Christianity 101 Are All Bibles Equal (Revised)

jbearnolimits · Jun 27, 2015

The last time I posted about Christianity 101 and spoke of the different Bible translations there was some information that came to light which I had not addressed in that article. So I thought I would share what I have now changed and see again what the thoughts are.

Here are the new studies and remember that they all go in order. I encourage you not to shut your ears if you see something you disagree with since the reason you disagree may be addressed after you have read it...but you wouldn't even notice because you had already shut your ear.

Unit 1:4 - Can we trust the Bible?

Unit 1:4a - What version of the Bible is best?

Unit 1:4b - Why Do We Need The Bible?

Unit 1:4c - Where Did The Bible Come From?

Unit 1:4d - The Differences Between Bible Translations.

ZaidaBoBaida · Jun 27, 2015

Let me guess, you're a King Jimmy only person?

jbearnolimits · Jun 27, 2015

ZaidaBoBaida said:
Let me guess, you're a King Jimmy only person?

If I were, and you were not, would that cause you to automatically shut your ears and turn away from me? Or could you examine what I have to say in order to either teach me more clearly or test your own beliefs?

PaladinValer · Jun 27, 2015

KJV-Oism has long been debunked as without merit. It is a PRATT idea.

ZaidaBoBaida · Jun 27, 2015

I do think some translations are better than others, but IMHO King Jimmy is at best a mediocre translation.

PaladinValer · Jun 27, 2015

ZaidaBoBaida said:
I do think some translations are better than others, but IMHO King Jimmy is at best a mediocre translation.

Well let's all be fair here.

The fact that the KJV is based on now-proven-to-be-inferior sources has nothing to do with its translation of those texts. And really, we're talking about inferiority due to accidental scribal insertions of what we would call today "study notes" and "footnotes" (which only goes to show how ancient the idea of a "Study Bible" actually is!) or accidental copying from other places. And that's only part of the time; some of it is genuinely coming from the Byzantine textual family.

The KJV is an excellent translation of the Greek texts into early modern English.

The real, crushing trump of the KJV-Oism is that of my church, the Anglican Church, under whose auspices it was translated for the sole purpose of being the next Authorized Version for all religious rites, rituals, liturgies, and for all readings of Holy Scripture for official ecclesiastical and civil use (that's what AV actually means, by the way). And we hardly read it in the same way that theory's adherents do. So that alone destroys their theories.

topcare · Jun 27, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
If I were, and you were not, would that cause you to automatically shut your ears and turn away from me?

Yes, yes it is

jbearnolimits · Jun 27, 2015

topcare said:
Yes, yes it is

Just thought I would put this quote from one of those links here in response to this type of thing:

"Like I said, what if we already believe one of the other “prophets?” This can taint our view of every other prophet, including the Bible. Since we already believe we know what is true we immediately shut our ears to anything else.

"This is thought of as safe and that is why we do this. But, it is actually dangerous to us. It seems safe because if we DO actually believe something that is true then we can not be swayed by being tricked. But it is dangerous because if we DON’T actually believe something that is true then we can not be swayed by being shown real truth.

"To have real safety we need to be solid enough in our belief that we are able to stand against tricks when they come, instead of shutting our ears. I have found that often when we do not listen to others it is often not because we know they are wrong, it is because we believe we are right and don’t want to entertain any thought otherwise. Again, this is because we don’t really have as solid a belief as we want to think that we do.

"After we open our ears we will see exactly how strong or weak we are. If we are weak then we will have an opportunity to explore the area of weakness to become stronger. If we are strong then we can rest even more sure knowing that what we believe is true beyond any doubt."

ken777 · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
The last time I posted about Christianity 101 and spoke of the different Bible translations there was some information that came to light which I had not addressed in that article. So I thought I would share what I have now changed and see again what the thoughts are.

Here are the new studies and remember that they all go in order. I encourage you not to shut your ears if you see something you disagree with since the reason you disagree may be addressed after you have read it...but you wouldn't even notice because you had already shut your ear.

Unit 1:4 - Can we trust the Bible?

Unit 1:4a - What version of the Bible is best?

Unit 1:4b - Why Do We Need The Bible?

Unit 1:4c - Where Did The Bible Come From?

Unit 1:4d - The Differences Between Bible Translations.

May I ask you where you stand on the authenticity of the story of the woman caught in adultery? John 8:3-11

.

jbearnolimits · Jun 28, 2015

ken777 said:
May I ask you where you stand on the authenticity of the story of the woman caught in adultery? John 8:3-11

.

Only if I can ask you a question first. Why was this story included in the KJV?

ken777 · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
Only if I can ask you a question first. Why was this story included in the KJV?

I believe it is authentic and has a number of lessons to teach us about forgiveness, the role of the law, and self-righteousness. I am simply inquiring into the arguments for & against its inclusion.

jbearnolimits · Jun 28, 2015

ken777 said:
I believe it is authentic and has a number of lessons to teach us about forgiveness, the role of the law, and self-righteousness. I am simply inquiring into the arguments for & against its inclusion.

I agree. Of course this didn't answer my question to you. I am curious as to the reason behind you asking to be honest. Do you believe it should or should not be included?

But here is the thing about all of this...what is the message the Bible tries to deliver, and is it consistent in doing so? No, we don't have the original texts penned by Paul, Moses, and others in the Bible. But we do have the message they delivered. It has been copied, translated, and past down through the generations. To test the Bible and the documents it was translated from we have to test the message itself.

I speak English, but if I sent a message to Mexico it would need to be delivered through a translator. Testing the translator's ability to speak both English and Spanish doesn't matter if the message itself has been changed. You have to know me so that I can tell you if the message is the same one I sent.

graceandpeace · Jun 28, 2015

In the previous thread, the OP was told point blank that the KJV belongs to Anglicanism & that Anglicanism has never held to the claims of "KJV-only" ideology. The faith tradition that created the KJV does not support that idea. That should really be all that needs to be said.

jbearnolimits · Jun 28, 2015

graceandpeace said:
In the previous thread, the OP was told point blank that the KJV belongs to Anglicanism & that Anglicanism has never held to the claims of "KJV-only" ideology. The faith tradition that created the KJV does not support that idea. That should really be all that needs to be said.

Did you read the articles? All of them?

ken777 · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
I agree. Of course this didn't answer my question to you. I am curious as to the reason behind you asking to be honest. Do you believe it should or should not be included?

But here is the thing about all of this...what is the message the Bible tries to deliver, and is it consistent in doing so? No, we don't have the original texts penned by Paul, Moses, and others in the Bible. But we do have the message they delivered. It has been copied, translated, and past down through the generations. To test the Bible and the documents it was translated from we have to test the message itself.

I speak English, but if I sent a message to Mexico it would need to be delivered through a translator. Testing the translator's ability to speak both English and Spanish doesn't matter if the message itself has been changed. You have to know me so that I can tell you if the message is the same one I sent.

I believe the story is authentic, so yes, I believe it should be included in John's Gospel. I asked the question because I recently came across an article arguing against its inclusion.

PaladinValer · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
Did you read the articles? All of them?

They are null and void to the fact that the KJV is Anglican and no KJV-O advocate interprets it the way its translators did or the church still does. That is why it is not a true belief.

jbearnolimits · Jun 28, 2015

PaladinValer said:
They are null and void to the fact that the KJV is Anglican and no KJV-O advocate interprets it the way its translators did or the church still does. That is why it is not a true belief.

It sounds like you are saying that because a certain denomination used the KJV it is invalid. Is that what you are trying to say? I am just having a hard time understanding why the Bible (composed of texts from before any Anglican denomination) belongs only to that one denomination. Could you please explain?

topcare · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
It sounds like you are saying that because a certain denomination used the KJV it is invalid. Is that what you are trying to say? I am just having a hard time understanding why the Bible (composed of texts from before any Anglican denomination) belongs only to that one denomination. Could you please explain?

I'll help. Because the Anglican Church came out with the Authorized King James Version, it is a product of Anglicanism but others took it and made it into a virtual idol when it was not theirs to begin with and have come up with all kinds of wild ideas.

PaladinValer · Jun 28, 2015

jbearnolimits said:
It sounds like you are saying that because a certain denomination used the KJV it is invalid. Is that what you are trying to say? I am just having a hard time understanding why the Bible (composed of texts from before any Anglican denomination) belongs only to that one denomination. Could you please explain?

Read my post again...this is a Straw Man.

jbearnolimits · Jun 28, 2015

ken777 said:
I believe the story is authentic, so yes, I believe it should be included in John's Gospel. I asked the question because I recently came across an article arguing against its inclusion.

Here is the answer to that question. This is actually a quote taken from http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html.

"That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate."

To explain this in even more simple terms let me break this down.

Even the writter of the Latin Vulgate admits to this story being in earlier manuscripts and that is why he included it into the Latin Vulgate. It has been said that the KJV had to use the Vulgate to include this story. But there is no reason to believe it could not also have been included without the Vulgate since even Jerome had to get his information from some place too.

Now I do have to make it a point that I will no longer spend any more time on this subject since it has been very evident that many here have chosen to speak rather than listen. I have better things to do than to spend my time speaking into the air.

So for those who are willing to listen and follow along I will continue to share from the course in another thread. For those who do not want to listen...well, I can't make you pay attention.

Christianity 101 Are All Bibles Equal (Revised)

Pastor

When do I stop being a Newbie?

Pastor

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

When do I stop being a Newbie?

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

The Eucharist is Life

Pastor

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Pastor

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Pastor

Episcopalian

Pastor

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Pastor

The Eucharist is Life

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Pastor

Similar threads