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!

Just Something I Read

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Baptist4life, Sep 2, 2009.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 6
  1. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think you left off the qualifying factor, which is "this feast".

    "I'm not going to "this feast". He did go to that feast.


    The right time to eat pizza is when no one is around...so I can have it all. :laugh:
     
    #41 Amy.G, Sep 3, 2009
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes, some do have it, but not without a footnote questioning it's validity.
     
    #42 Amy.G, Sep 3, 2009
  3. tenderhearted

    tenderhearted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a KJV only, and I am not confused when I read that bible.

    I dont knock anyone else for what they read, please do not misunderstand, but I dont trust any other version but the kJB, I posted in another thread as to why I dont trust them.

    God did reach me through an NIV, but it was in a most unexpected way, which led me to the kjb.

    The slightest change in words can lead to destruction, look what that old serpent did to eve:

    Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
    Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    Eve added a little to what God said which was this:

    Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    so eve added that little tid bit, neither shall ye touch it, and the devil used that to tempt her.

    changing the words of God is dangerous.

    I hesitate to say that the bible should say this instead of that, because I was not chosen by the LORD to write down the words of the BIBLE. I trust the KJV.

    :thumbsup:
     
    #43 tenderhearted, Sep 3, 2009
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're in error. The word is absent in the early source texts, and doesn't appear until later source texts do.
    That statement is refuted by the fact that the word appears in all translations that rely on primarily on later source texts instead of earlier texts. The OP ignores that fact in an attempt to artificially prop up the KJV. The problem with that attempt is that the facts don't support it.
    If you truly believed that, then you should abandon any translations based on the later source texts, since the word in question appears to have been added to scripture over time. That would include, but not be limited to, the KJV.
     
    #44 Johnv, Sep 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2009
  5. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? I've never seen anywhere in Scripture that shows what you said.

    Of course you might have gottne that from another version, but not from the KJV.
     
    #45 Harold Garvey, Sep 5, 2009
  6. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone who shows the KJV to be accurate in any form or fashion is GUILTY of bashing.:sleep:
     
    #46 Harold Garvey, Sep 5, 2009
  7. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean some one would actually question the word of God's validity??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Say it isn't so!:sleep:
     
    #47 Harold Garvey, Sep 5, 2009
  8. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #48 Harold Garvey, Sep 5, 2009
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Why was it acceptable for the KJV translators to change the earlier English versions?
     
    #49 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2009
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    You are correct. I took that wrong.

    Please accept my apology.
     
    #50 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80

    Sad isn't it? Folks here on a regular basis question the validity of my Bible :(.
     
    #51 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
  12. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Such is the double standard of KJVO doctrine.
     
    #52 Dale-c, Sep 5, 2009
  13. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    If the KJV translators themselves noted that there were words that were questionable as to their meaning, and as such, they would use a margin note to show the alternate - yet equally valid - reading, then why are there those who say that the modern versions that do that is wrong? What's wrong is that the translators of the KJV were very careful in their work and spent their time to be sure that they had what was the most accurate translation in the vulgar tongue. Yet later on, those margin notes, which were of utmost importance, were removed from the translation. Why? I don't know. But they were there to begin with - for a reason. I posted the reason in an earlier post.

    What do the KJVO people say to the fact that the KJV translators used the same methods that are being attacked in the modern versions?
     
    #53 annsni, Sep 5, 2009
  14. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Once again this has turned into a KJVO thread!


    I really don't care what version that verse came from. My point is this:




    "I am not going."

    DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS

    "I am not going YET."



    Period.
     
    #54 Baptist4life, Sep 5, 2009
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    This is not true. Here is the footnote

    A simple statement. It does not suggest that it should not be included.

    Is the writer of this email willing to put the KJV marginal notes to the same test?

    A post which attacks every version other than the KJV, especially using such deception, is going to be a KJVO thread.
     
    #55 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
  16. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You people on this forum amaze me..................yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing......anyway, DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE TURNED INTO KJVO arguments? And did it ever occur to you that sometimes, just sometimes, the KJV might be RIGHT??? Would that kill you to admit it?


    You all say you have no problem with the KJV, yet you never fail to try and make every post about it a KJVO thread. I will never agree that ALL versions of the Bible are the Word of God when they say different things. That's an impossibility. I'm not saying the KJV is THE Bible. but I AM saying one version saying one thing and another version either omitting that passage, or including that passage, or whatever, means that SOMEBODY IS WRONG.


    I want the Scriptures that God wrote, whatever version they are in, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, or some other version, but they cannot ALL be the correct version when they differ so much.
     
    #56 Baptist4life, Sep 5, 2009
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    :( I am sad that an apology (see post #50) is not enough to satisfy you :(. I had much higher regard for you than to expect that.

    A thread which is started tocondemn every version but he KJV, even using deception to do so, is destined to be a KJVO thread.

    I love my KJV. It is a master of translational work. I cannot however condone a concept which says something about my Bible (NKJV) that is not true. In this particular case,if the KJV is right so is the NKJV. Would it kill the writer of this original e-mail to admit that?
     
    #57 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2009
  18. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm sorry, CK4, I meant to put a ":laugh:" in there after the "yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing". I was being funny..........I thought............ My apologies.



    Anyway, I want to say that I use the KJV, I also have a NKJV. I have read quite a few, though not all, different versions of the Bible. It is not my imagination.............. they do not all say the same thing. Some include passages, some do not have the passages in there. My common sense then tells me that ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE WRONG . My quandary is trying to figure out which ones are right or wrong. But telling me they ALL are legitimate versions of Scripture just cannot be true. The translations come from different manuscripts, which is the explanation for including/excluding certain passages. They cannot both be right! Either they are supposed to be Scripture or they are not supposed to be in Scripture.
     
    #58 Baptist4life, Sep 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2009
  19. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706

    Hmmm - let's see where it went KJVO in this thread. Let's look at post #1:

    Yep - that says it right there. It's a KJVO thread.
     
    #59 annsni, Sep 5, 2009
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    No problem on the apology.

    No one here claims that ALL translations are true, and your claim that they are all from different manuscripts is simply false. The NKJV and a couple of lesser known translations are from the same manuscript body. My frustration comes when the NKJV is lumped in with all the critical text versions. This simply is not true.
     
    #60 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 5, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 6
Loading...