400 hundreds years of Biblical, archaeological, and linguistic scholarship

There is no significant difference. We bicker to death about which translation is better or worse, and that we can do based on translation issues, however these new sources and new translation techniques which have been specifically discovered after the writing of the kjv, etc, are for all intents and purposes virtually identical to what we had beforehand.

 

I agree completely. I believe that the KJV, Geneva,Bishop's Bible are all great works. But they are based on weak foundations.

 

I disagree. I think the traditional text Bibles are superior to the critical text ones.

 

Even the critics who proclaim that the past is much better have chosen to glorify the past rather than the God who works in the present.

But those who tend to live in the past usually drive their cars rather than scrape horse manure off the street or at home. I haven't seen too many shocks of hay piled near somebody's horse.

When the earthquakes occured in San Simeon, CA the only people who were killed were in an old building that caved in while many new buildings did not have even a crack. I was working on a new building that was nearly finished when the earthquake hit and there was not one crack after the shock. However there were some people killed, houses which fell off of their foundations and cars crushed. But not one new home had problems except at the tear in the ground of about one foot rise and a 2 inch crack. Even those buildings did not fall or come off of their foundations. A friend of mine had two crawlers which were thrown upward and moved about ten feet during that quake. It proves that the new technology learned from past experiences does in fact work.

It seems that some enjoy the false sense of security resting upon the past thinking it is better. While those who are contractors know the wisdom of the past. Some do choose to learn from the past while others choose to not learn either from the past or live in the present. Some even choose to not consider the present technology and evidence for faith buit instead live in the past.

At about the age of 85 my grandmother told me that she didn't like being around old people because they were always griping. She also told me that it does no good to dwell on the past because you can't do anything about it.

 

My NKJV was printed in 2004. The NKJV was originally printed in 1978. Nevertheless, If you wish to accuse me of living in the past, then so be it. I will not bow to any man's demand to read only certain Bible versions. I will read what I want to. The more I read the op, the more convinced I become that its intent is to flame the KJV and those that use it. CBTS has done that before. I will not participate in this thread any longer and I think it should be closed.

 

Can we apply the old/new analogies to the fact that the levies failed to protect New Orleans from flooding during Katrina? The quality of the engineering and workmanship has been implicated in this disaster.

Back to the the subject: quality of transcription of the Word of God.

There is one basic prerequisite to understanding the Word of God: spiritual discernment, as Jesus told Nicodemus: "Ye must be born again". John Ch.3.

The basic reason there is so much conflict is that we try to make the Word of God fit the traditions of men. It never works.

God said what He means. He means what He says. Whether we believe Him or not is irrelevant in terms of Truth. "Let God be found true, and every man a liar" is found in most translations.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"We do not, of course, find such a thing in other disciplines because it not only makes no rational sense, but would be extremely dangerous."

Therein lies the problem-you are relying on rationale and scholarship too heavily, my friend. Has God increased our knowledge of the biblical languages in the past 400 years? Absolutely! But the scholars that say that the oldest manuscripts are the best still have not convinced me to recant the TR position. And, why are you concerning yourself with those that still love and use the King James Version? I'll take that anyday over two of the liberal translations you mention above--the NRSV and NEB.

 

Errata: in the post above, the word is levees, although levies might be correct if one considers the wasted tax dollars spent on this fiasco.

Bro. James

 

While I am not a KJVO, I would not say that it is a relic of the past. Demanding that preachers use only modern versions is a bit extreme in my opinion.

 

I believe the choice of one's Bible version(s) to use is a matter between each person and GOD. The thing that I am totally against is any belief that God is limited to just one version in English or any other language. True, many languages have only one version because that version is of recent origin and is still completely up to date. But as for languages such as English that have a long history of having the Scriptures, updates have become necessary as the language has changed. However, this does not detract from the validity of the older versions.

My advice...DANCE WITH WHO BRUNG YA. Use the version or versions from which you glean the most understanding, be they old or new. But PUHLEEEZZE...DON'T tell someone YOUR fave version is the ONLY valid one under the sun, because that's just plain FALSE.

 

Thread close.

It's premise is inflammatory to those who prefer and use older Bible versions.