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!

Quick Comparison of Bible Versions

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by n2ChristJ, Feb 15, 2002.

  1. n2ChristJ

    n2ChristJ New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I chose KJV because I feel it is the most accurate to God's message.

    We shouldn't change God's message- His message should change us.

    Your sis in Christ,

    Chris VZ
     
  2. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by n2ChristJ:
    I chose KJV because I feel it is the most accurate to God's message.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Neither logic nor sriptural reference says anyone's feelings are any reliable guidepost. You think the KJV language style is the way God talks? So did Joseph Smith when he wrote the Book of Mormon.
     
  3. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    Cynic, she said "feel" not "feelings." When women talk they often say "feel" when a man would say "think." Please respect the ladies on the forum and refrain from comparing them to the founder of a dangerous cult. If you can't find the grace to behave yourself in a gentlemanly way, please feel free to refrain from posting in this forum.

    Thomas Cassidy
    Moderator/Administrator
     
  4. tericl2

    tericl2 Guest

    Research the matter. You can't compare versions to the KJV and expect to find any answers. You have to use the Greek and Hebrew.

    The KJV was translated by a group of bishops from one religion, Catholic. The NIV was translated by a group of over 100 men from every denominational background. This was a safeguard to keep denominational interpretations out.

    The KJV used the "Textus Receptus", which has been shown in the last century to have some flaws when compared to new archaelogical findings.

    Just a little tidbit...did you know baptize wasn't an English word until the KJV was translated? The KJV translators simply transliterated the greek word "baptivzw". This was because the meaning of "baptivzw" is to "fully immerse". This would have been heretical for them and could have cost them their lives.
    No translation is completely and totally grammatically correct. Even the KJV, when translated into another language, will lose or gain some confusing or arguable meaning somewhere.
     
  5. DocCas

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, actually, the 57 men chosen to sit on the translation committees were Anglican, I.E., Church of England, not Catholic.
    Could you share with us what those archaelogical findings are and how they prove the TR to be flawed. Please be specific. Thank you.
    Well, once again you seem not to have done your homeword. The English word "baptize" did not originate in 1611 via a transliteration of the Greek word βαπτιζω. Our English word "Baptize" had been in constant use in English for 545 years at the time of the publication of the KJV. It came to us from French (Baptiste), not Greek, at the time of the Norman Conquest under William the Conqueror in 1066 AD. Regarding your assertion of the meaning of "baptize" it does mean to immerse. However, in 1611 "immerse" did not mean the same as it means today, but meant to "merge with" rather than "submerge under." [​IMG]
     
Loading...