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!

Answer to another poster....

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Feb 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am honoring a request by two other members to carry on a public discussion between the two of them, so I am answering a post by a third person from that thread:

    Missionary:You must own a lot of Bibles, How will you ever know whether you have the complete Word of God ! ? !

    Every time I open one of them. Why? I have faith that God has preserved His word. Evidence? The existence of the various versions. God is well able to present/provide His own word as He chooses.

    A little Word here a little Word there. Boy you must have a lot of faith to believe this.

    Yerp! I believe GOD can do ANYTHING. Don't YOU?

    Do you read a different Bible every day so that you are sure that you don't miss something.

    Yerp.

    You want all the answers but faith is not something you can but in a bottle and analyze.

    But it's OK to place faith in a man-made theory that God has only one version of His word?

    Faith is the hope of things not seen.

    Let's quote the WHOLE VERSE if that's your argument.From the KJV:

    Hebrews 11:1
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    The key words are substance and evidence

    What SUBSTANCE are you hoping for in your one-version view? And WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? And what thing isn't seen?

    Faith without any substance or evidence is BLIND faith, which translates into GUESSWORK.

    I will stick with the tried and true KJV. Millions saved by this Bible.

    Your choice, which I respect. But in the same vein, you should respect the choices of us Freedom Readers, especially since no one can even begin to prove them wrong.

    (A Freedom Reader is one who reads & believes his/her Bible, any version(s) one chooses, free of man-made theories about various versions.)
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hmph. And all this time I thought it was God who did all the saving...

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Ratings:
    +0
    HAHA Trotter. I love reading your answers to these types of statements.
     
  4. Diggin in da Word

    Diggin in da Word New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    I will stick with the tried and true KJV. Millions saved under the preaching of this Bible .

    James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

    Looking at this verse, I would say the phrase 'saved by this Bible' would be just as correct as saying God saved them.

    Jesus is the Word of God. Thy Word have I hid in my heart.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    And praise God that millions have been saved through the testimony of a myriad of faithful translations of His perfect word.

    What a mighty God we serve not to be bound my our human language limitations.
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Ratings:
    +0
    Amen, Roger! Amen.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  7. Brother Ian

    Brother Ian Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,065
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here we go again. I feel sorry for my poor Romanian friends that don't have the KJV translation. Bless their poor non-English speaking hearts. How in the world did they ever get saved?

    By the preaching of God's Word in their own language and the testimony of other Christians.

    I grow weary of those that believe God can only preserve His Word in English through one translation.
     
  8. mcdirector

    mcdirector Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Ratings:
    +15
    Praise God!
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    Diggin in da Word: //Jesus is the Word of God. Thy Word have I hid in my heart.//

    So you are really diggin' in da Jesus???
    Good, I dig Jesus also.

    Where 'dig' means:
    dig8 v.i. Slang 8a. to understand and appreciate

    where 'dig' does NOT mean:
    dig13 v.i. 13. a cutting sarcastic remark

    (hense the need for one to define terms, so others can figure out
    what one is talking about)

    Jonah 4:11 (KJV1769):

    And should not I spare Ninevah,
    that great city, wherein are
    more than sixcore thousand persons
    what cannot discern between
    their right hand and their left hand
    ;
    and also much cattle?

    I discern a failure here to discern between
    the right hand and the left hand:

    1. the left hand,
    'rhema' - the Written Word of God,
    the Holy Bible

    and

    2. the right hand,
    'logos' - the Living Word of God,
    Messiah Iesus.

    1, The Holy Bible used to be ink on paper,
    but is now phospher-driven-pixils on screen (hopefully a flat, non-glare screen).
    Not how the Holy Bible has changed over the years.

    2. Messiah Iesus is the very living God and NEVER CHANGES,
    being always steadfast and sure
     
  10. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Ratings:
    +0
  11. AresMan

    AresMan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Ratings:
    +0
    You gotta love Ed Edwards. He's like an old scholar with a hip, childish, warped sense of humor.

    BTW, this KJV lover has gotten himself a hardcover 1611 and is loving it!
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bwaaa haa haaa!!!!! me too. [​IMG]
     
  13. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Ratings:
    +0
    would the KJV written in Romanian or Bulgarian be translated? or interpreted?

    Interpretations are more accurate than translations, as we have seen from the many Bibles.

    All claim to be the correct translation but they all differ in one respect or another.

    Yet, interpretation is different. Hello is the same in any language.

    One should write the interpretations instead of translations!

    Just a thought.....
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'll give you to the count of TEN to quit
    saying that. Year One, Year two, ... ;)


    Amen, Brother AresMan -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  15. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please don't tell me you actually believe the Bible is God. That means that you do not believe in the Trinity. You would believe that the Godhead exists as, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, God the Son, and God the Bible.\

    Please tell me you don't believe this.

    Jesus is not in the form of the KJV Bible.

    That is a very dangerous statement.

    That is Bible idolatry.

    I really don't think you meant that as it sounded. did you?
     
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Ratings:
    +0
    SirEdEdSrsir: There is some validity in what you say. However, I'm not sure that every instance of " lo'gos " can be said to refer, necessarily, to-
    "lo'gos - the Living Word of God,".
    I did a quick check in my 'Weak' concordance and found several instances of " lo'gos " being something other than "...the Living Word of God...". That statement appears much too general.

    I'd also like to offer that I one time heard one of my closest friends say this: "Sometimes it is kinda' hard to separate 'the word of God from the Word of God.
    In His grace,
    Ed

    P.S. I called it my 'Weak' concordance, for it is nearing 'life-supoport' status, and breaking down all over.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    StandingfirminChrist: //Interpretations are more accurate than translations,
    as we have seen from the many Bibles.//

    StandingfriminChrist comparing to translation: //Yet, interpretation
    is different. Hello is the same in any language.//

    You lost me with this example. 'Hello' in English translates into
    'yah-sue' in Modern Greek. (Though the folks in Athens figured I
    must have learned my speaking on Crete, which I had - I guess it
    was the Southern Greece accent [​IMG] )
    But 'yah-sue' also means, according to usage: 'yes' and 'uh-huh'.
    I remember listening to a Greek's end of a telephone converstation:
    it was " 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue'"
    (Maybe it meant more like 'Yes dear' than 'uh-huh"?)
    But anyway, even 'Hello' means different things in different
    languages. So where/what is your point?
    I'll agree that interpretation is different from translation.
    Translation takes the words in one language and converts them
    to mean the same thing in another lanaguage.
    Interpretation takes the words in whatever language to the
    living of a Christian Life. I remember one guy saying:
    the best translation (using 'translation' like we are meaning
    'interpretation') of the Bible I ever had was Grandma (i.e.
    how Grandma lived).

    StandingfirminChrist: //Interpretations are more accurate
    than translations, as we have seen from the many Bibles.//

    I don't see how 'many Bibles' helps us show that 'interpretations
    are more accurate than translations'. I'd like to, sounds like an
    argument i'd like to use from time to time.

    I know I'm the person here contending:
    There are more doctrinal variations from variant interpretations
    of the KJV than from various English translations reading 'different'.

    I know many of the varian denominations created in the 19th
    Century (1801-1900) were using the same KJV:
    Christian Science, Adventist movement, John Smith Junior's many
    denominations (Mormans;Reorganized Church of Christ of Latter Day
    Saints, Temple Lot; etc.), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.

    One doctrinal varation, both sides readable from the KJV (any KJV)
    is the understanding of Hebrews 6:4-6.
    Those who understand the locical argument reductio ad absurdum

    REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - Latin 'a reduction to an absurdity';
    the refutation of a proposition by showing its logical
    conclusion as absurd.

    Those who see the interpretation properly see that
    it proves one cannot
    be lost again after having been saved by Messiah Jesus.
    And a Believer can be secure in their Salvation BY JESUS.
    Those who have an improper interpretation
    (not even knowing about reductio ad absurdum) think it proves their
    in-again, out-again, saved-again, lost-again, fin-again ;) doctrine
    of insecurity of the believer (AKA: conditional salvation).

    Isn't it strange? The word thinks that it is good to be searching,
    always searching for the TRUTH. But if you find the TRUTH is
    a person named 'Jesus' -- the world will turn on you on a dime.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...