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 doctrines are wrong . . .

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have heard a lot of complaints, specifically about the "Living Bible" Paraphrase. (Not the newer translation.)

    Does anybody know of a website or a list of specific weaknesses in the paraphrase? How about the background of the author and his beliefs?

    The main reason I am curious about this is because it was used extensively in our church (a small city, small church) before people realized it was not good.

    The pastor finally warned people of the dangers of a paraphrase, but not until after many people had used it for two or three years, (including myself.) This was when I was about 13 or 14 when we used it because it was so easy to read.
     
  2. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    POR, The Living Bible is a paraphrase. I wouldn't use a paraphrase for studying scriptures anyway.

    I only want to know the differences so that I can clue people in who do use the Living Paraphrase. PERIOD.

    Your statement is NOT an answer to my question, only your way of preaching your false KJVO doctrine. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes we do. Look at the confusion that has arisen by the use of words like "behemoth", "unicorn" "Easter" and OT appearances of the word "Jesus". I can't tell you how many people I know with KJV's think that "brass" in the KJV means "brass".
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    What does "brass" in the KJV mean Johnv?
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bronze. "Brass" in the early 1600's referred to the alloy we call "bronze". Today, brass is a different alloy altogether. Brass is a somewhat contemporary invention. The alloy that the OT and early NT folks used was bronze. Cool, huh?
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Ratings:
    +0
    There goes my salvation by brass theory [​IMG]
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bronze. "Brass" in the early 1600's referred to the alloy we call "bronze". Today, brass is a different alloy altogether. Brass is a somewhat contemporary invention. The alloy that the OT and early NT folks used was bronze. Cool, huh? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, it is real cool and it points to something really interesting. This is something I should have known since I am familiar with brass. But, I would have NEVER thought about this simply because I assume I am reading contemporary language.

    It is really difficult to change gears and even if you realize something was different then, how often would we actually THINK about it when we are reading?

    Excellent point. [​IMG]
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,491
    Ratings:
    +90
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Brass/Bronze was just a mocking poke at POR's inane comment on "no problems" in the AV.

    Don't think anyone's salvation is affected, although when they pray, the heaven is brass, er, bronze.

    The AV's problem are in a different category as a translation (with its archaisms) than with a paraphrase like the Living Bible - which ISN'T A BIBLE, but a paraphrase of a Bible.
     
  10. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Ratings:
    +0
    Plain ol' Ralph said:

    This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"

    Nah, just a whole different set.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    POR:This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"

    Maybe not the probs Phillip mentioned, but if you believe the KJVO myth, you DO have some MAJOR-LEAGUE probs whether ya realize it or not.
     
  12. go2church

    go2church Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Ratings:
    +16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The weakness (to use your word) of the Living Bible are in my opinion two-fold:
    1. It is produced from a single person's point of view. Doctrinal bias will be reflected in such a paraphrase and such is the case with the Living Bible.

    2. The work is from another translation, (New American Standard, I think) and not the manuscripts. So in effect you are "translating" someone else's translation.

    Remeber the Living Bible was created to help a devoted Christian relate the teaching of the bible better to his own children, not to be a study bible for pastor's and scholars. If used for it original purpose, it can be helpful as you read the bible and try to apply to your daily living.
     
  13. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    Uh.no. All you have done is PROVEN our need to be certain what the Bible is, and IS NOT!

    Since the KJB is accurate, all the others are "paraphrases" Time you. and many,many others learn that. So the "doctrine", as you call it, is true, right, necessary.
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes we do. Look at the confusion that has arisen by the use of words like "behemoth", "unicorn" "Easter" and OT appearances of the word "Jesus". I can't tell you how many people I know with KJV's think that "brass" in the KJV means "brass". </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry you wrest at the scriptures, I've learned to depend on a dictionary to fully understand anything I haven't been schooled on when it comes to those words, especially the first definition, which the KJB uses vehemently, NOT the more modern "re"-defintions to meet up with the fantasy aspects of today's g-g-g-g-generation.
     
  15. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bronze. "Brass" in the early 1600's referred to the alloy we call "bronze". Today, brass is a different alloy altogether. Brass is a somewhat contemporary invention. The alloy that the OT and early NT folks used was bronze. Cool, huh? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow! And just how did you come to that conclusion? And how much brass do you think helps make up content of bronze? HMmm? I wonder if somehow the spiritual aspect of brass being judgement is negated as well? Probably.
     
  16. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    Naughty, naughty. It's called the "Living Bible" and by the standards of modernologists, it carries the same weight as any "Bible"
    [​IMG] :rolleyes: [​IMG] :D [​IMG]
     
  17. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh, and "inane" just what does thus meaneth? Shal I depndson the usage of a dictionary, or can I count on yo?
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0

    Hmmm.... So, instead of having a translation that says "bronze", I need to have a KJV and a dictionary? Sounds like more KJVO hypocrisy.
    The first definition of the word "brass", "unicorn", "behemoth" etc, in the dictionary do not correspond with the source texts that the KJV was translated from. Your assertion is not only false, but refutes KJVOism instead of supporting it.
    How did I "come up" with it? The FACT that the OT/NT civilizations used bronze (not brass) is a historical FACT. The FACT that the words in the source text are translated bronze (not brass) is a translational FACT. Only someone ignorant of the FACTS would even question this issue. OTOH, revisionism and KJVOism are often bedfellows. It is for this reason that all who love the KJV, as I do, need to stand up and defend it from the false doctrine of KJVOism.
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Can you cite a specific person here that believes that the LB or any other paraphrase carries the same weight and authority as direct translations?

    If not, please burn that straw man and actually engage in factual debate.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Ratings:
    +0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh.no. All you have done is PROVEN our need to be certain what the Bible is, and IS NOT!</font>[/QUOTE] We know what the Bible is and is not. It is the KJVO that stumbles on this simple point. It is not limited by your arbitrary choice of the KJV.

    It is apparently time you learn the most elementary facts on this issue. New versions, not even the NKJV, are "paraphrases" of the KJV. Accurate or not, the KJV is not the standard by which other translations must be judged.

    God chose Greek and Hebrew and also chose to preserve His Word providentially through men who were neither perfect in copying nor translating.

    You also fail on a very simple point of logic. The truth that one method is accurate cannot prove exclusivity.

    How many "accurate" descriptions could be given of the best way to get from your house to the Varsity in Athens? How about if you expand it to the many world languages?
    KJVOnlyism is neither true scripturally, factually, nor logically. If fails on all three accounts.
     
Loading...