Bible Versions

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I like "Dr." Sam Gipp's massive audience in the video.

 

[Cachook]

SpiritualAnaseptic, none of what you said about Ruckamn is true. He believes abortion is wrong, but that a baby isn't a baby until he breathes his first breath. The rest is absolute hogwash. Your real problem is that you cannot stand the idea of a perfect Bible, or a perfect God which you cannot control. A perfect Bible means you must subjugate yourself it that Bible, and follow it without altering it or making it say what you want or what you feel the Bible ought to say. The facts are what they are. The New King James is a corrupted translation translated from corrupted texts, as are all modern renditions.
As for your childish quip, that is what tends to happen when a man stands before a church and preaches.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

SpiritualAnaseptic, none of what you said about Ruckamn is true. He believes abortion is wrong, but that a baby isn't a baby until he breathes his first breath. The rest is absolute hogwash. Your real problem is that you cannot stand the idea of a perfect Bible, or a perfect God which you cannot control. A perfect Bible means you must subjugate yourself it that Bible, and follow it without altering it or making it say what you want or what you feel the Bible ought to say. The facts are what they are. The New King James is a corrupted translation translated from corrupted texts, as are all modern renditions.
As for your childish quip, that is what tends to happen when a man stands before a church and preaches.

It's all true and easily verified. People who talk about a 'perfect bible', much less suggest it is the KJV show how little they know about the bible.

God's perfection does not require a perfect bible. Human language is imperfect and imprecise.

 

[Cachook]

It's all true and easily verified. People who talk about a 'perfect bible', much less suggest it is the KJV show how little they know about the bible.

God's perfection does not require a perfect bible. Human language is imperfect and imprecise.

If God, being perfect and all powerful could not preserve His Book, He isn't much of a God, now is He?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

If God, being perfect and all powerful could not preserve His Book, He isn't much of a God, now is He?

The book was written in human language. How does God prevent human language from changing without destroying free will?

 

[Cachook]

The book was written in human language. How does God prevent human language from changing without destroying free will?

How does one derail a thread? He asks endless questions because he does not want a genuine answer, but in the stead you do, if God CREATED languages at the Tower of Babel to stop the construction of that Tower, can't He do what He wishes with languages? We entered into a contractual agreement with Satan and God when man sinned. He accepts damnation and condemnation without salvation from sin, and accepts Satan's kingdom and complete governance over his life. Does not a father control what his child watches and reads because the child is his, and he or his wife bought the books which are in their home? Can the child choose to rebel? Yes, but he accepts the consequences for his rebellion. Does it violate his will, no.

 

[busdriver72]

Don't use my name in one quote and then quote someone else's post below it. It makes it appear as though I said that.

I'm sorry about that. I apologize. I meant no harm.

 

[busdriver72]

In Acts 2:5-13 the Lord deals with the language barrier very effectively. The Lord caused those of other languages to hear the word of God in their own language. The truth of the Lord is not locked into any one single language or any archaic form of that language. We had best not return to the early practice of the Roman Church by keeping it in a single language and pronouncing condemnation upon those that provide another translation. English is not a "pure" language...it is a hybrid of Anglo-Saxon, Latin, French and others. If you take today's vernacular (or "vulgar") and compare it to Wycliffe's English you would be hard pressed to recognize it.
It is wise to continue the ministry of the Reformers to keep God's message understandable to the "plow boy." Since no one has any original manuscripts to anything the endless arguing about manuscripts is unfruitful (and this includes the King James Bible...prove to me that the KJV you have is an unadulterated, unaltered copy of the original KJV...let's see the original manuscript.)
There is also the issue of translating. We underestimate how difficult it could be and that there are literally several ways to translate something. I recently read an example. There is a French phrase which translated directly, literally into English would read "I have a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] roach." But what the phrase means in French is "I am sad" or "I am depressed." Now...what is an accurate translation? Are you going to translate it literally, making people think you have a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] roach, or are you going to render the intended meaning of the phrase?
Even the translators of the KJV admitted that the Bible should be presented to the people in the "vulgar" (common, vernacular) form of the language. I recall in Acts 21-22 when Paul was arrested in the temple we know he could speak Greek and often communicated in Greek. But in chap 22 he stopped speaking in Greek and addressed the people in Hebrew. It reads that when they heard him speaking in Hebrew they became silent and listened. Paul switched to an entirely different language, and by nature of the different languages, a different translation...but the truth was still spoken...the message was the same. This emphasizes even more the need and the validity of keeping the Scriptures in a translation that is understandable to the vernacular of the current day.

 

[Faith.Man]

I just bought and received this NT translation from Amazon. It's a dual, parallel translation in Aramaic and English. Since I don't currently read Aramaic, I will be relying on the English equivalent. I haven't read any part of it yet, so I'll withhold any opinion until later.

http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Engli...2347875&sr=8-1&keywords=aramaic+new+testament

 

[Angeldove97]

MOD HAT ON

Small clean up of posts to get the thread back on topic!

Please remember:

Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

If you have an issue with how a member is posting, please PM about it instead of posting about it in this thread -or- if it's disruptive to the thread please report the post.

Thank you- please let me or another Staff member know if you have any questions!

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Pteriax]

I would say there are some good responses as what to read already, so let me add that I would NOT go with a paraphrase Bible such as the message, the voice, the living Bible, etc. I would also avoid cult translations such as the 'inspired version' and the new world translation. I would also avoid the RCC Jerusalem Bible due to its inclusion of the apocrypha as scripture. Also the 2011 print of the NIV whitewashed all the anti-homosexual references out of the New Testament, so don't bother with that one at all either.

 

[Unix]

It's not Roman-Catholic, it doesn't support Transubstantation, it's one of the very few ecumenical Bible versions:

I would also avoid the RCC Jerusalem Bible due to its inclusion of the apocrypha as scripture.

 

[Pteriax]

It's not Roman-Catholic, it doesn't support Transubstantation, it's one of the very few ecumenical Bible versions:

I must have the name wrong then. Any Bible that includes the apocrypha in the main text as scripture (as opposed to in an appendix in the back) I would avoid. The RCC never considered the apocrypha scripture until the council of Trent AFTER the reformation. No church father or early Christian ever saw it as scripture. That is the point I wanted to make about it. Thank you for catching the error.

 

[Unix]

Although there are a couple of Bible versions with similar names, that are completely different versions, You got the name right.
Well, early Christians read Sirach and 4 Ezra (the latter a book which is not included in the Jerusalem Bible, but is in the Apocrypha appendix in the Revised English Bible) a lot!
So how do You explain that?:

I must have the name wrong then. [...] or early Christian ever saw it as scripture. That is the point I wanted to make about it. Thank you for catching the error.

 

[Pteriax]

Well, early Christians read Sirach and 4 Ezra (the latter a book which is not included in the Jerusalem Bible, but is in the Apocrypha appendix in the Revised English Bible) a lot!
So how do You explain that?:

I would start by asking for a source to confirm your claim. Please. Then if you can provide it, I will research it and let you know what I think about it.

 

[Pteriax]

Also I know they read the apocryphal works, They just didn't include them as scripture. Maybe I wasn't clear on that point, the books were used historically but not as scripture.

 

[Jack Koons]

I have read all the posts on this thread and must admit I am not surprised by what I read. Most people only know what they have learned from others on this subject, without any real research and study on their own part.

Irregardless of the idea that any supporter of the King James is unlearned; I have found that the King James is superior for many reasons, and I regard it as God's perfect word for English speaking people.

I will probably start a thread on that subject to allow for those who believe otherwise to enlighten me on the subject.

Jack

 

[standingtall]

Even the translators of the KJV admitted that the Bible should be presented to the people in the "vulgar" (common, vernacular) form of the language.

Exactly; but you can't point that out to those who worship the KJV as if it were God Himself.

I say let them wallow in the muck and ignorance of their own silly little viewpoint. Facts don't matter to them, and there is no reasoning with them.

Yes, the KJV is a wonderful version of the bible that has been around for hundreds of years. But it's a VERSION of the Bible and not "THE Bible".

The version of the Bible an individual chooses to use has nothing to do with their salvation, status as a believer, or ability to worship as they feel lead.

 

[Jack Koons]

---Quote (Originally by busdriver72)---
I
Even the translators of the KJV admitted that the Bible should be presented to the people in the "vulgar" (common, vernacular) form of the language.
---End Quote---

The "vulgar" language that was being described by the translators of the KJV was English. The problem of the day (1604) was that English had left its infancy of the 6th century and actually become the language of the majority of the known world. While your proposal might seem to have merit on its surface, it was hardly the opinion of the KJV translators that the Bible should not only be in the 'parent' vulgar, but each modern dialect as well.

standingtall stated:

"Exactly; but you can't point that out to those who worship the KJV as if it were God Himself.

I say let them wallow in the muck and ignorance of their own silly little viewpoint. Facts don't matter to them, and there is no reasoning with them.

Yes, the KJV is a wonderful version of the bible that has been around for hundreds of years. But it's a VERSION of the Bible and not "THE Bible".

The version of the Bible an individual chooses to use has nothing to do with their salvation, status as a believer, or ability to worship as they feel lead."

Psalm 138
1 I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

The fact that God has chosen to magnify His word above all His name; I think it's probably a pretty good idea for me to give it the honor it deserves. But, that's just me.

"I say let them wallow in the muck and ignorance of their own silly little viewpoint. Facts don't matter to them, and there is no reasoning with them."

Yes, that is my "silly little viewpoint", magnify the word of God; well at least I'm keeping company with the Psalmist, you know the one ... David.

Did you say "Facts"?

And what "facts" have been shown that make my viewpoint so "silly"?

Jack

 

[standingtall]

Sorry, I refuse to argue with or waste my breath on KJV bible idolaters.