Were there no good English Bibles before the Modern Versions ?

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
It always amuses me when someone who calls himself a Baptist, attends a Baptist church and posts on the Baptist Board, and believes in, and practices believers baptism, criticizes the King James Bible for using the word baptize, then suggests the word is an error because it should have been translated "dip" or "immerse."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well gee, Dr. C; maybe we should all be called "Immersers" rather than Baptists!

Wasn't it non-immersers who pinned that label on Baptists anyway?

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Wasn't it non-immersers who pinned that label on Baptists anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was the non-immersers that labeled us that, then why would we so proudly uphold the Baptist faith?
No offence intended, but if I labeled you an heritic, would you glady where that name?
And are you going to throw that NIV that you have away, seeing it too contains this heresy of a word?

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
If it was the non-immersers that labeled us that, then why would we so proudly uphold the Baptist faith?
No offence intended, but if I labeled you an heritic, would you glady where that name? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Humans have a curious nature for wearing a name of mockery as a badge of honor.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

J-F-B notes:
"The disciples were called CHRISTIANS first in Antioch." This name originated not within, but without, the Church; not with their Jewish enemies, by whom they were styled "Nazarenes" (#Ac 24:5), but with the heathen in Antioch, and (as the form of the word shows) with the Romans, not the Greeks there [OLSHAUSEN]. It was not at first used in a good sense (as #Ac 26:28 1Pe 4:16 show)"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And are you going to throw that NIV that you have away, seeing it too contains this heresy of a word?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't use the NIV - I have no use for it. But I like being a Baptist - almost as much as being a Christian

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Humans have a curious nature for wearing a name of mockery as a badge of honor.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

J-F-B notes:
"The disciples were called CHRISTIANS first in Antioch." This name originated not within, but without, the Church; not with their Jewish enemies, by whom they were styled "Nazarenes" (#Ac 24:5), but with the heathen in Antioch, and (as the form of the word shows) with the Romans, not the Greeks there [OLSHAUSEN]. It was not at first used in a good sense (as #Ac 26:28 1Pe 4:16 show)"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they meant it for bad, they were saying "look those idiots follow Christ."
But the name fit perfectly because we do follow Christ.
If it was outsiders that labeled us baptist, they coined in right because we do baptize.
However I do like your term too. "Immerser Baord.com" hmmmm!

Or even better "Dippers Board.com"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't use the NIV - I have no use for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I like being a Baptist - almost as much as being a Christian <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehehe!

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:

I believe His will is for all of us to have the written Word of God no matter what language we speak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toolman, how do you define the term "Word of God"?

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
And talk about making doctrine unclear... And what about these other versions rendering Joseph Jesus' father. It is correctly rendered in the KJV Joseph and His mother, because God is the father not Joseph. Therefore deminishing the case of the virgin birth. And I know you can see the virgin birth in other places in these Bibles, but why cause doubt anywhere?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joey, the KJV quotes Mary calling Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2. The fact that Joseph is called the father of Jesus in the Bible is only confusing to those who latch on to such statements as proof of a pre-conceived notion in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:

So I suppose you believe the NKJV, RSV, NRSV and the 1901 ASV all were written to the angilican church as well as they all have the word bishop in them in the same verses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NKJV is descendent from the KJV and for whatever reason retained this word while changing others.

If I am not badly mistaken, the RSV and NRSV are Anglican revisions of the KJV.

The ASV is largely an American sister to the RSV.

By the way, Spurgeon considered the RSV a more accurate translation than the AV but preferred the KJV because he felt the RSV was not as easy to read orally. He was a contemporary of Wescott and Hort. To my knowledge, the "prince of Baptist Preachers" never thought ill of them. On the other hand, he praised efforts to produce a Bible as true to the originals as possible. He apparently didn't think the KJV was it.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
If I am not badly mistaken, the RSV and NRSV are Anglican revisions of the KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott, I think you are mistaken. The RV (1881-5) was Anglican (also called the Canterbury revision) but the RSV/NRSV are copyrighted by the World Council of Churches.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The ASV is largely an American sister to the RSV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope; the ASV (1901) was the American update of the English RV. The RSV was an update (1947;52;71) of the ASV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, Spurgeon considered the RSV a more accurate translation than the AV but preferred the KJV because he felt the RSV was not as easy to read orally. He was a contemporary of Wescott and Hort. To my knowledge, the "prince of Baptist Preachers" never thought ill of them. On the other hand, he praised efforts to produce a Bible as true to the originals as possible. He apparently didn't think the KJV was it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Spurgeon commented on the RSV, he was well over 100 years old when he did so! He actually commented on the RV.

The lineage goes something like KJV-RV-ASV-RSV-NASB-NRSV. The English Standard Version (2001) is the latest update of the ASV/RSV line.

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joey, the KJV quotes Mary calling Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luke 2:48,39
"48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?"
Yes and Jesus corrected her.

 

[toolman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:Toolman, how do you define the term "Word of God"?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those written Scriptures inspired by God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
"wist ye not"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we are having a serious discussion about whether or not we should use a modern language translation?????????

What does it means to wist??? When was the last time you used it in a conversation??

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
What does it means to wist??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could tell you ... but I'd have to kill you.

 

[Rockfort]

If "immerse" meant 'merge with,' is that still not a closer meaning for baptizo than 'sprinkle?' But no matter who likes it and who doesn't, being baptized (transliteration) does mean to be 'dipped,' 'dunked,' or 'immersed.' And the act does not result in a 'permanent change.' Of course, the Anglicans, like the Catholics, likely think so. Maybe that also played a part in the suppression of dunking believers as what baptism is.

Joey, perhaps you can ask your bishop about it.

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joey, perhaps you can ask your bishop about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you, I will.

 

[Joey M]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And we are having a serious discussion about whether or not we should use a modern language translation?????????

What does it means to wist??? When was the last time you used it in a conversation??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone reading the verse could tell that it means know ye not. I admit and have admitted before that there are words in which we don't use anymore in the KJV. And it makes it sometimes a little harder to understand. Not that it takes a rocket scientist. But at least it is more reverant to the living Word (Christ) than the modern versions. I use and have used other versions in my studies, exspecaily in the OT, to help clarify some things. Because it is easier to understand. You seem to miss my point on the Newer versions, it's not that they are harder to read, just that they are not careful enough in thier wording of many verses. I know the KJV language is outdated, but at least I can see the emphasis on Christ throughout my Bible OT and NT. That is deminished in the modern versions.

God Speed!

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; Thank you, I will. &gt;

You're welcome. Do it.
Do you have to go through your rector to get an appointment with the bishop first?

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:


Anyone reading the verse could tell that it means know ye not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually not. I have had to answer that question from people before when I wanted to say, Get out your NASB or NIV or NKJV and read the verse. We spend a lot of time answering questions that shouldn't even have to be asked.

As for the reverence of the MVs with regard to Christ, I see no difference at all. The MVs are very clear and reverent in the their translation.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:


Those written Scriptures inspired by God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the Word of God must be written to be the Word of God? Is the Word of God limited to human words? Is it the words themselves that are the Word of God or is it the message?

How do you define "inspired by God"? The Bible declares that the originals were divinely inspired. It says nothing of copies or translations. If the Word of God must be directly inspired then, indeed, which Bible? which mss? which translation? We could never be sure that we had the Word of God by your definition. God has not given us a way to prove it historically or scripturally.

 

[toolman]

Ok, so we need to further understand a word like wist, but it does not matter the importance of the virgin birth or the blood atonement. I can not accept an (easier) read version when the whole importance of the Christian is understanding that we are washed in the Blood of the Lamb, a Lamb without spot or blemish, born of a VIRGIN (not a young woman). This is why I have a hard time with the modern versions, it seems to me that the majority of people that use the modern versions do so because it is easier to understand, not that they are better translations; while the majority of KJV only use the KJV for the importance of the careful consideration of the importance of Christ, not the importance of easier understanding. Like JoeyM said is doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand "wist". I agree that most of the KJV language is not used in modern English, and I don't think I would have a problem with updating the KJV (language) I do have a problem with getting watered down scripture, and even the NKJV has changed the meanings of several scriptures. I do not want to offend anyone, I am just trying to explain why I will only use the KJV.

 

[ddavis]

Quote by Scott: So, the Word of God must be written to be the Word of God? Is the Word of God limited to human words? Is it the words themselves that are the Word of God or is it the message?
Scott I’m not being cute but how would we know what the Word of God is for the human race if it wasn’t written down? How would we know what the message is if we don’t have a written word, to me you can’t have one without the other?
Quote by Scott: The Bible declares that the originals were divinely inspired. It says nothing of copies or translations.
On this I agree. But do you think that God can not keep his written word preserved? I think that is Toolmans point, that He can and that the Toolman believes it to be the KJV.
Quote by Scott: If the Word of God must be directly inspired then, indeed, which Bible? which mss? which translation? We could never be sure that we had the Word of God by your definition. God has not given us a way to prove it historically or scripturally.
I think the Toolmans point is that from 1611 to now the Bible that was used was the KJV, sure there were other Bibles. That is his question he has put out there so many times, how do we know which mss? Which translation? Which Bible? Thomas had to see and touch the Lord, we have to take by faith what we believe to be the preserved Word of God.
I’m just trying to understand.