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!

The Only Bible That Can Be Trusted

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Jun 16, 2008.

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

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi gb93433

    You said.......

    The Bible says......

     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

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


    Nice to hear from you.

    You quoted me......
    --------------------------------------------------
    Then you said.....
    I never called him a moron, I just said that he was disagreeing with the Bible.
    (Isn’t that true?) -Please see the context of the original response.-
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    I never said that either. He just said, that the words “these three are one”, are not suppose to be in 1John 5:7 -Now some people would tag him with that name, but I didn’t.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you asked.......
    You are right, I have never read any of his books.
    --------------------------------------------------

    By the way everyone: This all started because I said, that “I disagree with him”.
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0

    So I take it that you speak a language where:
    carriages means baggage
    closet means a private room
    shambles means market
    prevent means go before
    suffer means allow


    ....and so on?



    Why do you think that God is not able to preserve His Word in my language, where
    carriages are vehicles
    closets are cupboards or toilets
    a shambles is a state of messy disorder
    prevent means stop something from happening
    suffer means to endure pain


    .....and so on?

    Is it somehow more God-honouring to translate the Saviour's words in Luke 22.51 as the enigmatic "Suffer ye thus far" than to translate them as "Permit even this"?

    I should say that I am by no means against the Authorised Version (King James Version, as you call it in America), nor do I blandly accept all newer English translations as good translations. But neither do I believe that old equals good; new equals bad.
     
  5. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but that is not so. Perhaps Linda is only the third person so far on this thread to “take a stand” for that particular translation of the bible into English, known as the "King James Version" or the "Authorised Version", but taking a stand on a translation (however good) is not the same thing as taking a stand on God's Word.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, and when the KJV first came out it was virtually new.Therefore, if SL would have lived back then he might have objected to the 1611 Revision because it was 'new'.
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, there is no complete Bible translation that may have been made in "Old English", that has survived, at least to my knowledge. The largest known portions that were translated into "Old English", to my knowledge, include the Gospels (in several versions including the Wessex, and Aldred's translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels), along with Psalms, the Pentateuch, Joahua and Judges, for the major portions translated. "Old English" is prior to the 12th Century. The year 1066 is considered the 'cut-off date' for "Old English".

    The Wycliffe Bible of the late 1300's is the first (known) complete English translation of Scripture, and is in the "Middle English" period, which runs from 1066- 1500.

    From 1500 forward, the 'langauge' is early "Modern English" Hence the Tyndale through the KJV and DRB are "Modern English", not "old English".

    Here are a couple of renditions of the Lord's Prayer from "Old English" versions, according to wikipedia, namely the 'Aldred' Lindenfarne and Wessex Gospels, and the contrast to the Tyndale.
    You might notice there were no verse divisions in those days.

    Ed
     
  8. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure you don't mean it that way, but it seems as if you are saying that "contending for the faith" means "pickling God's Word." :) After all, gb93433 stated the importance of proclaiming God's Word, so you obviously think that contending for the faith means something other than proclamation.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    SL: I would like you to express in your own words what Zephaniah 1:12 is saying in the 1611:"And it shall come to passe at that time, that I wil search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees, that say in their hearts, The Lord wil not doe good, neither will he doe euill."

    No fair looking at other versions in your assignment. No peeking, okay? I especially want you to translate "settled on their lees".
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can speak for no other, but I don't "trust our eternity to a book". Any book!
    I see.

    Uh' and where is "the Bible" declared to be "the Word of God" in the text? (I'll take any version, for this answer.) While I do believe "the Bible" is the 'Word of God' written, the text of Scripture never makes this declaration, to my knowledge. (In any version.)
    Sorry, you just consigned a large number of OT saints to spend an eternity apart from God, for such as Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, and Joseph did not have one word available to them that was written, from what we call the Bible. Even Moses, was already declared among the saints in Heb. 11, before he recorded one word of Scripture, I would think.
    Unverifiable assumption, FTR. Just because we do not apparently have them in our hot little paws, does not mean they no longer exist.

    Back to what I trust.

    I trust my eternity to the LORD, the triune God. This trust is based on the good news of the death, burial, resurrection and visible appearance of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, who made a sin-offering in my stead. (I Cor. 15:1-8)

    One of the ways, in fact the primary way, that God 'speaks' is through men, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who wrote a number of 'books', which collection is generally called "the Bible".
    BTW, according to your OP, exactly which KJV are you 'supporting'? I missed that part.

    Ed
     
    #110 EdSutton, Jun 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2008
  11. Beth

    Beth New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Word for word

    I personally prefer word for word translations....NKJV, NASB, KJV...I am sure there are other word for words out there.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    There is no such thing as a word for word translation.

    Some words are unable to be translated.
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Contending for the faith is different than standing on a Bible. The Bible does not need your help. It stands on its own and has since it was written.

    There are Christians who are conservative in theology and say they believe the Bible except when it comes to contending for the faith. In that case they live like practical atheists.

    Your idea is much like the time when Peter cut off a man's ear. Jesus needed no defense.
     
  14. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    I'm running a few pages behind but working through it this morning but I wanted to respond to this.

    I can take a stand on the ESV being God's Word. I can also take a stand on the KJV as being God's Word. I can take a stand on the NIV and NASB as being God's Word. Those are the versions I personally use and each and every one of them is God's Word. You keep saying that no one here can choose a translation to stand on as God's Word and yet each of us have named atleast one version that we stand on. It's YOUR issue that says that we can't have more than one be God's Word. That's limiting God quite a bit.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

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


    Nice to hear from you.

    Your surprising question........
    Because God is God, and he can do anything!
    --------------------------------------------------
    Also you asked.......
    Absolutely not.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Then you said.......
    I can go along with that.
    --------------------------------------------------

    And here again, someone brings up the KJV, when this post has nothing to do with it.

    But that’s okey.
     
  16. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the reply, SL. I would not have asked my "surprising question" if I had not made the same false assumption so many of us did. I suppose I made too much of the title, "The Only Bible that can be Trusted", and thus misunderstood your very first post in this thread. As others seem to have had the same misunderstanding, perhaps "Which Bible Translation do you Trust?" might have been better as a thread title - but then, it is easy to say that with hindsight. Anyway, I apologise for misunderstanding you.
     
  17. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi again David Lamb


    You quoted a selected response from me......
    Then you said.........
    This was clearly an attempt to make this post look like a “pro=KJV” post, when you know that it isn’t.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Why don’t you look at post #52.........
    And then my response to him.......
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now does this somehow make me, “Pro-Amplified Bible”. No.

    You all are too, “AV-Phobic”
     
  18. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

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

    Great to hear from you; and it sounds like you know what you are talking about.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You quoted my response to a question..........
    By the way, one question that I keep getting asked is.....
    I don’t remember doing that, but thank you Ed, for putting this silly question to rest.
    --------------------------------------------------
    And here is what you said about it........
    Thanks Ed, for the information.


    Hope to hear from you again.
     
  19. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope you will see from my previous response that I have admitted that I wrongly thought this was a "pro KJV" thread. (I apologised for doing so, but I realise that you wrote the above message before my apology appeared on the Board). I can assure you that I was not trying to make it seem "pro KJV". I would also assure you that I am in no way afraid of the AV, or "“AV-Phobic”, to use your phrase.
     
  20. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi once again David Lamb


    You quoted a question I was asked, and then my anwer......
    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------
    Then you said........
    Well don’t be so sure about that.

    Right now, I am "contending for the faith", because our faith is based upon what we have learned from God’s Word.

    And right now, I am talking to people about the vital importance of believing and accepting God’s Word.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...