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!

What do you think of the NLT?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Calvin12, May 10, 2004.

  1. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,742
    Likes Received:
    978
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I still have a soft place in my heart for the Phillips NT; I wish he had lived long enough to complete the OT.
     
  2. Steven m.

    Steven m. New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hold to the 1611 KJV AV.I feel in my Spirit that it is the most acurate.I have several different versions though NIV-NLT-ASB-NKJV-KJV AV.

    I do grieve though over the KJV Legalist that worships ink on paper instead of the God of the ink....ouch.

    I love Gods Word regardless of what flavor it comes in as long as it isnt the message bible or the mormons bible or the so-called Jehovahs witness translation.

    Bless you all in Jesus name.
    Brother Steven.
     
  3. Tangent

    Tangent New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several years ago I read through the NLT in order to get an accurate feel for it, and I have to say that it's not among my favorite versions (although a major improvement on the Living Bible). At the same time, as is characteristic of more interpretive renderings, there are places where the NLT is very striking and memorable. That's a good thing. Although I wouldn't use it as my main Bible, the NLT is a useful supplement for ESV, NASB, etc.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,852
    Likes Received:
    244
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are correct, Marcia. While it "began" as a revision of the Living Bible (which was a paraphrase and not to be confused with a Bible), the scope soon changed and NLT became a full-fledged translation.

    Used the Masoretic/Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX for the OT, and used A&B (oldest Greek) for NT. Did NOT use another English translation as a source.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Steven M:I hold to the 1611 KJV AV.I feel in my Spirit that it is the most acurate.I have several different versions though NIV-NLT-ASB-NKJV-KJV AV.

    I do grieve though over the KJV Legalist that worships ink on paper instead of the God of the ink....ouch.

    I love Gods Word regardless of what flavor it comes in as long as it isnt the message bible or the mormons bible or the so-called Jehovahs witness translation.

    Bless you all in Jesus name.
    Brother Steven.


    With all due respect, Steven, do you use a replica AV 1611 as your primary Bible, or a later edition such as the 1769 Blayney's Edition?
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you are lying!!

    The very idea of "worshiping" a book is ludicrous!! And you are spreading the most dangerous type of lying there is!!


    No Bible(KJB) believer would think for one second that he could mark on God with ink or leave Him in the weather or tear part of Him out or fold Him or put Him in a drawer,or leave Him in the car!!!!


    Ludicrous!!!!!
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you give me some
    clues as to just exactly what the
    meaing of "1611 KJV AV" might be?
    I know that 1611 means 1611AD and
    KJV = King James Version and
    AV = Authorized Version.
    But i suspect you, like 95% of the
    the people who say "1611 KJV AV" have
    no idea what it really means.

    Who authorized the 1611 KJV AV?

    [​IMG]
     
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    The translation work was authorized by James I at the Hampton Court Conference in 1603. The finished work was authorized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot.

    The KJV was not the first English bible to be so "authorized." The first was the "Great Bible" of 1539. The second such "authorized" bible was the "Bishop's Bible" of 1568. The last was the KJV which is still in active publication today.
     
  9. brothersmiller

    brothersmiller New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brothersmiller:Very interesting indeed and if you have the patience to listen you will know the KJV is the true preserved Word of God not thoughts of men.

    Heard all of'em before, Bro.Miller, but thanx for posting the link for those who haven't.

    What we have there is a "Murderer's Row" lineup of contemporary KJVOists spouting the same tired, long-disproven old stuff that's been publicized since 1930, with some of their own stuff added. In other words, it's the same smelly old garbage in a ner, more colorful dumpster.

    I suggest you check out the TRUTH of some of the assertions by each of those men, & see if you come away with the same point of view. Please don't be so naive as to swallow their bait without first seeing if there's a HOOK buried in it.

    I've done so for myself, but you'll better believe what I've said about the garbage if you check it out for yourself. The Net makes it easy.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    456
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bro. Miller, I THOUGHT I'd heard all those audios, but I hadn't heard those of Pastor Knox. Upon listening, I've found out several mistakes and repetitions of the mistakes of others in his "sermon", with a distinct lack of originality:

    1. He seems to believe the PATENTLY-FALSE doctrine of "church ages" by his mention of "today's Laodiceans" & "this Laodicean generation". This raises an immediate red flag, as that doctrine isn't just FALSE; its just PLAIN STUPID!.

    2. He seems to think that everyone making or who has made a modern BV is apostate, or is a "christianette" at best. The flag grows redder!

    3. He seems to believe that the Textus Receptus is "it" and that no other collation of the NT mss could be valid. He totally ignores the FACT that the TR has been revised over 30 times & doesn't tell us WHICH EDITION meets his approval. The proof of the revisions? The current existence of those revisions, of course! WOW! Is that flag red NOW! Sure hope there's no BULL around!(Besides that of the KJVOs)

    4. He blathers about words being added indiscriminately in MVs while trying to defend such additions in the KJV. However, he passes over such additions in the KJV such as "the image of" in Romans 11:4. This is typical selective KJVO oversight.

    5. He repeats the tired old tale about the use of "thee, thou", etc.

    6. He repeats the same tired old error concerning Ps.12:6-7 being about God's preservation of his word. This very concept of preservation kills the KJVO myth at its roots.

    This is in Part 1! How about part 2??

    1. He hollers about inserting interpretations within the translations, while ignoring when the KJV does so in such renderings as "God forbid" for 'me ginomai'(sic), which actually means, 'May it not, or never, be'. More typical KJVO double standard.

    2. He repeats that same absolutely STUPID KJVO assertion that MVs deny the Deity of Jesus at Luke 2:33, 43. Like the first KJVO who started that silliness, he apparently didn't read five verses further to Luke 2:48. One need go no further than the KJV itself to disprove THIS rocket science!

    3. He again uses the famous KJVO double standard by, in Part 1, defending the KJV's addition of words to better express, & then in part 2, criticizes some MVs which call God "Sovereign Lord", since 'lord' simply means 'master', & is a title men give to kings, princes, or other human rulers, & the translators wished to make sure there was no doubt they were referring to GOD.

    4. He defends the KJV's uses of pronouns in reference to any of the Holy Trinity, while berating MVs in his next paragraph for doing so. More of the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD.

    5. He evidently believes in the false idea of "Biblical English".

    6. He exalts both the faith and scholarship of the AV translators, saying they worked under the auspices of the Church.WHICH CHURCH??? Why, the Neo-Catholic Anglican Church, of course!

    7. He hollers that the AV was translated BY GOD'S PROVIDENCE. Same as any other KJVO, he can't prove this, nor can he disprove that God's providence was limited to the AV.

    8. He attributes the KJV with "preserving" the English language from so much change. Let me speak as a Christian and limit my comments to say this idea is ludicrous to the extreme, for lack of Christian vocabulary to adequately express the nature of such an idea.

    9. He concludes by another idiotic idea-blaming the poor churches of today on the BVs of today. This is like blaming the flood on the weather man. If this were true, then we could blame the KJV for corrupting Jungle Jimmy Jones or David Koresh.

    Man, is that flag now not only RED; it's HUGE and waving frantically as if it's in a storm!

    In conclusion-I hope Pastor Knox preaches the Gospel much better than he defends the KJVO myth. He merely repeats the same ole drivel. that wouldn't be so bad except that all that hooey was disproven long ago. And it was disproven by EVIDENCE.

    There's proof that one false doctrine leads to another, as Knox is stuck in at least TWO of'em-KJVO and "Church Ages". I don't know which came first, but it laid the infrastructure for the other one, and maybe even more we don't know about.

    Yes, the entire KJVO myth was born of imagination, human opinion, guesswork, and outright DISHONESTY, and DISproven with hard EVIDENCE.
     
  12. brothersmiller

    brothersmiller New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Robocop3 I will pass you message along to brother knox.

    Thank you for your opinion.

    King James 1611 is Safe!..

    You can have all the Scholars in the world try to word crunch me all day long.. The Scriptures were very clear to King James' 47 Scholars in 1611.. who by the way Feared God and prayed often.. They were very frightened of making a mistake in the translation. I'll take a Scholar that was filled with the Holy Ghost and feared God [ATTACK SNIPPED].

    [ATTACK SNIPPED] Do yourself a favor and throw out any Bibles that say NEW on them.. Stick with the Authorized King James 1611 Bible. Satan hates The King James Version 1611.

    Perfect example of [ATTACK SNIPPED].

    Sincerely bro miller.

    [ May 21, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're aware, aren't you, that one of the reasons the Puritans left England was because it was a crime punishable by jailtime for them to even possess a Geneva bible? It was King James who made it illegal to own any copy except for his version (which, btw, was 1612, not 1611), in an attempt to quash those who considered their "classic" Geneva bible more true to the Word of God that the "modern" KJV at that time.
     
  14. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    good point Johnv most "Independent Baptist" of 1612 thought that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God. and the KJV was a MV.
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, yes and no. [​IMG] The New Testament was printed and published to the public in 1611 but the complete bible containing both the New and Old Testaments was not printed and published to the public until 1612. [​IMG]
     
Loading...