The KJVO Myth - Phony As A Ford Corvette !

[Radagast]

And I don't tell them that God told me to speak to them.

That was what I was recommending, yes.

So why are you telling me about it now?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't doubt private revelation in general; I doubt specific examples.

Just like I don't doubt that people find gold nuggets; but if anyone specific says they found one, I want photographic proof.



Peter did. Paul healed people and cast out demons.

The reason that the Apostles performed genuine signs and wonders was to conform what they said.

So, are you a Cessationist or a Continuationist?
On one hand you claim to accept supernatural revelation, but then claim that "genuine" miracles were signs performed by the Apostles (capital A) to confirm what they said. Inferring that miracles did not continue after the Apostles. (capital A)

 

[Saint Steven]

That was what I was recommending, yes.

So why are you telling me about it now?

Seriously?
I wasn't forbidden to tell anyone. But I wouldn't play the God card when speaking to someone. And God didn't give me a message ahead of time.

Frankly, I think we need to have these discussions among ourselves. I encourage people to learn to recognize God's voice and act on it. Have you never heard God speak to you?

Saint Steven said: ↑
And I don't tell them that God told me to speak to them.

 

[IntriKate]

This thread just confuses, it seems to be that no bible version is correct. I just ordered a 1611 kjv to try get as close to original as I could and now im not sure what to read or if i even want to bother.
If the different interpretations aren't already confusing enough now I have to wonder if the bible itself is even correct.
Ive never felt less of a Christian than i have since joining a Christian forum as far as knowing anything other than Yeshua loves us.

 

[Saint Steven]

This thread just confuses, it seems to be that no bible version is correct. I just ordered a 1611 kjv to try get as close to original as I could and now im not sure what to read or if i even want to bother.
If the different interpretations aren't already confusing enough now I have to wonder if the bible itself is even correct.
Ive never felt less of a Christian than i have since joining a Christian forum as far as knowing anything other than Yeshua loves us.

Don't put your trust in the work of humankind. Put your trust in the work of God. Since you know that "Yeshua loves us", that is enough.

The Bible is still good, but don't make it everything. If you want to get closer to the original, study the Greek and Hebrew. That's the original. Beyond that you have to trust the translators. Or that God will use what is written/printed to speak to you. This calls for discernment. Time to remove the training wheels and learn to ride the bicycle on your own. Just you and God.

 

[Radagast]

So, are you a Cessationist or a Continuationist?

Cessationist in the sense that I think that inerrant revelation, authoritative on the whole community, has ceased with the death of the 1st century Apostles.

 

[Radagast]

This thread just confuses, it seems to be that no bible version is correct.

The closest translation you can find to the original Greek and Hebrew would be the ESV.

But, be assured, most of the differences between various translations are airly minor.

However, you can gain a better understanding of tricky passages by comparing 2 or 3 different translations.

 

[robycop3]

I still see NO KJVOs stepping forward to try to defend the KJVO myth.

 

[Saint Steven]

Cessationist in the sense that I think that inerrant revelation, authoritative on the whole community, has ceased with the death of the 1st century Apostles.

Revelation wasn't inerrant even in the time of the Apostles.
Other than that, I agree with you. No one should be making revelatory proclamations above (or in conflict with) what we already have.

1 Corinthians 14:29-33
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

 

[Saint Steven]

Cessationist in the sense that I think that inerrant revelation, authoritative on the whole community, has ceased with the death of the 1st century Apostles.

To what degree are you Continuationist? Do you believe in healing and tongues?

 

[pescador]

The canon was adopted by all churches. The papacy wasn't dominate at the time. It has also remained largely consistent over the centuries. What you're calling for is chaos, with no one knowing what the word of God is with new revelation that is either redundant or irrelevant. Scripture is focused on one singular event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ which fulfills the one thing important to God.

You're wrong on two counts.

1) ... no one knowing what the word of God is with new revelation that is either redundant or irrelevant.

There is no problem knowing what the word of God is. 1) The entire Bible is considered to be the word of God. 2) Since God is continually "speaking" to humanity, new revelations have validity if they conform to the overall message of the Bible.

2) Scripture is focused on one singular event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ which fulfills the one thing important to God.

Apparently you haven't been reading your Bible. Scripture is focused on many events, all of which are important to God. 1) God has a people chosen as His own; first the Jews -- the root of the olive tree -- and then those who believe in the salvation given by God, 2) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which enabled believers to be adopted as children into His family, 3) the giving of the Holy Spirit to those who believe so that He can guide them into all truth, and last but not least, 4) the existence of the Bible, God's word in written form, to give us the ability to know Him and His works throughout history.

All of these things are important to God, not just one singular event.

 

[pescador]

Everything is biased. Even the Bible. Which was translated by Damnationists. But I plan to continue using it. Though I consider the source.

Translated by damnationists? Would you explain this further?

Personally I consider the translators of the Bible(s) as dedicated people who spent and are spending their lives as believers to bring us the Bible in its most accurate and understandable form.

 

[pescador]

We see 1n 1 Cor. 14 that Paul wrote about people's not understanding one another's speech. While I realize he was mostly writing here about "unknown tongues", the same principle applies. If I heard a Chinese preacher giving a sermon, I wouldn't understand a word he said; same for him if he were listening to me.

The KJV's English is difficult for many users of current English.

I totally agree with the last sentence. People stay with it because of tradition only. Nobody on the planet speaks or even thinks in such archaic language. That is a recipe for misinterpretation, e.g., "so what the Bible is really saying is..", meaning "my personal interpretation of 400-year-old English is totally accurate, so I'll tell you (literate) people what the Bible actually means".

 

[pescador]

Cessationist in the sense that I think that inerrant revelation, authoritative on the whole community, has ceased with the death of the 1st century Apostles.

So why did Jesus say that He would give us the Holy Spirit, who will guide us into all truth? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit could be wrong?

There is nothing in the Bible that supports your statement that inerrant revelation stopped in the 1st century.

 

[Saint Steven]

Translated by damnationists? Would you explain this further?

Personally I consider the translators of the Bible(s) as dedicated people who spent and are spending their lives as believers to bring us the Bible in its most accurate and understandable form.

Unfortunately there were some politics involved. Check out these quotes below.
I can give you an explanation of what I mean by the term "Damnationist" too you like. (let me know) Thanks.

One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is known today as the Nestle Text. Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."

St. Jerome wrote: "They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5).

 

[Saint Steven]

Personally I consider the translators of the Bible(s) as dedicated people who spent and are spending their lives as believers to bring us the Bible in its most accurate and understandable form.

I think that is true today. But the history of the original translations is a bit sketchy.

 

[pescador]

Unfortunately there were some politics involved. Check out these quotes below.
I can give you an explanation of what I mean by the term "Damnationist" too you like. (let me know) Thanks.

One of the most common biblical manuscripts used to make our modern English translations is known today as the Nestle Text. Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."

St. Jerome wrote: "They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Modern learned men, i.e., professional translators who use a variety of sources -- the older the better -- to translate the Bible are not chosen "to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned." That may have happened about 1700 years ago but it's irrelevant today concerning the great majority of modern translations.

BTW, I really like the NET Bible which has approximately 60,000(!) translators' notes to explain how the wording was arrived at, what the alternatives are, what some of the more difficult passages mean in context, etc. The latest version is 2.1 which has excellent formatting so that the text is clearly readable and is surrounded by the notes. It's available on Amazon in a variety of formats.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Modern learned men, i.e., professional translators who use a variety of sources -- the older the better -- to translate the Bible are not chosen "to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned." That may have happened about 1700 years ago but it's irrelevant today concerning the great majority of modern translations.

Even modern translations are influenced by previous translations. The Bible you were raised on forms your beliefs which informs your translation decisions. (bias)

 

[ClementofA]

Translated by damnationists? Would you explain this further?

Personally I consider the translators of the Bible(s) as dedicated people who spent and are spending their lives as believers to bring us the Bible in its most accurate and understandable form.

These posts would be a start to explaining things:

Could most modern translations be in error?

the finiteness of "eternal life" (aionon zoe) in John?

Examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek:

Two Questions
Does aionios always mean eternal in ancient Koine Greek? (paradise, Gospel, hell) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

How Scripture expresses endless duration (not aion/ios) (paradise, hell, punishment) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum

Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment.

ENDLESSNESS not applied to eschatological PUNISHMENT in Scripture:

could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

12 points re forever and ever (literally to/into "the ages of the ages") being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[pescador]

Even modern translations are influenced by previous translations. The Bible you were raised on forms your beliefs which informs your translation decisions. (bias)

Serious modern translations use the best available sources, not earlier translations, to determine the most accurate text.

"The Bible you were raised on forms your beliefs which informs your translation decisions." Not if you're a serious academic professional or an independent thinker in search of the best translation. The best translations are done by committees and extensively reviewed by many people of different faiths, both professionals and amateurs.

Personally I use several translations to understand God's written word. They are, after all, translations, so none are perfect.