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!

MV`s compared to JW`s NWT

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by pilgrim2009, Jul 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 3 of 8
  1. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Maybe I'm reading this wrong. The KJV isn't God's word?
     
    #41 Amy.G, Jul 24, 2009
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    John Calvin wouldn't be welcome in any Baptist church either, yet you are a Calvinist. Go figure.
     
    #42 Amy.G, Jul 24, 2009
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Anglican Version is a moderately GOOD "translation" of God's Word, Amy. I use it myself and have memorized more than 1000 verses in that translation.

    But a translation is not the same. It takes the actual God-breathed and preserved words (thank God we have them!!) and then does the best to put them in a receptor language.

    Are those new man-made words in new languages then "God's" words? Of course not. They are, hopefully, an accurate and up-to-date translation of God's Word.

    God did not inspire baby-baptizing Anglican priests and scholars in 1611 and give His Word again. That is heresy and attacks the first fundamental of the faith, the doctrine of inspiration.
     
    #43 Dr. Bob, Jul 24, 2009
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    How do we know they are the actual God-breathed words? They are copies, not the originals.

    We accept it by faith.

    If they are not God's words, then they are useless.

    There was no double inspiration. You are correct that it would be heresy to say so. But the majority of the translation work of the KJV was done by William Tyndale. The translation team of the KJV used the various translations available at the time and compared them to the original languages. It was a project of taking several versions and making one version from them. To say it was translated by "baby baptizers" is insulting and not accurate.
     
    #44 Amy.G, Jul 25, 2009
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course the KJV is God's Word. But it is not the only translation of God's Word.
     
    #45 Rippon, Jul 25, 2009
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He would be welcomed in a number of Reformed Baptist churches. Spurgeon would have welcomed him. C.H.Spurgeon preached from the same pulpit that Calvin used. He even wore a Genevan gown for the occasion. It was quite an honor for him.

    There are many good Presbyterian preachers who would be welcomed to guest-preach in a number of Calvinistic Baptist churches.
     
    #46 Rippon, Jul 25, 2009
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How is it not accurate? All the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England that practiced and advocated infant baptism. They persecuted believers who did not accept infant baptism.
     
    #47 Logos1560, Jul 25, 2009
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Because the majority of the translating from the original languages was done by William Tyndale. Was he a baby baptizer too? The subsequent versions after Tyndales translation borrowed heavily from it.

    The accusation seems to be that because the KJV translation team was Anglican, the KJV is infected with doctrines of the Roman church. Why else is this constantly brought up in such a mocking way?

    And from what I understand, a few on the KJV team were Puritan.
     
    #48 Amy.G, Jul 25, 2009
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    My comment was in response to Dr. Bob's statement that the KJV translators would not be welcome in any Baptist church because they were "baby baptizers". My point was that John Calvin was a baby baptizer as well, yet Dr. Bob is a Calvinist. Sounds like a double standard to me.
     
    #49 Amy.G, Jul 25, 2009
  10. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,851
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did you feel that tremor? I think it was J.R. Graves turning over ...
     
    #50 rsr, Jul 25, 2009
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NWT followed the catholicized text, namely the W/H text. Modern versions followed 4 different texts following the W/H text.

    The KJV followed the TR.
     
    #51 Askjo, Jul 25, 2009
  12. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    JWs came to my house and showed me 2 sides of Bibles --- COMPARE.
     
    #52 Askjo, Jul 25, 2009
  13. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quiz for Askjo:

    1. which version follows the then newly minted Romish Douay-Rheims text?

    a. KJB
    b. NWT

    2. wrong--try again.
     
    #53 Forever settled in heaven, Jul 25, 2009
  14. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct, that is odd that JWs used the catolicized text. the W/H text. I wonder the JW is not catholic itself, but its bible.

    JW is similar to Arian. Around 300 AD Arians and Alexandrians worked together and produced these corrupted manuscripts, B and Aleph. Alexandrians established the Catholic church in Rome, Italy in around 300 AD..

    W/H used the B as their favorite manuscript. That is obviously shown that JW bible followed the W/H text. See 4 different texts, that modern versions followed, followed the W/H text.
     
    #54 Askjo, Jul 25, 2009
  15. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    Modern day seminaries have destroyed the belief that Gods Word is in only one book from a pure stream of a set of manuscripts preserved through copies of the originals.My God is able to do this but westcott and hort thories have destroyed the idea.

    My God that created this planet and created you and me cant preserve His words through a pure stream of copies of the originals.What a limited God that I cant and wont believe in.The one who shed His blood on the cross for me the one who was resurrected the one who supernaturally changes lives the one who can raise the dead God Almighty Jesus Christ can give us this book and it has been done if you have faith to believe He promised to do so.

    My God is able and has done just as He promised.


    How can the bibles be trusted that turns Jesus into Lucifer?

    They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ the same:

    In Isaiah 14:12, [Attack on the Bible removed]. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! [Bible attack snipped]! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star [kokab] is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. [Bible attack deleted]

    Also see this article if you dont think seminaries are out to destroy faith in verbal inspiration {i.e.enemies in the camp}.



    IS THE BIBLE A HUMAN BOOK?

    It would be difficult to find a book written by a number of Baptists that is more filled with heresy than this 159-page book. Broadman Press and these "Baptist Leaders" have let go a broadside against verbal inspiration. A close look will show just how far the Southern Baptist Convention has gone in rejecting the inspired Word of God. Of the fifteen authors, eight are pastors, five are from five different Southern Baptist Seminaries, one is with the Baptist Home Mission Board, and one is a former congressman and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The editors say, "For the first time, a cross section of recognized Baptist leaders spells out what they really believe about the Bible . . . " These fifteen men, from different areas of the SBC, undoubtedly represent the growing liberal power in the SBC.




    http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/isbibleahumanbook.htm
     
    #55 pilgrim2009, Jul 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2009
  16. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Anybody with any shred of common sense knows that there was no intent, whatsoever, to equate Satan with Jesus as if there were some malicious intent by the the translators. Nor would anyone with any common sense see that verse as doing that. Only a person who reads God's word with a preconceived agenda (ie. KJVO) make such an asinine accusation.
     
    #56 sag38, Jul 25, 2009
  17. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    All I had to read on that was the by-line 'E.L. Bynum' and I knew better than to waste my time reading it. He is the original David Cloud.

    Nice job digging up dirt on a book that is out of print and was published in 1970, prior to the 'Conservative Resurgence'.
     
    #57 Mexdeaf, Jul 25, 2009
  18. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    There was no intent my foot its there for everyone to read.My my what a shame to have evidence and yet its ignored.
     
    #58 pilgrim2009, Jul 25, 2009
  19. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesnt matter who noticed it first its there and it says Lucifer is the Morning star who desires it and only gets to be the Morning Star in MV`s.

    A sad case indeed.
     
    #59 pilgrim2009, Jul 25, 2009
  20. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Evidence of another conspiracy theory is about all you have presented so far? You have an agenda in evaluating other translations that leads you to make nothing but unfounded and fantastical accusations. Not to mention that they are same old accusations that anyone can find on any KJVO site and of course here in the many debates concerning KJVO vs modern versions. Can you not come up with anything new except to repeat the basic KJVO talking points from KJVO 101? Most of us have heard them over and over again for years and years. Give us a break. Please!!!!
     
    #60 sag38, Jul 25, 2009
Page 3 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...