• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Is all the Bible scripture?

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 8, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    When we defend the King James Version, we do not place it on a level with other English Bible versions and then try to find out which version has the fewest mistakes. This would be to subjective. We must start out rather with the objective fact that the King James Version is preeminently the English Bible translation on which God has placed the stamp of His approval. Hence the King James Version must be regarded as correct unless it can be conclusively shown to be otherwise. Those who assail it must be required to prove their point. By demonstrating that they cannot do so we defend our historic English Bible.
     
  2. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    It is not objective fact - it is a personal/subjective assessment that is put forth as objective. Major difference. I'll still use the Greek and Hebrew to check any translation. Isn't that what the KJV translators did?

    And God has not placed his stamp of approval on the KJV any more than he has placed his stamp of approval on any other translation. By saying that I do not mean to imply that God has not placed his stamp of approval on any translation. Rather, one translation does not stand above all others as judge - only the Greek and Hebrew do that. And God's approval is when the Spirit uses the Word of God to create and sustain faith (1 Thes. 2:13, etc.)
     
  3. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    We are not much concerned about what man in general thinks of the King James Version, but we are very concerned about what GOD thinks of it!
    It has now been more than 390 years since its arrival into history in 1611, more than enough time to allow us to accurately look back and see the attitude God has had towards it since then.
    A very brief examination of its fruitful history should convince any unbiased person that God's attitude towards it has been very favorable. It is clearly the English Bible He has placed His stamp of approval on at the expense of all others. In the following pages we will present some of the virtues that account for its superiority.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Always correct the Greek with the English.
     
  4. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Ed:

    Because you believe that the KJV is flawless, then there is no reason to tell you where the flaws are. I myself have seen many flaws in the KJV, and I know for sure, that they indeed do cause great influence upon the reader . These influences also cause confusion, and confusion is not of God.

    I have also found out right deception in the KJV. I have found whole verses that were added into the text, that in no way were part of the hand written Greek manuscripts.

    Why would God put his hand of approval on something that "man" has made ?

    Does not your car break down eventually ?

    Can you truly trust a salesman's words ?

    Were not the KJV translators trying to promote their beliefs within their own translation ? I know for a fact , that they did. But you wouldn't believe it !

    Does this make the KJV a bad translation ? NO - but it is not of God either ! God's word is pure, tried in a furnace seven times . The translations are not even tried in a furnace once !

    There are mysteries with in the Word of God , that never change ! This is how -- God protected His Word.

    If you want to read your translation without flaw, you need to learn and understand the mysteries within the Word of God ! !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  5. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +71
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    edjones,

    "When we defend the King James Version, we do not place it on a level with other English Bible versions and then try to find out which version has the fewest mistakes. This would be to subjective. We must start out rather with the objective fact that the King James Version is preeminently the English Bible translation on which God has placed the stamp of His approval. Hence the King James Version must be regarded as correct unless it can be conclusively shown to be otherwise. Those who assail it must be required to prove their point. By demonstrating that they cannot do so we defend our historic English Bible."

    Sorry but you are making the assertion. you must show us why you think that the King James version is the only God ordained version. Or why the IV, NASB, etc. are not correct translations. You can't ask me to prove that what you say is false. You must prove what you say is true. Or atleast point out reasons why it is more reasonable to accept what you say as truth.

    See this is why a chrstian can't demand that an atheist prove that God does not exist. An atheist can't do it. So please show me reasons why I should belive what you say. Do not say here is my assertion it is up to you to disprove it if not then it is true.

    blackhaw6
     
  6. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Perhaps you want to go back and study history a little better. For at least 50 years after the translation was complete, the KJV was not considered the one with God's stamp of approval.

    And the only thing that makes it "authorized" is the fact that a secular King who had his own agenda "authorized" it.

    As for 390 years, because the Pharaohs reigned supreme over the Hebrews for 400 years, does not mean that God "approved" of Pharaoh.

    So, did you get a special message direct from God that the KJV has his approval? Or is the approval of selected people over the centuries equal to God's approval?
     
  7. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    We all know there is no such thing as "THE GREEK TEXT." There never has been. When John wrote his original "Greek text" (90 A.D.) there wasn't one Greek text on earth that contained Paul's original of 1Thessalonians or Galatians, and if there was it wasn't in any book containing "THE GREEK TEXTS" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Peter. "THE GREEK TEXT," like Santa Claus and the Big Bad Wolf, is stuck in the chimney. There are about thirty Greek texts: Mill, Walton, Fell, Tischendorf, Griesbach, Semler, Hug, Lachmann, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Erasmus, Colinaeus, Elzevir, Alford, Souter, Beza, etc.). But the term is a "historic position" because it suggests, without SAYING it, that the ONE ("THE") true Greek text is in the hands of a depraved Bible critic who is altering your King James Bible. There are no exceptions to this rule: not one.

    This explains why people have such a fit when you suggest that an uneducated man CAN correct "the Greek" with the English. Their sudden blaze of self-righteous, holy indignation and Fundamentalist zeal to protect "the original languages" appears to be sound Christian reasoning. The lie has been so firmly implanted in the minds of the laymen that they are simply carried away with the "logic" of it when the apostate roars, "Blasphemy! Who ever heard of such a thing? "Heresy! Why, think of correcting the God-given language of the Holy Spirit with a translation!" "Catholicism! This is what Rome did by using the Latin instead of going to THE ORIGINAL GREEK!" Und so weiter.
     
  8. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Really? Paul might be interested in hearing about that!

    No kidding? What happened to the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts that you claim support the Textus Receptus/KJV position?

    Actually you have indicated texts that have been printed. When referring to Greek manuscripts it denotes hand written texts (primarily before the invention of the printing press.
     
  9. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +71
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    ed,

    I am still waiting for real evidence that states that the version that you like is the only one that God has ordained.

    blackhaw6
     
  10. Optimus_P

    Optimus_P Super Umpa Lumpa

    585
    +1
    mmmm you know to say that only one version is tru i hope you read aremec/hebrew/greek cuz you can only goto the orignal documents.

    I trust my NASB Study Bible is pretty darn close (closer then someof the other translations) but my friends father whom has read quite a few of the translations says they pretty much all say the same thing minus this and minus that.

    You also have to keep in mind they source of the translation, and its intended purpose. Some translations are ment for easy reading and posses much of the authors comments inplace of facts. Others are ment to be taken as the Word of God. To say all are false but 1 i would say then goto the orignal documents. We could debate all day on which is right which is wrong mine says this yours says that. but does it not say let us not quarrel over soemthing that does not matter. Will it matter in 5 years? What we do know is the CORE principles of God and Jesus are all the same no matter what version you read. It is all the little things that people quarrled over that now give us so many denominations to choose from. Which one is right which one is wrong.......


    here is a little faq on translations: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/62717165?page=73521&sp=1003
     
  11. lig75

    lig75 New Member

    33
    +0
    Christian
    filosofer, I was, that was how I knew. God Bless
     
  12. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY?



    In order for God to be a good father that He should be towards His children, He must be the type of Father who talks to His children. I believe that God has made it perfectly clear what He has to say to us, as His children, through His written word. If we have only our feelings and our 'inner self' to turn to as we try to see what God would have to say to us, then we open ourselves to any 'inner self' or feeling that can exist, not truly knowing whether or not it is from God.

    God Inspired His Words...
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
    and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    II Tim 3:16

    ...by the Holy Ghost
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
    but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
    II Peter 1:21

    and Promised to Preserve Them for Us Today.
    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    Psalm 12:6,7

    We are to Speak the Same Thing...
    Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
    that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
    but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
    I Cor 1:10

    ...the very words of Jesus Christ.
    If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,
    even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
    He is proud, knowing nothing...whereof cometh...Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,
    and destitute of the truth...
    I Tim 6:3-5

    We then must study His words to be approved of God.
    Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
    a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
    rightly dividing the word of truth.
    II Tim 2:15
     
  13. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    NO-ONE assailed the AKJV. There are persons who assert the AV to be the sole authorised version of the Bible - it is that assertion that is "assailed," though in truth, "assailed" is not the correct word. If no-one had opened fire on the other versions, no fire would have been levelled at the BELIEF (erroneous and self-aggrandising) BELIEF that the AV is the only acceptable English language version. It is not possible to be the aggrieved when all that has been received is return fire.

    As has already been demonstrated in this forum to some small extent, the people making these assertions DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF THE AV - and in this I am NOT referring to the people like Ed Jones - I am referring to the people who set themselves up as clueless teachers to the unstable, teachers who KNOW LESS THAN I DO about the correct interpretations of word and grammar (which is a level of ignorance VERY hard to achieve.)

    It has been said by these wild storm waves at sea - and despite the fact that the translators of the AV themselves stated that they translated the New Testament from the Greek texts, that they had made EVERY POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE GREEK TEXTS - that where the AV varies from the Greek, the Greek is in error.
     
  14. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Many in our day say, "Well, we have to have a new version, because we have to have a Bible that we can understand today. The children struggle with the King James. We need something easy for them to understand. Bla...Bla...Bla..."

    This simply is not true. Harvard University analyzed various versions of the Bible, and they found the King James Bible was written at an 6th grade reading level. They found the NIV was written at the eleventh grade reading level. And all the other versions would require a college education for a complete comprehension. That is right, the Living Bible requires a college education for complete comprehension. Any sixth grader can read the King James Bible.

    Also, the new versions have many more multi-type syllable words than does the KJV. They also have several more words that are three and four syllables than does the KJV.

    Using the Fleisher/Kincaid Scale, Harvard University determined that the King James Bible is the easiest of all the Bibles in the English language to read.
     
  15. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Easiest to read - perhaps - but only if one remembers to always consider the changes to the meanings of words that have occurred in the past 3-400 years. "Study" = "be dliigent" when one is reading the AV. The word retains some of its original meaning when it is rendered as "be studious" as in - "studiously ignore a comment." or "apply oneself studiously to a task" - but altogether too many people think "study" means no more than to examine.

    Study is not the only word to have changed (its perceived) definition over the past rew centuries: there are a number of words which can lead people to erroneous conclusions if the alterations are not kept carefully in mind. Even "in" is not perceived in quite the same way now that it was in 1611.

    Nor are the presence of polysyllabic words the only determinants in reading ease. Words can be checked in a dictionary. The greatest difficulty in reading the AV is not the words used (though they can cause problems enough of themselves), but the (by 20-21st century standards) convoluted grammar. (which even modern language versions have difficulty in bringing to a more sensible (by 19th century definition - check dictionary for meaning) form)
     
  16. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Any documentation for these assertions?
     
  17. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Even the World Rejects the New Versions

    For 300 years if you asked Joe Smuck on the street what the Word of God was he would tell you it was the Bible. And the Bible he would have in mind would have been the King James Bible. Even today most people still consider the KJV to be THE Bible. The average person in the English speaking world has not accepted the new versions.

    In fact, many lost people loose respect for Christians because they feel that if we really loved the Bible we would not re-write it every six months. This is because in their mind the KJV is the Word of God and the new versions are unneeded perversions of God's Book. It would appear that Joe Smuck has more spiritual wisdom in this matter than does Dr. Seminary Chairman.

    Additionally, many secular commentators are writing to warn Christians to stop re-writing the Word of God lest it result in the end of Christianity as we know it, the demoralizing of American culture, etc. While every denomination in America is re-writing the Bible to make it more "teen friendly;" TIME and NEWSWEEK are begging them to stop confusing wayward youth with 120 "versions" and just go back to the Bible that built our country and made it great.

    "Christianity's" continous re-writing of the Bible has not made it so that more people will understand and therefore read the Bible. Instead, the multitude of "versions" has resulted in the a bad testimony to the world that has caused multitudes to reject the Bible and Christianity altogether. This is another folly of the new version crowd which the media is often quick to point out in its commentary on Christianity.

    Time does not allow us to quote from a number of magazines and newspapers. But here is one for the sake of illustration: "If no one any longer reads the same words on the same page, on what basis will people talk to and understand each other? Will easy-read Bibles, rendering ancient mysteries and miracles in sitcom terms, inspire awe or channel surfing?" (TIME, 9/9/96)

    And one more, this one was from the Wall Street Journal, "To tamper with the King James Bible, based on some imagined manuscript evidence, is like adjusting Big Ben to somebody's private wrist watch."
     
  18. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    So how much of the Bible have you translated? I have translated all of the New Testament (except parts of Hebrews and Jude) from Greek. Your assessment doesn't quite ring true.

    I have also translated portions of the Old Testament from Hebrew (Genesis, some Psalms, parts of Isaiah, Amos, part of Jeremiah). Your assessment regarding the Old Testament doesn't ring true.
     
  19. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit

    1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

    Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
     
  20. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    filosofer:

    At this juncture, I would say it is still one man's belief against another !

    However, we could get into what your source was that you did your translation from, and we could contend that the source was not very good, depending upon which source it was.

    We could go on and on and on about stupid things like this. But is that profitable ?

    I think your argument is with Ed , who believes that the KJV is flawless.

    I only contend, that all translations have in some way tried to destroy the Word of God. The KJV is no different ! But the other one's are so bad, that that makes the KJV look great ! !

    Love In Christ - Hervey
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...