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!

Which is preserved?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Precepts, Mar 16, 2004.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only time people speak like that is to make fun of old english.

    Is that what we want people to think of God's word? That ist's a Joke?

    Not me. give it to them in simple
    English.
     
  2. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    God speaks to me in the KJB Engish every morning, noon and night. It is simple English. It is simply spiritually discerned.

    Mv's don't allow God to speak to me in simple English. There are many wordss in the niv that any normal person has to look up to know the definition.

    Tiny, the ONLY people I know who speak KJB English as a mockery are mv advocates. You just mocked the Word of God by saying it is not simple.

    At the beginning of this thread I gave four examples of changing the word order yet saying exactly the same thing.

    Imediately following were sevral pernicious attacks.

    Several other examples were given from multiple versions by Craig? Of those which do NOT give the thought as found in the KJB were individually dealt with,and those that contained the plural form of heaven, as heavens, are not altering the thought or do they complicate it either. The rest in varied other languages require a dictionary of that foreign language to see whether or not they give the same thought.

    The KJB gives us the "inspired" thought, many mv's give altercations and are often misleading. Also the mv's give much more complex wordings.

    English, whether Elizabethen, modern or any otherwise is still English. Some of us have enough sense to look to a dictionary to define words we're not familiar with, some don't have enough sense to use words that are concocted in the modern sense and we have to be continually educated in that respect to know the ever changing terminology. That isn't the case with the English of the KJB, those words are already and easily define. The understanding is simply given by the Holy Ghost in relation to spiritual things. What the mv advocates suggest is that we all learn modern terminology to uinderstand what men are trying to tell us what God has already said.

    Brush the mv's aside, let God be true and every man a liar.

    God's Word is given for Him to work and do the will of His good pleasure in men's lives. Why let men monkey around, second guess,and promote obscurity with what God uses to perfect the Christian?
     
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In a typical fashion when those who have nothing of substance to say, they turn to the ad hominem strategy. Such as: “Sorry you cannot understand the passage”.

    As it turns out it has backfired because your response clearly indicates that you are the one with the misunderstanding and deserves the ad hominem. It is not the “voice of harpers” but “the voice of harpers harping with their harps”.

    Then you assume that the citation you give for Genesis 1:1 is “your version”.
    But if it were, I might ask you a similar question “Why doesn’t the KJV follow the inspired Hebrew and use the word “heavens” instead of “heaven”?

    To which (IMO) you previously had rationalized with an incorrect and rhetorical answer.

    On the contrary, it is a very important point that the original Hebrew is plural and that the English text should indicate such unless of course one has an agenda of rationalization instead of accuracy which is made obvious by the fact that when the tables are turned and an mv makes what you consider a flawed translation of a word you say the following

    NKJV In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    NASB In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    RSV In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


    HankD
     
  4. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, Hank, Heaven is singular as the whole, yet containing what is referred to as the sections or "degrees of heaven" as in the degrees of hell. We don't refer to hell and hells. The same as Heaven is referred to as heavens, there is only ONE Heaven.

    You hung yourself in the "ad-hominem" anti-strategy.

    The voice is that of the harpers, accompanied by the harping of their harps. You simply don't understand the passage; you're the one who implied it's reading is redundant. Their voices are understood to have the melodic resemblence of harps while being played; this also shows the perfect harmony of the Gospels if you may. many understand this as the time immediately after the Great Reformation, whilst the Gospel thundered to all peoples near and far and the "voice" of many waters/ preachers of the Gospel and the Gospel witnesses/those redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, repeated over and over again that Jesus Saves!

    You do really miss out on a whole lot that the Lord has provided for us all through His Inspired Word we have in the English beknownst to all as the AV 1611 KJB.

    Sorry you say so much and never really come to the conclusion of the Truth.

    Simple logic: just who is it you reckon is playing these harps we see are heard? "Redeemed" would be the correct answer.

    Not HankD
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Then, by all means, feel free to use a Bible that is written in Elizabethan English. "MV'ers", as you put it, don't discourage you from doing so. What they discourage you from doing is forcing YOUR translation on ALL OTHER non-Elizabethan English speakers. Your doing so has no biblical support.

    And the KJV is different, how? I had to look up "botch" and "blains", and had to do research to find out that "brass" in 1611 is not the same as "brass" today.

    Ridiculous! The Bible was not written in ANY dialect of English. That's clear false doctrine. By that reckoning, YOU then also mock the Word of God by saying that contemporary English isn't "simple".

    in other words, you're upset that people realized you had a hidden agenda in the first post.

    Wait! I thought your beef was with the non-use of Elizabethan English. Now, you're sidetracking to a different issue. Make up your mind!

    But, according to you, we shouldn't have to, because Elizabethan English is "simple".

    Hmmm, sounds like you're saying the Elizabethan English is divinely inspired. More heresy.

    Then, why do you use modern English in your posts? Thou shouldst make use of KJV English, lest ye a hypocrite be.

    Yes, you've asserted in other threads that, if the King James translation differs from the source text (which it does by our standards), then the KJV supercedes the source text.

    And why do you insist on limiting the Holy Spirit to only one translation? Rather presumptuous.

    What "MV's" advocate is a bible that's written in today's language. The KJV is no longer the best selling Bible. Accept it. The NIV is now the purchased Bible of choice.

    In once sentence, you warp scripture. That verse has nothing to do with translations.

    The KJV is NOT God's word. It's a translation of God's word.
    The same reason the KJV translators "monkeyed around": To issue a translation in the language of the people of the time.

    I find it interesting that you push a translation that was so unpopular with the people, that it had to be forced upon them under penalty of imprisonment. If the Roman Catholic Church had done this, you'd be all over them like white on rice.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts, you keep evading the subject, by saying my question is silly. My point is: Where do you find it in the Bible that says it will be preserved in the ENGLISH language (whether Elizabethan or what?) If you are basing this on the MOST USED language then it would be preserved in Chinese? What is your baseline?
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    To clarify, the English spoken in international commerce is American Business English, not Elizabethan English of the KJV. The KJV English is a dead dialect. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong! It is very much alive and the mv advocates have been trying to kill it for nearly 130 years to support their misleading and confusing versions. </font>[/QUOTE]Another KJVO "strawman". The point was that the languages were in this order according to use:

    1. Chinese
    2. American business English
    3. Spanish

    If old English were to be added to the list, it would no doubt be down VERY LOW on the list.

    If MV's are destroying the old English, then whoever translated the Vulgate, destroyed Latin.

    In other words, you must be admitting that the old English is only kept alive through the KJV?
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    2 Corinthians 12:2
    I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    Like “There is only ONE heaven” with whom the Apostle Paul and the Hebrew Scriptures disagree.

    I would say that this might be an acceptable application of the passage (post Great Reformation). Whether it is the specific and singular interpretation is another issue.

    I don’t believe that the Great Reformation went far enough in doctrinal purity.
    Most Protestant Churches coming out of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) still cling to the Romish doctrines which include paedo-baptism, and an erroneous view of the priesthood of believers vs a “ministerial” priesthood, the autonomy of the local Church, The Lord’s Supper, etc.

    As to the “harpers”, these “harpers” sing as it were a “new song” which is a signification of who/what they are and are equated with the 144,000 redeemed from the earth, elsewhere referred to as those sealed of all “the tribes of the children of Israel”.

    Psalm 137
    By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
    We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
    For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
    How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

    Revelation 7:4
    And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    Revelation 14:1
    And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
    And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

    BTW, I never said redundancy was wrong.

    "Inconsistencies" is also another issue, the KJV translators often translated the koine phone as sometimes "voice" or sometimes "sound" occassionally within the same passage which is perfectly acceptable if it aligns with the context. In the Revelation 14:2 passage they translate phone as "voice" throughout.

    I believe the NASB does the better job here...

    And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps.

    You may now commence the "rending" and "trampling".

    HankD
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Since Heaven contains the "heavens" you have no real point </font>[/QUOTE]That is your interpretation. But that is not what the text says. The KJV interpretation mistranslated the text and made it singular when the text is plural. Is that not taking liberty with the text? Aren't you in favor of a more literal translation? Just look at what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 12:2, " I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven."

    After reading 2 Cor. 12:2 now how would you make the comparison between that verse and your statement of, "Since Heaven contains the "heavens" you have no real point?" Doesn't it seems like the Jewish Paul would differ with you?
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's nothing to debate. I believe the Bible to be 100% true, and divinely inspired. Homebound and I disagree, however, with application of cultural context and intend of the writing, in regards to Genesis 1. Homebound makes the false claim that, since I don't interpret it in the same manner that he does, then I don't believe the Bible. That's a ridiculous, and rather selfrighteous, statement. Further, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv, do you believe the things in Genesis 1 actually happened or not?
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Corinthians 12:2
    I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    Like “There is only ONE heaven” with whom the Apostle Paul and the Hebrew Scriptures disagree.

    I would say that this might be an acceptable application of the passage (post Great Reformation). Whether it is the specific and singular interpretation is another issue.

    I don’t believe that the Great Reformation went far enough in doctrinal purity.
    Most Protestant Churches coming out of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) still cling to the Romish doctrines which include paedo-baptism, and an erroneous view of the priesthood of believers vs a “ministerial” priesthood, the autonomy of the local Church, The Lord’s Supper, etc.

    As to the “harpers”, these “harpers” sing as it were a “new song” which is a signification of who/what they are and are equated with the 144,000 redeemed from the earth, elsewhere referred to as those sealed of all “the tribes of the children of Israel”.

    Psalm 137
    By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
    We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
    For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
    How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

    Revelation 7:4
    And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    Revelation 14:1
    And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
    And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

    BTW, I never said redundancy was wrong.

    "Inconsistencies" is also another issue, the KJV translators often translated the koine phone as sometimes "voice" or sometimes "sound" occassionally within the same passage which is perfectly acceptable if it aligns with the context. In the Revelation 14:2 passage they translate phone as "voice" throughout.

    I believe the NASB does the better job here...

    And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps.

    You may now commence the "rending" and "trampling".

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry to see you think so highly of yourself and so little of me. You really should think little of me, I do.

    I agree with you for the most part, but the "nasb" isn't complete in the translation, the KJB is.

    The thought given IS that the harpers were singing along with their harping. We're not talking about the "Wind" causing the harps to sing, we're talking about the 144,000 Redeemed singing a new song. Will they actually play harps? We'll see!

    I just believe by your preferring the reading from the NasV, that you fail to see the pure eloquence of the passage.

    Now if that's "rending" and "trampling", then watch out! Oxen treading out the corn have been known to trample and rend when necessary. (But I know you are actually calling me swine; Welcome to the club!) [​IMG]

    [ March 18, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Precepts ]
     
  12. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since Heaven contains the "heavens" you have no real point </font>[/QUOTE]That is your interpretation. But that is not what the text says. The KJV interpretation mistranslated the text and made it singular when the text is plural. Is that not taking liberty with the text? Aren't you in favor of a more literal translation? Just look at what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 12:2, " I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven."

    After reading 2 Cor. 12:2 now how would you make the comparison between that verse and your statement of, "Since Heaven contains the "heavens" you have no real point?" Doesn't it seems like the Jewish Paul would differ with you?
    </font>[/QUOTE]You're running a tangent here, Sir, and you don't understand the defintion of "Heaven" fully and are forcing it to be singular when it is NOT ever. When one refers to 1,2,3 or if there are as many as 7-13 "heavens", "Heaven" still refers to them all. In like manner, "earth" refers to ALL earth, not just the planet Earth. Learn something. Set your "mv" ego aside and understand the obvious. [​IMG]
     
  13. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely wrong. When Paul writes about the third "heaven" he is not referring to them all. Your position is easily disproven.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I believe Genesis 1, as well as the remaining 65 books, actually happenned. I've never said otherwise. Still, I fail to see what that has to do with the preservation issue of the topic.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Welcome to the club of innuendo Precepts? How does it feel? While I have noticed (FWIW) a ramping down of the insult and innuendo on your part, whatever suits you Precepts, that is what you will do because you can't resist.

    Or

    Matthew 12
    35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
    36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
    37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    HankD
     
  16. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I believe Genesis 1, as well as the remaining 65 books, actually happenned. I've never said otherwise. Still, I fail to see what that has to do with the preservation issue of the topic. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, have you changed your mind since this:

    "Nonsense! I don't believe Genesis 1 was written to be a factual historical account. I steadfastly put God's word ahead of human mind."

    or

    "I have always understood Gen1 to be non-literal truth, rather than literal fact."
     
  17. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the club of innuendo Precepts? How does it feel? While I have noticed (FWIW) a ramping down of the insult and innuendo on your part, whatever suits you Precepts, that is what you will do because you can't resist.

    Or

    Matthew 12
    35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
    36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
    37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Neither can you resist. How is that handle on your hatchet anyway?

    It may help you to respond without all the disdain if you'll quit reading things into my posts and rehashing old vices.

    God Bless. Consider. Jesus came not into the world to CONDEMN the world, but that through him the world might be saved; so who is it you're acting like? The accuser of the brethren? Documentation proves it.
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I have not. Having an understanding of Gen1 in the context they were intended (which is non-literal truth, not literal fact) does not mean Gen1 didn't happen. You and I simply diagree with the interpretation of Gen1.

    Again, you ignore my major contention: This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Kindly discontinue hijacking this thread, and return to the topic. I have no real interest in discussing Genesis, since the topic is generally devisive amongst the brethren, and produces little fruit. Please get back to the topic at hand, which is preservation.
     
  19. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please don't tell me you're in the business of saving people. I don't think that Hank was condemning you at all, but acting within his role as a Christian to show you how you are acting incorrectly. He has pointed out quite correctly that you are known for your innuendo and insult above anything else. And there is most certainly documentation for that.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps you should consider your beam before dealing with Hank's speck.

    You can look through Hank's posts and find that his normal mode is fair and gentle. The same cannot be said of you.
     
Loading...