Yep, at least those "poor pilgrims" had in their posession what led up to the KJB and not what went downhill!:laugh:
Slandering God
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Oct 3, 2008.
Page 7 of 8
-
-
-
Sal,in the effort you're expending in trying to belittle modern versions you misrepresent a lot. If you think they down-play the subjects of sin,hell,judgment you will have to provide evidence.I can't speak for every MV;but let's deal with the NLTse for now. In post #100 of mine I provided eight representative passages regarding God's wrath. In none of them was there any equivocation.It's up to you to prove your negative contentions.
-
The Pilgrim's rejected the KJV.It was distasteful to them.They preferred what came before the MV (KJV). -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
-
-
It is also worthy of note that, for the most part, the Puritans still generally considered themselves as the 'true part' of the Church of England, and were more interested in seeing her 'reformed' (and Reformed, as well) than in starting some 'breakaway' group. Hence, the KJV was not particularly to be avoided, in those early days, but was merely basically a "New" version, to them. This seems to be somewhat a different tune, to the one I often hear playing today.
BTW, I believe IIRC stands for "If I recall correctly", FTR. ;)
Ed -
BTW, are you ever going to answer C4K's question about which is the correct rendering of I Jo. 5:12 - that wording found in the KJV, 1611 or that of Paris, Blaney, et al. found in the editions of a century and a half later, and following??
If the Geneva Bible and the KJV-1769 agree (and they do here) and the KJV-1611 differs, which reading is the accurate one??
Ed -
BTW, are you ever going to answer C4K's question about which is the correct rendering of I Jo. 5:12 - that wording found in the KJV, 1611 or those 'non-existent updating and 'corrections' of Paris, Blaney, et al. found in the editions of a century and a half later, and following??
If the Geneva Bible and the KJV-1769 agree (and they do here) and the KJV-1611 differs, which reading is the accurate one??
Ed -
Hi EdSutton
I have had a very interesting journey over the last few days, and it has been a blessing.
Earlier I stated, that the late 1800's were a bad time for the Word of God, and I have discovered that statement, to be more true than I had imagined.
Satan had so hated the previous 200 years, that he had crackpots, coming out of the woodwork, attacking the Bible in every imaginable way.
Then BB Warfield took a great stand for the Bible, in declaring it to be “the actual Word of God”, and therefore shutting the mouth’s of those attacking it.
But then, in 1893, BB Warfield(during his tenure at Princeton), went about to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of faith, in such a way, that he ended up doing greater harm to God’s Word, than all these other men, could have ever done.
--------------------------------------------------
Chapter one, of the Westminster Confession.......
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
.....is about the inspiration of Scripture.
Other great men, had interpreted it as saying.......
Therefore God has perfectly preserved His Word for us.
--------------------------------------------------
But when Warfiled gave his survey of the WCF, here is what he said about the copies...
http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm#LinkTarget_18613
Ed, here is the main link.........
http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm
You should click on the “First article”, and will find the quotes you asked me for.
--------------------------------------------------
I couldn’t help but wonder, how a man like BB Warfield, could have made such a mistake at this.
(It is because of this mistake, that people today, can carelessly state that the Bible has mistakes, and think that they are right.)
But I believe I have the answer:
In my studies of BB Warfield, I have discovered that even when he was being praised, it was said of him, that “he was not a Churchman”.
-It is common knowledge, that he NEVER, regularly attended any Church.-
And if you think about it, you will realize that he thought himself “so wise”, that there was no way, that he could sit under the authority of a mere pastor.
Therefore his problem was “a lack of faith”. Like in Mark 9:24.
This lack of faith, is also seen in his acceptance of Darwinism.
--------------------------------------------------
All in all, this has been a wonderful study. -
It's still just a cop-out and a farce for KJVO's to whine about copyrights when KJV's outsell all but the NIV, NLT, and NKJV (based upon unit sales) in the USA. When all the different KJV publishers start giving them away for free then you might have a point about the MV's being 'profit driven'. -
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; ...But in the face of the hard evidence of the copies (where no manuscript is without variants) how should we apply "kept pure"? But even if the WCF did declare the copies inspired then...
Second, there are at least two BIG steps to take between the copies and a translation for us. The first step is to compile, or collate, all the manuscript evidence available. This practice is called Textual Criticism --
... therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all... There's nothing in the WCF that speaks of the inspiration of translations, or an inspired translation process. I did not find the word 'perfect' in the WCF; but it does say that God's words dwell "plentifully in all" translations. Does "plentifully" sound like "perfectly "to you? -
-
-
-
-
"If the King James Version was good enough for our Lord Jesus, it's good for me too!" :laugh:
Rob -
Seems that would merit the dubious honour you've awarded it!:godisgood:
Why is it we stay with the KJB, and are quite happy with it, and all MV proponents have to keep searching through the "version of the week" to see what might be right or wrong with it?:D :p :eek: -
We already know what the word of God says, why keep seeking it out as if we might be wrong?:laugh:
Something tells me too many have become suspect of the word of God or is it they're still looking for "loop-holes"? -
The Pilgrims did not value the Geneva Bible over that of the KJV because of "politics".The Pilgrims were Calvinists.They appreciated the notes of 300,000 words and the translation itself.
Page 7 of 8