Saved or Being Saved

Both. It is funny that you are getting don't like something that every Greek text has, including the Textus Receptus which underlies the KJV...

Do you have any IDEA how many mistakes the KJV has in it? Do you know how many revisions it has had between now and 1611? Was the 1611 Bible the inerrant one, or the current KJV (which bears little resemblance). Why was it possible to have errors in 1611, but not now?

 

They are not different.

In regards to salvation, the Bible clearly teaches that salvation is something that is both instant, and progressive, which is EXACTLY what the tense of the words in question conveys. Present, Active, Indicative. A present reality, which is also an ongoing process.

So we "are saved" but we are ALSO "being saved". Think of it this way...

If I am lost at sea, and my ship sinks, and another ship picks me up out of the water, and heads to the nearest hospital with me, I am both SAVED in an instant sense (out of the water) and I am BEING saved (the ship is running me to the emergency room). The two ideas are not contradictory.

 

FYI Mr. Saurus,

I used to be KJV only,(thanks to Mr. Kent Hovind), before I had a copy of the TR, and was able to read it (although, I am not a Greek savant or anything, by far).

Erasmus, the Roman Catholic, really messed up in places. He just did. That is undeniable. This is one of the resons it has had the revisions it has, and why modern Bible versions have italics around much of Erasmus' stuff...they were inventions.

 

It is obvious that we:

Have been saved (positionally)
Are being being saved (practically)
Will be saved (perfectly)

You are both saved and being saved.

Easy enough.

 

Friend, as any translator knows there are often several ways to translate a particular word phrase or sentence. That's just the nature of language! Quite often my Japanese translation partner will revise my translaton of the same verse in two different ways, both equally good. I don't dare show him the verse again or I'll get a third way!

In fact, the beloved KJV itself teaches us this. Note that in Mark 5:41 we have the Aramaic sentence that Jesus said: Talitha cumi. Mark then translates it as "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." However, Luke translates the very same original as "Maid, arise."

P. S. Welcome to the BB! :wavey:

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever even seen a 'real' 1611 KJV, which I presume you are allegedly 'defending'? They are, after all, about as easy to procure, as the edition for which I have been searching.

Does your copy contain the Translator's Preface "To the Reader"?? Does your copy contain all the marginal notes of the translators? Does your copy contain the Apocrypha? Even the "revisions" of Paris (Cambridge, 1762) and Blaney (Oxford, 1769, which incidentally is the edition you appear to be quoting from) contained the Apocrypha, as well as the other things I mentioned, above. Also, and again incidentally, I have seen a small portion of of that version.

What about the "Americanized", or AKJV?

How about I John 5:12? To 'steal' a bit of thunder from C4K,

Which of these two renderings is the "correct" one? Disregarding the spelling, even. This is no typo that was soon corrected. (Why would any "perfected wording" need correcting in the first place? How could a?); the KJV-1611 wording hung around for 150 years before Paris and Blaney "corrected" it, back to every major "English" rendering since and including Wycliffe, all of whom had the rendering that Blaney, et. al, inserted. Not to mention that the KJV translators never viewed the version, in the manner you apparently ascribe to it.

What I find absolutely incomprehensible, is the fact that some Baptists are so willing to 'defend' one version (much of the time without ever having laid eyes on the edition they are claiming to support), and where no Baptist 'heretics' were even allowed to participate in the translation, and which was done by the Church of England (which hated and persecuted Baptists) to satisfy the 'whims' of King James I (who was himself, certainly no 'Baptist' fan), and even to the point of supporting readings and 'interpretations' taken from the Roman Catholic Vulgate (Do I have to remind you of what the Roman Catholic church did to some of "Baptist" persuasion, around that time?), even when the overwhelming textual evidence is against this, in some cases, while simultaneously blithely dismissing the two most "Baptist" of all translations, namely the HCSB and NKJV.

"Ah 'on't get it!" as my nephew says.

Ed

 

Lets not drag this off into a KJVO debate - it will be closed.

Cut the new guy a little slack until he gets used to it.

 

BRO! A History lesson would be nice! The Stephanus Text is simply a revision of the Erasmian text. While Stephanus made some corrections, and consulted a few more mss, He deliberately refused to remove some forged verses. There are verses in the KJV that are either wrong (Many, many cases), or are deliberate additions/forgeries.

In fact, the majority of the Stephanus text (which is just a revision of Erasmus), is STILL a direct 16th century translation of the Latin Vulgate, BACK into Greek!

 

If you read the post that led into this thread, a KJV debate is exactly what He wants!

 

The point is that we don't do those here.

 

?

What are you supposed to talk about in the "Bible versions" "debate forum"??

 

Anything but the same old tired KJVO debate. It simply is not going to happen here.

 

NM. I have read the sticky. I noticed the post in the sticky about not attacking personalities or movements. Could someone please apply that same logic in regards to His usurping of a large portion of this forum for his anti-Macarthur crusade, and book promotion? He has taken over.

 

Hey! Congrats! Nice attempt at a


FTR, I have personally seen little, if anything, in this forum about "Lordship Salvation,", which is the subject to which you are subtly referring, albeit sub silento, in nearly three years.

Other forums, yes.

But I have seen several 'attacks' regarding Bible versions, here.

BTW, for three years, I do not recall starting any threads in this forum, although I cannot now say I have not with absolute certainty. (I can't even remember what I had for lunch a single day of last week, except for last Friday, when I was traveling and had a ham sandwich and a , while on the road.)

But I have weighed in on a couple or three threads in the BV&T forum, with a post or four, over that time.

Ed

 

Ed,

You are certainly not the "He" I was referring to!

 

Back on topic please lads.