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!

Sola Scriptura & the modern versions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Apr 16, 2011.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Stilllearning, I hope you are willing to learn. I'm going to ignore the fact that this verse has nothing to do with Bible preservation because it is taught very clearly in other parts of the Bible.


    Please share with me where it has anything to do with the KJV here.
     
    #21 jbh28, Apr 21, 2011
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Reminder - we will not allow anyone to attack good English translations of God's Word. You attack the NIV, ESV, ASV or the AV1611 and the hammer will come down. Feel free to attack fake "translations" that cults produce - like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

    Speaking of "cults", we also do not allow the word "Cult" to be used as a perjorative (unless speaking of an actual "cult" like Moonies or Mormons). If someone holds to the teaching of "onlyism", it is a "sect" of fundamentalism that I persnally am glad to see dying off. But it is not a "cult" per se, and most of its members might truly be born again.

    Careful with wording.
     
    #22 Dr. Bob, Apr 21, 2011
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi James, nice to hear from you.

    First you said..........
    I agree; If “the pillar and ground of The Truth”, that you referred to, is the one from 1Timothy 3:15.
    The Word of God, has been Supernaturally preserved, by “the Church”.
    -----------------------------------
    Then.......
    I agree:
    ----------------------------------
    Then.......
    I strongly disagree, because if this was true, than #1 & #2, couldn’t be true.

    You continued with some of the same old misinformation that can be found all over the internet, aimed at the KJB, but ends up simply attacking God’s Word.
    ---------------------------------
    Then.......
    I have heard that also.
    ---------------------------------
    Then.......
    I fully agree. But if you feel this way, than why have you been badmouthing the one Bible, translated from the Received Text?!?
    ---------------------------------
    Then.......
    I agree, and so does 1 Corinthians 2:14
    But what does that have to do with the subject at hand.
    -----------------------------------
    Then.......
    I agree.
    -----------------------------------
    Then.......
    I fully agree.
    -----------------------------------
    Lastly.......
    Of course.
     
    #23 stilllearning, Apr 21, 2011
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Don't expect an answer. Deceit has no answers in the face of truth.
     
    #24 Mexdeaf, Apr 21, 2011
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello jbh28

    I don’t know what Mexdeaf’s problem is, but I wish people would stop calling me a liar.

    As for your question..........
    For me, the whole issue of being KJVO, is believing that God has kept His Word, by preserving His Word for us.
    And Psalms 12:6-7, is one of many Scriptures, where God has given us this promise.

    I know that some people, want to slat or twist this passage, to make it mean something else(by ignoring it’s context in this chapter), but that is their problem not mine.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You said....
    Yes I am, but there are some things, that every Christian must be dogmatic about.

    For instance, is someone was going to try to convince us, that Jesus wasn’t really God in the flesh; Those of us with any sense would not give our ear to them.
    We might be accused of not having a teachable spirit, but God’s Word warns us not to give our ear to false teaching.

    In the same way, if someone tries to convince us, that God’s Word has been lost, and that we need to wait for scholars, to possibly find some undiscovered manuscript, before we can “know for sure” that we have God’s Word, than we should not listen to their argument; Because it is based on a false premise; “That God’s Word has been lost”.

    There are even some who say, that “a translation” can not be inspired; When Jesus Himself, read and quoted from a translation(the LXX).

    Bob has said, that KJVOism, is “dying out”; I agree.
    It is dying out, at the same pace that the Church is sliding away from the Faith.

    Therefore Jesus said........
    Luke 18:8
    “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

    When Jesus returns, He will be hard pressed to find any faith, on the earth;
    Even in Church!
     
    #25 stilllearning, Apr 21, 2011
  6. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    I'm sorry but you are quite inconsistent. God has kept His Word and preserved His Word for us - but stopped doing so in 1611? So then you do not believe that God can preserve His Word for us because the language of the 1611 is no longer the language we speak today.
     
    #26 annsni, Apr 21, 2011
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    My problem is that misapplication of Scripture is deceit. There's no way around that. Psalm 12:6,7 is not referring to ANY translation, much less the KJV.
     
    #27 Mexdeaf, Apr 21, 2011
  8. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi annsni

    You said.......
    No, He didn’t stop in 1611. He will never stop.
    But it seems as though, you are defining the word “preserve” differently than I am.

    Preserve:
    1.To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
    2.To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
    3.To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony.
    See Synonyms at defend

    God’s Word was preserved and is still being preserved!
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now I can guess what you are going to say next......
    “Being preserved means, that as language changes, Bible translations must also change to keep up with those changes.”

    Normally I would agree; But we are living in some extraordinary times.
    Today, using the excuse of “updating the Bible”, publishers end up removing parts of it.

    Therefore forcing Christians like me, to use a Bible that was published 242 years ago.
    I don’t really like using such an old Bible, but there is no other way that I can have the whole thing intact!

    What makes it even worse, is millions of my fellow Christians, criticize me for even expecting to have a complete Bible, and say “no translation is perfect”!
    Then they say, “the missing parts, don’t change any major doctrine, so don’t worry about it”.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I am not going to trust my faint, to anyone else;
    Therefore I want a complete Bible.
     
    #28 stilllearning, Apr 21, 2011
  9. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Can you show me where the publishers are removing parts of the Bible? I've not seen that. Yes, I've seen some verses put into the margins or footnotes because they have not been found in early manuscripts. That means that it's not the publishers who are removing the verses but instead these verses were added later on. If the manuscript evidence showed that the verse was in fact there without a doubt and it was not put in the Bible then yes, I'd agree that the publishers were removing parts of it.

    See, you are using man's opinion on this matter. Yes, you can absolutely have the whole "thing" (I prefer to not use "thing" to describe the Bible but since you did, I will use your wording to answer you) in any good modern Bible.

    You are completely trusting your "faint" [sic] to someone else - the translators of the KJV of the Bible. The KJV is no more complete than the NASB. You argue against the "opinions of man" but then you go running straight to the opinions of man for your beliefs.
     
    #29 annsni, Apr 21, 2011
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Think the crux of the matter is, "Knowing the truth (about passages like (Ps 12) and still touting it as support for a translation 2500 years later is deceptive at best, intentionally lying at worst."

    It is one this to err; it is another to willingly reject truth and try to make the Word of God and its precious truth apply to some man-made document totally unrelated to what the Word says.

    Very sad.
     
    #30 Dr. Bob, Apr 21, 2011
  11. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, looking at the context supports that it's not about preservation. It's only when you isolate verses 6 and 7 out of the context. However with that being said, the Bible does say that the Bible will be preserved.

    Now here's the problem, nowhere in that passage does it even mention the KJV. The issue you have isn't about preservation but about applying something to your favorite translation. Preservation is a smoke screen. Was the Bible preserved before the KJV came out? Of course you must answer yes. Then the KJV cannot be the perfect preservation because it wasn't till 1611 and it doesn't match anything perfectly before 1611.
     
    #31 jbh28, Apr 21, 2011
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's totally reasonable jbh,therefore it will be entirely unacceptable to sl.
     
    #32 Rippon, Apr 21, 2011
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The best way to avoid being called a liar is to stop lying.
    That is exactly what you do. You twist the passage to make it refer to the preservation of the KJV and ignore the context of God preserving His people from those who would afflict them. Shame on you!
    But that is exactly what you have done. You have given your ear to the false teaching of KJVOism.
    Yes, you make a false accusation that we non-KJVOs believe that God's word has been lost when it has not been lost and we don't believe it has. This is another reason MexDeaf insinuated you are not entirely truthful.
    How do you know Jesus quoted from the the LXX? Can you give me an example of any NT quote uttered by the Lord that agrees word for word with the LXX?
     
    #33 TCassidy, Apr 21, 2011
  14. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Non-sequitur. It would be equally true to say how can someone hold your view and hold to Sola Scriptura. How can anyone deny the preservation of God's Word in other versions and claim Sola Scriptura?

    Swing and a miss, friend.
     
    #34 TomVols, Apr 21, 2011
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One 'Bible', which is the body of all the ancient Scriptural manuscripts collectively, even if they're not all in one place. What mosta us use are TRANSLATIONS made from many of these mss.
    So do we Freedom Readers. But, unlike some people, we do NOT try to LIMIT GOD as to how He may present His own word to us, nor imply that He retired in 1611 & no longer superintends His word, keeping it before us in the languages HE has given us.

    And that's EXACTLY what I meant when I say that KJVO is based upon GUESSWORK & OPINION, not FACTS. Sorry, Sir, but you haven't presented one quark of EVIDENCE supporting KJVO.

    No, they are TRUE statements. You even admit above that your belief in KJVO is your OPINION, but you CANNOT produce any EVIDENCE to support it. And I see NO rebuttal to the fact that the current edition of KJVO is derived from Dr. Wilkinson's book, expanded on by "J. J. Ray", Dr. D. O. Fuller, and others, using the power of modern media to spread their hooey. As for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, you haven't provided one quark of Scripture that supports KJVO ny the slightest hint of the slightest implication.


    We have discussed the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" ad nauseam in other threads, and there's no use repeating all the evidence that shows V7 is about PEOPLE, as the AV translators themselves believed. Your use of this Scripture to support KJVO is wrong. After all, those verses are found in EVERY legitimate Bible translation, not just the KJV.

    Everyone here believes that GOD has preserved His own word, so you are trying to put a kickstand on a horse by arguing for word preservation. But unlike you, we Freedom Readers know GOD has caused many translations of His word to have been made, and we don't try to LIMIT Him.



    Oh, but we think you DO, Sir. The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" you mentioned above comes STRAIGHT FROM DR. WILKINSON'S BOOK! So, tell another prevarication before that one grows cold!

    No "gymnastix" from us Freedom Readers at all, Sir. YOU have the burden of trying to make us believe in a MAN-MADE DOCTRINE not found whatsoever in Scripture, and, wishing to avoid that FACT, try to invent excuses to justify believing it. You are only fooling YOURSELF. KJVO is simply NOT FROM GOD, and is simply NOT TRUE. Now, if you wishta use only the KJV, fine, but when you tell others that it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, you are telling something that's simply NOT TRUE. If you are truly "still learning", it's about high time you learned that simple, stark FACT!
     
    #35 robycop3, Apr 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2011
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...