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!

King James Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by peperoni123, Dec 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0

    So does the fact that there are 66 and only 66 books ordained by God to be in the canon of scripture have any scriptural support? If this doctrine is not taken directly from scripture, or clearly implied from it, does that mean it is not a TRUE doctrine?

    Hope this thread doesn't close without one of the "Freedom Readers" taking a stab at this one.
     
  2. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0

    There was no "better translations" of the scriptures occuring in Acts 2. There were men preaching who were supernaturally endowed by God to preach to folks in other languages. I am looking for an example where someone reads the scripture and then says "a better translation would be such and such." Because there is a real lot of that going on today.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,470
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've got to break in before something breaks.
    Thirteen posts in a row!
    I think that's a record Mike.

    "I am looking for an example where someone reads the scripture and then says "a better translation would be such and such."

    Examine the NT quotes from the OT, they accepted other versions without questioning God's ability to use a variety of versions to communicate his message.

    Rob
     
  4. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding Genesis 1:2: The King James transaltors were also experts, and they obviously disagreed with your experts. Nothing proved here.

    Regarding the love of money being the root of all evil: It would take more time than I have to answer this with great detail, but here's the quick answer for any honest student to ponder. The verse (in English) says the love of money is the root of all evil. It does not say the love of money is the cause of all sin. Brush up on the English as God uses it in the King James Bibile, and meditate on the passage. The evil of fornication is surely fed by the root of the love of money. The fornication that Christians daily enjoy being displayed on their television sets, is there because of the love of money. The effect that these programs then have on the culture in promoting and encouraging fornication is self evident.

    So the love of money does not cause fornication, but it feeds the evil of fornication, being its root. Hence the King James Bible is not in error here.

    Shouldn't you at least correct the "known" errors and then publish a version with these "errors" corrected? Or if there is a version that corrects this, shouldn't you be promoting it above the KJB? If your point about Genesis 1:2 is correct, many might read their KJB and think there is no gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, as your rendering suggests. Surely you wouldn't want people to be in doctrinal error because of a mistake in the "word of God", would you?
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Page 21 - thread closed.

    In the future Mike please try to post more info in each one. Multi-posting like this is frowned upon on this board.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...