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!

Digging a well.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salamander, Dec 20, 2008.

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

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, let me get this straight. Many of us (who by the way use and love the KJV), speak out against the unbiblical position of KJVO. So...we are accused of "attacking the KJV."

    You say that MV's are lies. That's not attacking the Bible?

    Wow...I bet things are interesting up there in the ol' gray matter.
     
  2. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are absolutely correct. The word of God does not lie. That is why any translation that attributes Mark 1:2 to Isaiah, cannot be the word of God. Don't just take my word on it. Look for yourself. Then come back and tell me where the shame lies.

    Have a nice day, and Merry Christmas.
     
  3. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I do not consider them to be God's infallible, inerrant word. Therefore I do not consider them to be the Bible. But...hey, if you do that's your business. Good luck with that.
     
  4. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you take milk and sugar with your blasphemy, or just take it straight?

    Why would I need luck? I have the word of God.

    I pity folks like you.

    So, tell me: since it's "not the Bible," and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God...what about the teenager I led to the Lord last week, using the NIV that was handy? Is he saved?
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have NEVER seen anyone who is a 'Freedom reader' attack the KJV in such manner here on the BB. Keep your 'luck'- you're going to need it if you are going to stay around here much longer.
     
  6. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know. I cannot see his heart. I don't know what you told him in order for him to be saved. There are too many unknown variables for me to determine his standing with God.

    Did you use the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch as found in Acts 8 of the NIV? If you did he might not be saved. Did you try to tell him about God's forgiveness from Mark 11:26 in the NIV? If so, he may not be saved. Did you use Matt.18:11 in the NIV to explain to him why Jesus came to this earth. If you did he may not be saved.

    I do believe he could be saved if you explained the simple plan of salvation to him in it's full truth and power. Could you use an NIV to lead him to the Lord? Sure, if you told him the Gospel. But, again, I don't know what you told him nor what Bible verses you used to support what you told him. I sincerely hope he is saved.

    You pity me? I pity the youth of this world who may have a false sense of security because they are not given the whole counsel of God.
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Merry Christmas to you also.

    The point is that you openly denigrate any Bible translation that isn't one of the KJVs, claiming it contains truth and errors. At the same time you go on to errantly elevate one of the KJVs (which KJV?), claiming it is "inerrant, infallible, and perfect." This of course is incorrect in that you have an erroneous definition of "errors." To KJVOs "error" simply means the exact wording of your favorite KJV (which one?) isn't followed. That isn't error, my friend. It's simply changing the particular words used in order to keep the messsge the same. That's what's important to God - keeping the message pure and inerrant although words must occasionally change due to an evolving language. The modern translations are no less "inerrant, infallible and perfect" than the KJVs with their errors.

    You falsely equate modern Bible translations with "any other book written by man." This, of course, is not true in any way, shape or form. The Scriptures were written by God. He used men to put His message on paper. Man didn't write the modern Bible translaions any more than man wrote the KJVs.

    You say you "choose to use the book inspired by God." Okay, I also choose to use the book inspired by God. You falsely label your favorite translation as "inspired by God" while you cast doubt on any other translation. The Bible itself, and not a particular English translation of the Bible, was inspired by God. The problem is that KJVOs elevate one particular Bible translation to a level of worship while denying and denigrating all other translations. Your favorite KJV becomes your "idol" or "carved image," which is strictly forbidden by God.

     
  8. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Mexdeaf
    Good to hear back from you. What I am doing is stating my opinion along with facts to support my beliefs. This is a discussion board concerning Bible versions and translations, right? You consider it an attack because it is not what you want to hear. I'm sorry about that. But the facts remain. Most MV are inaccurate and unreliable. Which I feel I have given evidence to.

    Neither am I attacking people who choose to use MV's. If people want to keep using MV, that's up to them. I wish them nothing but the best. I have to keep wishing them the best because I don't believe they have the best yet. If you use a MV I hope God blesses your ministry. I just feel your ministry may prosper more if you were using, IMHO, the true word of God.

    As far as my staying around here longer, that is not within my power. As long as there is a discussion board open, I will voice my opinion along with everyone else. If the powers that be silence me, well, I just consider myself to be in good company.

    Merry Christmas.
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you don't call it attacking the Bible when you make a blanket statement that the modern translations are "inaccurate and misleading," then what do you call it? Wasn't it Shakespeare who wrote "A rose by any other name is still a rose" in one of his plays? An attack against the Bible by any other name is still an attack against the Bible.

    What you stated is not a fact, but a qualitative opinion. And standing against the false KJVO position isn't an attack on the KJVs. As a matter of fact, one of the KJVs is one of the three Bible translations I use most frequently. I love the KJVs, but I stand strongly against the error of the KJVO position.

    The only fear of the truth I see is the fear shown by KJVOs that their position is crumbling for lack of intellectual or scriptural backing.
     
  10. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith,
    My accusations are not false though. I have cited at least four errors in most MV. How can the NIV, for example, be the inspired word of God when it contains errors (Elhanhan did not kill Goliath), confusion (Lucifer is given a name used by Jesus), lies (Isaiah credited with Mak 1:2), and false doctrine (Eunuch saved by water baptism without a confession of faith).

    Please reconcile these facts in light of the KJV. Or reconcile these facts with something intelligent at least. Please show me how MV are equal to the KJV. I have presented evidence to support my belief. Give me an explaination to these errors I see in the MV. Show evidence of errors in the KJV as Franklin did and allow me the opportunity to reasearch and supply an answer.

    All I have seen, for the most part, are hollow replies, condensending remarks, false claims of attack, false claims of blasphemy; all without any supporting evidence to show me where I am wrong. Show me where I am wrong. Prove to me there are no errors in MV. Don't give opinions without facts to support them. That is all I ask for. From you or anyone else.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    You should notice that your source was citing Dr. John Lightfoot writing about Tulmudic order (where Jeremiah indeed does come before Isaiah).

    But the Hebrew Nevi'im begins with the 'former' prophets (Joshua, Judges, two books of Samuel, and both Kings), follwed by the 'later' prophets (in this order: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and the 'Twelve').

    Isaiah comes before Jeremiah in the Masoretic tradition just like in Christian Bibles today (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). Isaiah also comes before Jeremiah in the Septuagints (although the 'minor' prophets are sometimes placed before Isaiah). Isaiah precedes Jeremiah in virtually every Bible canon that exists.

    Your "much more learned scholars" have led you astray (unless you were suggesting that Matthew's source was the rabbinic discussions recorded in the Talmud).
     
    #71 franklinmonroe, Dec 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2008
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we accept this errant line of reasoning, then it can also be said that any Bible translation that gives Ahaziah's age as both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) at the same moment in time (when he became king) can't be the word of God. Of course this error isn't limited to just the KJVs - every English Bible translation I've checked has the same error, so it must be a textual error going back to who-knows-when. The point is that if having an error of any kind disqualifies any Bible translation from being the word of God, the KJVs are also disqualified because of their errors. There can't be a double standard. Either the word of God can have man-made errors or it can't have man-made errors. Which is it? Why don't you have a pow-wow with other KJVOs and let us know when you decide, okay?
     
  13. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a possibility since Matthew's audience was primarily to the Jewish community and the Talmud was widely known and used.

    I have supplied two possible answers for Matt.27:9. You did not address the other answer in that the prophecy was only spoken and not written by Jeremiah.

    Neither have you answered why the NIV, along with other MV, credits Isaiah with writing the prophecy found in Mark 1:2.
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if that's the way you want to look at God's word, then go right ahead. That's between you and God. You and other KJVOs will be the ones who have to answer to God as to why you willingly chose to deny and denigrate His word. Good luck with that.
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems you are declaring the KJV (not sure exactly which KJV, since you would probably not consider all the ones I have to fit this, since they all do not match in every single minute detail.) to be "the whole counsel of God".

    You just made Paul to be a liar (which seems to be a term you apparently are at least, fairly familiar with). Congratulations!

    Exactly how much effort did that entail, out of curiosity?

    Ed
     
  16. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith
    This one was somewhat more difficult to answer, but once again I am relying on Dr. Lightfoot. You see the word "old" in both verses is more often used as the word "son". Here I will allow Dr. Lightfoot explain the rest:

    Dr. Lightfoot says, "The original meaneth thus: Ahaziah was the son of two and forty years; namely, of the house of Omri, of whose seed he was by the mother's side; and he walked in the ways of that house, and came to ruin at the same time with it. This the text directs us to look after, when it calleth his mother the daughter of Omri, who was indeed the daughter of Ahab. Now, these forty-two years are easily reckoned by any that will count back in the Chronicle to the second of Omri. Such another reckoning there is about Jechoniah, or Jehoiachin, 2Ki 24:8 : Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. But, 2Ch 36:9, Jehoiachin was the son of the eight years; that is, the beginning of his reign fell in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Judah's first captivity."
     
  17. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are going to make accusations, please use some sort of intelligent, specific evidence to support the claim. For example, how, exactly, did I make Paul a liar. To reply to an explicit charge, I need clear-cut evidence of the charge.

    BTW, you can leave off the sarcasim the next time you reply. I get enough of that from lost folks I deal with.
     
  18. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've probably all heard of the Romans Road to Salvation, where verses from Romans are used to present the plan of salvation. Abell, please look at the Romans Road to Salvation* in one of the KJVs and in the NIV. Do you see anything in the NIV that would keep someone from being saved?

    *Romans 3:23; 6:23; 5:8; 10:9,13; 5:1; 8:1, 38-39.

    It's funny you should mention that you pity "the youth of this world who may have a false sense of security because they are not given the whole counsel of God." That is exactly what KJVOs would do - deny them the whole counsel of God.
     
  19. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words, Abell, you can offer nothing but the opinion of someone else as to why this contradiction is found in the KJVs and other translations. Dr. Lightfoot bends over backward to justify an error. The "explanation" he offers is quite weak at best. The bottom line is that the two verses mentioned read exactly alike except for the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age when he became king. They're not referring to two different things - they both refer to one particular moment in time. Therefore, they can't both possibly be correct.

    As I said before, if having a human error disqualifies a translation from being the word of God, then the KJVs are just as disqualified as modern translations.
     
  20. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0

    Thank you for your attack on my ministry.

    I wear comments from the likes of you as a badge of honor.

    If you pity those to whom I minister, then I must be glorifying God.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...