"valid" versions

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by small fry, Aug 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. small fry

    small fry
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    In looking over many of the responses in this part of the forum I often come across the use of this phrase, it goes something like "all valid versions are inspired of God." My question is this, what makes a version valid, and how on earth is everyone going to come to the same conclusion on this subject? I believe that there has to be rock solid, unshakeable, absolute truth out there somewhere. If I have to depend on what others tell me is right then that doesn't seem very unshakeable to me. I need to know from God. If I have to trust in a bible to reveal truth to me, how can I trust it if I don't even know if it is valid or not? If I have to know Hebrew and Greek does this mean that I will not even know absolute truth until I have completed years of study. I need absolute truth from the point of salvation on. Where is it?
     
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I know how you feel, brother (or sister?).

    But can you explain why you think that there must be an "unshakeable" truth (written revelation) out there (on the Earth). Did some one teach you this? Do you interpret a particular scripture to require this?
     
    #2 franklinmonroe, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  3. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The best answer is James 1:5,6. Regardless of what I might say, or other men might say, God will NOT let you down!:godisgood:

    BTW, stick with the KJB since you obviously speak English. Don't worry about the words deemed "archaic", especially since most are not fluent or knowledgable enough to undertsand every word without using a dictionary, use one.

    I have never known anyone to take the KJB in whole and get messed up doctrinally.:godisgood:

    Absolute truth is found in the Bible, if it's not, then God has never given His word in the first place. Those who argue against the word forget it's God's word and not man's words.
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really should check a bit more carefully, and 'wider' in this area, I'd say. :rolleyes:

    (Does the name of the town of Pensacola, FL ring any bells with you, perhaps?) :tear:

    Getting "messed up doctrinally" is not the province of any particular "valid version," from what I have seen.

    Such varied demoninations, sects, vagarities, and cults as Pentecostalism (especially the so-called 'New Pentecostalism"), "Millerism", British-Israelim, and Mormonism, to name but one example, IMO, of each category are not exactly groups that I consider 'expounders of sound doctrine.' All these arose from people who apparently took the KJV as the written word of God. I suggest the outcome of, and growth of, what I consider to be these false teachings would not have been affected one bit by the use of another or 'any' "valid version."

    It is no more difficult to "read theology" into the text of the KJV than into the text of the NKJV or into the text of the ASV, to name a couple more 'standard' versions, for one so inclined, and who intends to do this.

    Ed
     
    #4 EdSutton, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the BB, in case, I have not already, although I believe I have.

    You might wanna' consider expanding your dialogue a wee bit wider, considering your three posts in two mos. and two of the three are decidedly from a particularly specific point of view, and my "version 'Spidey sense' " is already about to go ballistic, on this one, as well.

    Incidentally, you should be posting in the "All Christians" sections, for this forum happens to be set up for "Baptist Only."

    And you might also wanna' consider getting some "new material" for the questions, for I have already seen most of these questions and points you made presented many times before on this forum, FTR. :smilewinkgrin:

    Ed
     
    #5 EdSutton, Aug 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2008
  6. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    So should Jonestown and Waco, TX.

    I have read where cult leaders will use the KJV because the English language has changed in four hundred years and it is easier for them to twist the meaning of the KJV to fit their view.
     
  7. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unitarianism and Liberal Christianity love the modern versions. So what is the point? Any version can be twisted by those who are determined to do so.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Moved because the poster of the OP is not a Baptist.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    A valid version is one which follows its sources closely. (The validity of the sources is another argument, one which has been going on for generations.)

    Please don't believe those like Salamander when they say the KJV is the only valid English version out there. That whole idea is MAN-MADE, & not found in the KJV itself.

    Again, the answer to your question...ANY VALID VERSION. No one can prove any differently.
     
  10. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Jesus! :jesus:
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Small fry: // In looking over many of the responses in this part of the forum I often come across the use of this phrase, it goes something like "all valid versions are inspired of God." //

    1. Read my trailer. My trailer/signature tells exactly how I believe about Bilble versions.

    2. I used to say (4 to 6 years ago on BB = Baptist Board) that All Bible Versions are the inerrant, inspired, inspiring Written Word of God preserved for the generation in which they appeared. For example:

    2a: the Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition was made for the 16th Century (1501-1600)
    2b: the KJV1611 Edition was made for the 17th Century (1601-1700)
    2c: the KJV1769 family of editions Edition was made for the 18th Century (1701-1800)
    2d: the KJV1873 Edition was made for the 19th Century (1801-1900)
    ...
    2y: the TNIV (Today's NIV, 2006) was made for the 21st Century (2001-2000)

    2z. But some said that there are Bibles out there that aren't good Bibles. Seems obvious, but nevertheless, at the request of the nay-sayers I gave in and and said: "all valid versions are inspired of God. Invaild versions are easy to figure out. THE FISHERMAN'S BIBLE isn't a vaild Bible.

    Here are some that look like Bibles but are not valid Bibles::

    a. The Reader's Digest Bible
    b. New World Translation of the Bible (Watchtower Society) - JW bias
    c. The Message by Peterson - fairly decent commentary, not a valid translation


    Over in the BAPTIST'S ONLY (no non-denominational folk can post) version forum is this thread:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34374&highlight=invalid

    "Versions that are Invalid"

    It shows votes of 32% or less for Valid versions and 76% or more for invalid versions. Obviously there were about 1/4 of the folks voting that where out to train-wreck my poll. But till it is obvious: people can tell which Bibles are valid or invalid by studying them. For those who don't have the time nor money, there are people everwhere desiring to share their thoughts about the matter.

    As for as Baptists, there are three of our Distinctive Doctrines which seem largely forgotten:

    a. Soul Competency
    b. Priesthood of every Believer
    c. Separation of Church and State.

    Especially 'Soul Competency' is a Baptist Doctrine upon which it is obvious: you have to decide for yourself which Bibles are valid and which invalid. Up above I mention some Bibles I know are valid and which I study at least a couple of times every week (all five of them).

    Also if churches would spend more time arguing about if they are a left piano/right drums chuarch or a left drums/right piano church - they would have time to recommend Bibles as being valid or not AS A GROUP. If a group of miss-matched Baptists like on this board can figure out which Bibles are valid or invalid - a local church of like-minded aught to be able to figure out God's Will for their church regarding acceptable Bible versions.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the O.P. // I need absolute truth from the point of salvation on. Where is it? //

    Amen, Brother ReformedBaptist -- Preach it!! :thumbs:

    Truth is not a word, and idea, a nice thought, a warm-feelie -- TRUTH is in The Lord Jesus (Messiah Yeshua), TRUTH is a person.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use this trailer now on some venues:

    All competent English Versions are (individually and collectively )
    the Written Word of God, God's inerrant, inspired, and perfect
    Holy Word preserved for the time of the Version's publication.


    I use this trailer now on the BB (Baptist Board):
     
  14. FriendofSpurgeon

    FriendofSpurgeon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,056
    Likes Received:
    36
    What about non-English versions? Or are only the English versions inspired?

    Isn't it a bit of stretch (more than a bit actually) to state that the various translations are inerrant & inspired as well? What about Wycliffe translators today? While I know that they work diligently in translating the Scriptures, are their writings also inpired?
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    FriendofSpurgeon: // What about non-English versions? Or are only the English versions inspired? //

    I can't read them if they aren't in English. So I don't know.

    FriendofSpurgeon: // Isn't it a bit of stretch (more than a bit actually) to state that the various translations are inerrant & inspired as well? //

    Lots of thinks about God are stretches of the human mind.

    FriendofSpurgeon: // What about Wycliffe translators today? While I know that they work diligently in translating the Scriptures, are their writings also inpired? //

    IMHO my acquittance who is translating the Old Testament (O.T.) into Western Apache is inspired when writing. At least I pray each day for him that he and his team would be . I believe him to be working for the Wycliffe Translators group.
     
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    OOPS! My Apologies to All, Here!

    (My emphases in bold, etc.)
    Folks, I apologize on this one. Although I am perfectly capable of "taking a free shot", that was not the case here, where I inadvertantly missed a typo that I made. This should have read "denominations", not "demoninations." I do apologize, to all who may read this, for my previous oversight, when typing this, and once assure everyone that I was in no way taking a cheap shot at any of the groups I mentioned. I can fully disagree with a position or teaching espoused by some one or some group, without "making it personal," in any way.

    Ed
     
    #16 EdSutton, Aug 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2008
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed Edwards writes:
    I'm t'other Ed. And two 'Eds are better than one. :)

    I fully agree with (a.) The Reader's Digest Bible, IMO, is not a valid version, simply because it took a version that I might well otherwise consider a 'valid version', namely the RSV, and "chopped out", or "condensed" out, more than half the OT and a quarter of the NT. That and that alone is enough for me not to accept it as a 'valid version,' so I fully agree, here.

    I would much prefer (b.), over this one, even considering the Jehovah Witness 'slant' to the NWT. Incidentally, I do not consider the NWT to be a 'valid version', overall, either, for the incipient bias as Ed Edwards has stated.

    (c.) presents us with another option, however. The Message is not a translation (and I do not think it claims to be a "translation"), to begin with, but a paraphrase. (The 'validity' of The Message, is another question, however.) Hence, I consider this, along with such versions as the 'Living' Bible and 'Phillips' as offering another completely differing scenario. I do not consider this so much as "commentary," as I would for, say, the AMP. As to how 'valid' this one is, I suggest that it, just as every single version that has possibly been mentioned, from the most 'extremely literal' (the YLT) to the freest paraphrase mentioned here (The Message), to be 'valid' when any one of them, in fact, renders the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in a manner consistent with the sense and meaning of the 'original' language. By the same token, I consider any and all versions to be 'invalid' when the rendering does violence to the sense and meaning of the 'original' languages.

    I am only speaking of English, here, for the only three languages I really fully comprehend and am conversant in are English, 'Redneck,' and B * _ _ S _ * _, the latter two of which I both fully recognize and hear on an almost daily basis.

    How much I may speak any of the above, I will leave for some other to decide. ;) :D

    Incidentally, one can find a "Klingon Bible", an "Hillbilly Bible" and a "redneck" Ten Commandments:

    http://klv.mrklingon.org/

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0615179258/?tag=baptis04-20

    http://activerain.com/blogsview/540913/Redneck-Ten-Commandments

    Ed
     
    #17 EdSutton, Aug 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2008
  18. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
  19. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd say you speak rather fluently in the 3rd language you named.

    :laugh:


    sorry, couldn't resist. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  20. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Friendof Spurgeon:
    "Isn't it a bit of stretch (more than a bit actually) to state that the various translations are inerrant & inspired as well? What about Wycliffe translators today? While I know that they work diligently in translating the Scriptures, are their writings also inpired?"

    GE:
    I had a personal expierience with one of these 'workers' and his wife who came to South Africa and came to have a look at a house of mine to rent for their stay here.

    We talked a bit and the moment I told him I believe the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God, he smurked and looked uninterested any further. I have had a Commentary or two of the Wycliffe people - still have - so I was more carefull afterwards when I read from them, and I noticed some disappointing things where they are not totally honest in their 'translations' and or commentaries.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...