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!

God's word

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by RaptureReady, Jun 10, 2004.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who cares about the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha is placed in between the OT and NT for historical use only, NOT TO EVER BE CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]With this in mind, please explain why some of the same folks who gave us the KJV made it a crime to print the KJV without the Apocrypha.

    Be honest with yourself, if a new version came out with a copyright condition that the Apocrypha must always be included between the OT and NT, what would your reaction be?
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is exactly what I mean. For instance, I believe the gender inclusive versions have ceased to be God's Word. Not because they are necessarily always wrong in their interpretations but rather because they employ interpretation so heavily.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Until you get saved, you won't understand God's word.</font>[/QUOTE] That's true. An unsaved person won't understand the spiritual truths taught in the KJV, NASB, or NKJV.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with grammar or diction... and everything to do with spiritual blindness to things that are readily seen. This scripture really only applies if an individual can comprehend the language that transmits a message that they cannot understand.
    That is pure foolishness Homebound and you should certainly know it.

    Read your quote above except where you said "modern versions" insert "translations". Hopefully you will see how ridiculous your argument is.
    That's why God tells us in 2 Timothy 2: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.</font>[/QUOTE] Again, that scripture has nothing to do with an inability to adequately understand a form of English that is no longer in popular use nor a failure to recognize words whose definitions have changed.
    Actually I think the opposite. Because of all the variety of translations we have confusion and doubting of God's word. </font>[/QUOTE][/quote][/qb] Then it should be easy enough to prove... but you haven't proved it. All of the anecdotal proofs given by you can be countered in kind against the KJV... but none of them are valid.

    God's Word in faithful versions is consistent. It is disobedience to that Word (such as KJVOnlyism) that causes strife, division, and confusion... and causes the weak to doubt God's Word.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not as long as you continue to post stuff that is categorically false.
     
  5. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original *autographs* are lost, but the original *readings* that were in autographs have been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew copies we have today.
     
  6. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have a clue.
     
  7. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, where? </font>[/QUOTE]Five examples of places where the KJV abandons the actual wording of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the kethib) and follows the reading of the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the qere):

    (1) Jud. 16:26, where the actual Hebrew text reads "touch the pillars," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "feel the pillars."

    (2) 1 Kg. 22:48, where the actual Hebrew text reads "Jehoshaphat had ten ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."

    (3) 2 Kg. 20:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the city," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the middle court."

    (4) Isa. 10:32, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the mount of the daughter of Zion."

    (5) Isa. 65:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "pieces of," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "broth of."

    Apparently the KJV translators thought that the marginal notes were Scripture sometimes.
     
  8. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original *autographs* are lost, but the original *readings* that were in autographs have been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew copies we have today. </font>[/QUOTE]Then let us turn to the copies for answers instead of all these versions. I doubt we can, since a copy is not the original and the original is the only word of God perfectly kept, right?
     
  9. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    One reason why we don't re-write Shakespeare's writings because they were originally written in English -- unlike the text of the Bible, which was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and needs to be translated into English.
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, where? </font>[/QUOTE]Five examples of places where the KJV abandons the actual wording of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the kethib) and follows the reading of the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the qere):

    (1) Jud. 16:26, where the actual Hebrew text reads "touch the pillars," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "feel the pillars."

    (2) 1 Kg. 22:48, where the actual Hebrew text reads "Jehoshaphat had ten ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."

    (3) 2 Kg. 20:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the city," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the middle court."

    (4) Isa. 10:32, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the mount of the daughter of Zion."

    (5) Isa. 65:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "pieces of," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "broth of."

    Apparently the KJV translators thought that the marginal notes were Scripture sometimes.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I don't quite understand these sidenotes. Where were they in the Bible? Meaning, when where they inserted in the Bible? Where they printed with the Bible? As you can see, I don't know much about these sidenotes, so I cannot answer or refute your comment.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    HomeBound, I won't address your answers except the one below and except to say that you have softened considerably over the last couple of years having been confronted with facts. This is the normal process for those willing to listen.

    As they are faithful to the original language texts. In order to know whether a Bible is faithful in this manner you have to study for your self or trust your pastor. The KJV is the Word of God and CAN be trusted, mainly because you are familiar with its archaisms, stick around here at the BB to learn about other trustworthy versions in a more contemporary style of English.

    Many here at the BB could answer your inquiry about kethiv/qere (Hebrew system of variants) but I'm sure Archangel will do a good job.

    HankD
     
  12. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    One reason why we don't re-write Shakespeare's writings because they were originally written in English -- unlike the text of the Bible, which was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and needs to be translated into English. </font>[/QUOTE]Which was done in 1611. Why the need for another?
     
  13. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry to disappoint you brother, but it by far was not this board that softened my heart over the years. It was the Holy Spirit using my pastor to preach(from the King James Bible) the word of God that taught me that I cannot force anything on anyone. Also teaching me that others can be saved through another versions.
    But the originals are lost and therefore we cannot refer back to them.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As is the original KJV... so you cannot refer back to it either.

    So you refer back to something you cannot put your hands on every bit as much as we do... but we refer back to something that God claimed to have directly inspired. You refer back to translation made by Anglican scholars of an imperfect source text.

    We know it was imperfect as even the translators recognized its imperfections and included readings from other sources.
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This question has already been answered twice Homebound. I know you don't like the answers but you have yet to refute them or even deal with them in a meaningful way.
     
  16. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Published with is published with no matter how hard you try to spin it.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't have a clue. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why don't you respond to this portion of my post:
    Do you not want to know the truth? Would you rather be willingly ignorant?

    You are being confronted with things you don't want to deal with. Many of us who used to be KJVO can sympathize (though I was never hardcore like many of you). But please be honest enough not to evade or misapply scripture. Just deal with these things straight up... if your current beliefs cannot accommodate what has been proven to be factual then it isn't the facts that should be evaded, questioned, or denied... it is your beliefs.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Published with is published with no matter how hard you try to spin it. </font>[/QUOTE]Not spinning Skan. You know that none of the translators of the versions you mentioned set out to produce a translation of the OT, NT, and Apocrypha. You also know that these translation committees had no denominational nor doctrinal inclination to include the Apocrypha like the KJV translators did.

    My basic premise is that the MV translators held a different and lower regard for the Apocrypha than did the KJV translators. Unless you disagree with this statement, there is no need for your hair-splitting over semantics.
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then WHY did those translators choose to ditch the Syrian/Byzantine Texts of the Reformation for the Egyptian/Jesuit mss of the dark-ages,that INCLUDES the Apocrypha in both testaments as Holy writ??
     
  20. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can you read the 39 Articles of Religion of 1577 and claim the KJV translators have a "doctrinal inclination" to include the Apocrypha?
    How can you have a lower view than "non-canonical?"
    I see. So, I cannot correct your errors nor try to teach you something, for you already know everything there is to know about everything?
     
Loading...