In his commentary on Acts, Paton Gloag asserted that the Herod of Acts 12 “was strict in the observance of the Mosaic law” (I, p. 415). Gloag added: “According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to defile their festal days with executions, and Herod Agrippa prided himself on being a strict observer of the law” (I, p. 416). In his commentary on Acts, William Humphrey reported that Josephus maintained that this Herod was “strongly attached to the Jewish law” (p. 100). In his commentary, Livermore maintained that “Herod forbore to execute Peter during the feast of Passover, out of regard to the custom of the Jews” (p. 177).


    Furthermore, the immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews? It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Therefore, the context supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha instead of the view that Herod was keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he was keeping and not some pagan festival. Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1.

     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks for the 'heads-up' Dr. Bob. Clearly, you're absolutely correct in your appraisal. For example, immediately following the Table of Contents & Abreviations (pages i - vi), Dr. Jones begins with To the Reader - A Sounding of An Alarm (page vii) which his argument in favor of the KJV rendering of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 and cites a Gail Riplinger book within the first few lines! I cannot fathom a Th.D. & Ph.D. scholar giving credence to New Age Bible Versions.

    BYW, inexplicably this ...Sounding of Alarm as well as the pages that include the A Biblical Credibility Crisis & Forward (vii - xiv) are not listed in the the immediately preceding TOC.
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Dec 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2008
  10. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I did keep the link up and I did look at it.

    As Dr. Bob mentioned, you can tell immediately that it's KJV PRO. (I did figure the title and the poster would infer that.) Reading through the TOC is also an indication. G.A. Riplinger is referenced immediately, but I did look at it with as open a mind as I could not wanting to shut things down.

    Not my cup of tea however. I do believe that other versions are valid, so it's hard to keep reading why they aren't.

    As a matter of fact, my preferred version has been the NASB. I am NOW reading through the TNIV.

    Thanks for the link though.
     
    #10 mcdirector, Dec 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2008
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You meant to say that you are now reading through the TNIV.
     
  12. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    *batting eyes*

    Of course I did
     
  13. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon, you better believe it! :thumbs:
     
  14. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi everyone

    As soon as I opened up this pdf, I immediately searched for the word “Warfiled”, so as to find out where it's author was coming from.
    This search took me right to Page 127, and after reading these four paragraphs, I saw that he had the courage to tell it like it is, so I copied the whole file to my desk top.

    Thanks Baptist4life
    --------------------------------------------------
    By the way, all those who HATE the KJV, won’t want this information getting out, but that’s okey.

     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about those that HATE MV's? :rolleyes:
     
  16. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Mexdeaf

    I have only recently, been seeing a lot of people use this abbreviation, and have been paying close attention to it’s context, and my best guess is “MV’s” stands for “multi-versions”??

    If this is indeed the case, than “no”, I don’t hate MV’s, or the people that use them.
    --------------------------------------------------
    But I do have a problem understanding anyone who can change Bibles, the way that I change shirts.

    I go to my closet, and pick a shirt that looks good and is appropriate for that days weather.

    Choosing a Bible, should not depend upon, what makes us feel good, nor which way the wind is blowing.
    --------------------------------------------------
    God’s Word, is settled. Both for ever in heaven, and for ever in print.

    God’s Word, is for ever settled(in it’s original languages), within the accurate copies of the original autographs.

    And unfortunately, God’s Word is for ever settled(in English), within the pages of the KJV. (I say unfortunate, because the KJV uses words that are not generally used any more.)

    But we can’t do anything about that.

    For all the people like me, who only read English, we are stuck with the KJV, because of what people like B.B.Warfiled did.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Some have accused me of saying, that God stopped working after 1611. This is not the case. What has actually happened, is an attack was launched against the Bible in the late 1800's, that continues to deceive people.

    Oh, by the way, this attack was very cleaver, because it wasn’t launched directly at the KJV, but at the accurate copies of the original autographs, that the KJV was based upon.

    And because it was a scholarly attack, then anyone and everyone that spoke against it, was(and is), accused of being anti-intellectual.

    This accusation(of being anti-intellectual), has nothing to do with a persons education at all. Which was recently proven on this thread, when a man with the credentials of Dr. Floyd Jones, was called a crack pot, because he dared to support the KJV.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I have seen these same kinds of attacks before, upon myself and others, for taking a stand on “Creation”, and daring to call Darwinism a lie.

    This is the exact same thing.
    Just as Darwinism has been scientifically debunked, yet it’s supporters continue to prop it up as a proven conclusion.

    In the same way, the despicable works of BB Warfield, Wescott & Hort and others, has been throughly exposed, yet there supporters continue to prop them up, as great men, who did great things.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I know, that I make myself look like a fool, by supporting the KJV(and the accurate copies of the original autographs). But I think that it is important, to take a stand, in defense of God’s Word.
     
  17. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    "This is the exact same thing."
    Those bible-bashing intellectual scholars Copernicus and Galileo launched an attack against the Bible tarnishing its reputation to this very day!

    Come take a stand with me against those that believe in a sun-centered solar system.

    Rob
     
  18. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    368
    Actually, "MV" stands for "modern versions"


    I totally agree. When I'm just laying in bed wanting to read my Bible, I find the NIV to be an easier "read" - it just flows better since it's a "thought for thought" rather than a "word for word" kind of a translation. But in my study, I will use my ESV or NASB, depending on where I'm sitting and what's nearby - and oftentimes I will use both. All 3 are valid versions of the Word of God but each one has slight nuances that are different in how things are said and thus it makes one better for study, another better for straight reading.


    Yes - in the original autographs

    I don't think any of the copes that we have are 100% accurate. However, with ALL of the manuscript evidence we have, we can be assured that we have pretty close to the full accuracy of the originals throughout all of them.


    I disagree. The KJV is a great version but certainly not inerrant nor the best version for the English speaking people. We can be assured that God is still at work in His Word and that we have additional Bible versions that are from His hand.


    What did he do?


    I do not see modern versions as an "attack" on the KJV at all. I see men of God who are serious about being sure that we have an accurate translation of God's Word in our language and as time goes on from the 1600s and more and more manuscripts are found, we can do more and more research and be SURE we have an accurate translation.

    Darwanism and textual criticism are two totally different things. And I fully disagree with the "despicable" label because I've studied the topic. There is nothing despicable about scholarly work - other than the KJVO 'experts' who use total untruths and ungodly attacks against fellow believers. THAT I find despicable.

    I take a stand in defense of God's Word too - ALL of it. I don't stand on one man's work because it's not inerrant and faultless. Only God is.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The concept of YOUR free speech (to endorse such a "book") is equally applied to MY free speech to warn people about said "book"

    Did not edit your post or cut your post at all. Just added MY opnion. That IS what the forum is for . . . folks sharing thoughts, opinion, ideas, information, etc.

    Chill. :applause:
     
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    For example, this is the kind of twisted and skewed "interesting reads" that I find consistently in KJV-O materials. Notice the bizarre misuse of the word "scholars" (requiring quotes!), instead of simply copyists or scribes, clearly intended to 'frame' early any "scholars" into being heretics --
    But this is outrageous --
    First, a critical text is always a compilation of many texts. Second, how this any different for the Textus Receptus? It is difficult to determine if the subject matter is just grossly misunderstood or deliberately being misrepresented (double-standard); one is just as bad as the other.
     

Share This Page

Loading...