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!

Rock of Ages Study Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Amy.G, Jul 17, 2009.

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

    Bayouparson Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are we having fun yet?
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Loads. :D It's good that most can discuss back and forth... but a few continue to be nuisances.

    I don't have a problem with anyone holding to a single translation. The problem stems from when someone wants to try to proclaim that their favorite translation is the only one that is the word of God and all others are not, period. God never limited Himself in any way and He is not about to start by limiting Himself to a single translation. Trying to put a translation, any translation, on that kind of pedestal is tantamount to making it an idol to worship.
     
  3. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    THis can be a very misleading statement I see all the time.

    Just what do you mean by "agree"?

    If by agree you mean the wording is exactly the same, then no, you will not find two modern translations that "agree" even in half of the verses exactly.

    Now, if you mean agree in the meaning of the words then all of them agree.

    The same Gospel is in the KJV as in all of the good modern versions.
    There is no disagreement in doctrine.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bayouperson, do YOU dare face the issue that KJVO has no Scriptural support in the KJV, let alone any other version? Without any Scriptural backing, all other pro-KJVO arguments are moot.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Trotter, my belated condolences for the passing of your dad.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scripture has specific core doctrine. If it's not in scripture, then it's not scripural doctrine. The aforementioned church has added a doctrine that is completely absent in scripture. If it's absent in scripture, it's false doctrine. If a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.
    Never said anyone was a heretic, and I never mentioned the KJV at all. In said if a church has a single-translation-only position (regardless of the translation) as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. Not having sound doctrine is different from being a heretic.
    When a single-translation onlyists enters heaven, they will be surprised to find their position in gross error.
     
    #66 Johnv, Sep 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2009
  7. Bayouparson

    Bayouparson Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why won't you and the others deal with the dishonesty of Mr. White in his book when he accuses the KJVO people for the confusion with translations. The KJV has been around a long time and never questioned until the new translations came along and said, "Let me give you a better translation." This has been precipitated by advent of the "critical" redactors of the German Higher Critical type and then followed by people like Westcott and Hort.

    Here is something to chew on.
    For those who say the translations are equal and that all of them are the word of God. Take a look at this.
    Colossians 1:14 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
    Colossians 1:14 (NIV)
    in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    Colossians 1:14(NASB77)
    in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    Colossians 1:14 (NASB)
    in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    Colossians 1:14 (RSV)
    in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
    Colossians 1:14 (ASV)
    in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

    All of the “new” translations leave out one of the important elements of redemption – the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:7 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Hebrews 9:12 (KJV) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [Emphasis added.] Now I can hear the naysayers voicing their objection – well the new translations say the same thing in Eph. 1:7 and Heb. 9:12 what is the problem? If I have three witnesses and one of them impugns the testimony of the other two then I must wonder which one is correct. Here are these two verses in the noted new translations.

    Here is one of my favorite mishandling of the text by the new translations. Remember the numbers in brackets [ ] are notes in the text of the new translations.

    1 Thessalonians 4:4 (KJV) “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.” Now watch how the new translations handle this one.
    1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NIV)
    that each of you should learn to control his own body[1] in a way that is holy and honorable,
    [1] Or learn to live with his own wife; or learn to acquire a wife1

    1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NASB77)
    that[11] each of you know how to[12] possess his own[13] [14] vessel in sanctification and[15] honor,
    Since our interest is in footnote [13] which says in this version, [I.e., body; or possibly, wife].

    1 Thessalonians 4:4 (NASB)
    that each of you know how to possess[5] his own vessel[6] in sanctification and honor, Again we are interested in footnote [6] which says, [I.e., body; or wife].

    1 Thessalonians 4:4 (RSV)
    that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor,

    Now let’s be honest for a moment. The Greek text in every edition says κτασθαι (vessel). In fact there are no variants of any kind according to the UBS text. All texts say the same thing, the UBS 4th Ed, the TR, the Nestle, et al. Even the context is talking about a person knowing how to posses his own vessel which would be his body and avoid fornication (1Thess. 4:3). “A man who commits fornication sins against his own body” (1Cor. 6:18). The context has to be stretched to mean “wife” as the RSV does and all the new translations suggest. Is this being fair with the text? And did not someone say recently that marginal/footnotes were important? Where is the confusion? It comes from those new translations that play games with the text, both English and Greek. Are all the translations to be trusted and have the ability to qualify for the word of God? I trow not.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    After it came out in 1611, the KJV was questioned by a number of believers including Baptists, especially concerning several verses where it was claimed to have renderings that were the result of Episcopal bias.

    One example involves Acts 14:23. One place where the Church of England translators reveal their bias for their Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Bancroft, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Henry Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24). James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

    On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In a sermon preached in 1776, David Somerville maintained that the translation or rendering in the KJV at Acts 14:23 “is unjust” (Miller, Biographical, p. 246). Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows:

    We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by
    the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is
    the genuine signification of the Greek word,
    cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted
    by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated
    the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English
    Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out,
    the words, 'by election' (Principles and Practices for
    Baptist Churches
    , p. 351).
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That has nothing to do with my comment. I never mentioned the KJV, or any other translation, at all. I said: if a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine. It doesn't matter what translation is being referred to.
    That's actually untrue. The AV1612 was not well accepted when it was released. The common complaint of the day was that it was not written in common English. Many rejected the KJV in favor of their existing translations, such as the Geneva and Bishops translations. The unpopularity of the KJV eventually led the crown to make it illegal for anyone to own a bible other than the KJV. For some groups like the puritans, this was the last straw in a long line of religious persecution. So they left and travelled to the New World to found what we today know as the Plymouth Colony, bringing with them their Geneva Bible.
    So let me get this straight. Is it your contention that one translation, and only one translation, is scripturally superior and without error?
     
    #69 Johnv, Sep 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2009
  10. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because I have never found him to be dishonest at any time.

    If you would like to challenge him on his alleged dishonesty, he has an 800 number you can call.

    His Dividing Line show is Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    You can call 1800 753 3341 tomorrow night at 7 PM Eastern Daylight and challenge him on his dishonesty.
    I am sure he would be happy to take your call.
     
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    So was is ok for the Brittish Crown to " "give you a better translation."? A Better translation that the Geneva etc?
     
  12. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You act as though this is a new issue. Both John Gill and Adam Clark said either body or wife were plausible renderings, though they leaned toward wife.

    Adam Clarke's Commentary

    John Gill's Commentary
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]​
     
  13. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know exactly why, but i appreciate it is that YOU said that.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  14. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have no scriptural support for a "version of the week" doctrine is your problem. we know and believe we have the word of God in the KJV. we know and believe there are many versions which are not excatly the word of God. We stand upon the KJV as the word of God. You stand in many places at different times about which version is the word of God.

    I wonder how stability would fit into your decorum?
     
  15. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    All I can say is THANK YOU!
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only way that position can be considered consistent is if a person's bible of choice is the Textus Receptus, since there is no scriptural support for any version.
     
    #76 Johnv, Sep 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2009
  17. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    news alert, God's word is not fruit.

    Trotter doesn't believe God is God enough to preserve His word in a translation because God quit being God enough to be able to go beyond Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.:tongue3:

    I didn't say he didn't believe in God.


    The KJV is not the NKJV. Since you say the KJV is the word of God how is it something that is different the same?


    Um, Trotter, God isn't subject to science.


    Of course that line of reason also begs the question: "Why would God limit himself to His word, why can't God just get along with us men?"

    I'm beginning to think that those who hold to the plethora of versions as the word of God are becoming a cult. Well, at least the:smilewinkgrin:ir behavior is saying they are.
     
  18. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're saying the Scripture doesn't support itsself as the word of God?:smilewinkgrin:
     
  19. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ouch! But THANKS!
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're the one who says scripture doesn't support versions.
    Except that you'll note that I never referred to the KJV or any specific translation, neither did I ever accuse anyoen of heresy. As much as I oppose single-translation-onlyism in any form, single-translation-onlyism does not qualify as heresy.
     
    #80 Johnv, Sep 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...