Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
NKJV is a decent one for modern English. I believe every language should have one majority text translation used so all read the same scripture. I have yet to see a version that comes close to the cultural and theological significance of the KJV..
Although just for good measure I own multiple Bible versions.I own KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV,and GNT Bibles.
Why did you provide this information without a link to the specific church that produced it?
Have you read this recent article of November 16, 2013, 'Why Calvinistic Southern Baptists are Not Reformed'?
Oz
Did you note that you did with your response?NKJV is a decent one for modern English. I believe every language should have one majority text translation used so all read the same scripture. I have yet to see a version that comes close to the cultural and theological significance of the KJV..
Although just for good measure I own multiple Bible versions.I own KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV,and GNT Bibles.
Therefore, your response is a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this.Could not the statement about the KJV Bible also be regarded as theological baggage? Repent, trust God, be baptised and live our faith, can be obtained just as easily from the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV and other translations.
I am not very careful then I would suppose, I will use the same words again, MOST CHURCHES
Did you note that you did with your response?
This was my statement to which you replied:
Therefore, your response is a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this.
When you get back to answering precisely what I wrote, then we can get back on track with a reasonable discussion.
Oz
As I say every time a Baptist comes up with the hooey of the State-given KJV; the Geneva. It simply thrashes the KJV on cultural and theological significance and lines up with the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.
When you don't reply to what I wrote and go off at your tangent - the subject you want to discuss - you have committed a red herring logical fallacy.As long as those verses line up with the majority text then yes you could use those versions.
Could not the statement about the KJV Bible also be regarded as theological baggage? Repent, trust God, be baptised and live our faith, can be obtained just as easily from the NASB, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV and other translations.
Oz
The ESV, NIV & NLT are based on earlier NT MSS evidence than the KJV. So do you mean that there is an 85% similarity between the KJV and English translations based on earlier MSS evidence?If you want a simple answer,yes the other versions are close enough 85% similar to the majority text that the basic Christian message can be gotten and utilized.
Also 95% of 5,300 manuscripts in existence line up with the TR while a few old throw away scripts do not.
This is more proof we should go back to the TR.
We can go Sola Scriptura with one Scripture if we have the original text. But we don't have it. So we need to compare the earliest copies.Earlier dose not mean more accurate. Plus God preserved his word through the majority text which matches most old manuscripts available. Augustine and the reformers used the majority text. Should a foot note be added saying a few manuscripts do not have text A or B? Sure , but to throw out scripture proved by time is a affront to God's word. Plus we cannot be Solo Scriptura unless we agree in one scripture to use. All Protestants long ago decided the TR is that scripture.
When Erasmus compiled what became known as the Textus Receptus (TR) , he had not one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. So what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.There are places where what is commonly called the TR (that which is published by the TBS) has absolutely no manuscript evidence John 5:7-8 is one of these places. There are a differences between the TR and the MT and the EO-PT
I do like how the link you provide doesn't actually deny the credobaptist position, we do not believe that men should be Baptised twice and neither do you, nor would you presume to make that claim of us.
Do you understand the differences between paedobaptist and Baptist federalism that leads Confessional/Particular Baptists to their credobaptist position?
There are places where what is commonly called the TR (that which is published by the TBS) has absolutely no manuscript evidence John 5:7-8 is one of these places. There are a differences between the TR and the MT and the EO-PT
When Erasmus compiled what became known as the Textus Receptus (TR) , he had not one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. So what did he do? He translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek.
Since that time, earlier MSS have been found than 10th century MSS used in TR and not one of those MSS has agreed word-for-word with Erasmus's Greek translation.
I will not be accepting the TR as the most reliable NT Greek MSS.
Oz
False, the Codex Frisingensis a 500 AD manuscript has it.
Yes, I do understand the differences between paedobaptist vs credobaptist and the covenant theology associated with Baptist federalism.I do like how the link you provide doesn't actually deny the credobaptist position, we do not believe that men should be Baptised twice and neither do you, nor would you presume to make that claim of us.
Do you understand the differences between paedobaptist and Baptist federalism that leads Confessional/Particular Baptists to their credobaptist position?
Yes, I do understand the differences between paedobaptist vs credobaptist and the covenant theology associated with Baptist federalism.
I'm not exactly sure what questions you are asking or comments you are making here. Your clarification would be appreciated.
While I have a Baptist icon associated with my name, I have included it because I am Baptistic (which CF allows). I'm ordained with the denomination of A B Simpson, A W Tozer, and Ravi Zacharias - the Christian & Missionary Alliance (C&MA). The C&MA is much closer to Presbyterian church government with its rule by a plurality of elders and functional deacons.
Having said that, my wife and I were married in a Baptist church and we've been Baptist for a reasonable portion of our married life.
I'd appreciate your further clarification of the issues you are raising.
In Christ,
Oz
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?