What about the "new" NIV 2011

[Keachian]

Well are we called to have faith in Christ or faith in the Bible?

 

[brandplucked]

Well are we called to have faith in Christ or faith in the Bible?

You cannot have the one without the other. We know nothing about the Word of God apart from the word of God. There is no other source or fountain of revelation from the true God. Apart from God's written words all you have are the workings of fallen man's imagination, dreams and mysticism.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

 

[ebia]

Just as I thought.

Your point?

I trust the bible to be reliable and useful as Paul says it is.

I don't need your fantasy about a particular english 17th century translation of the bible being "infallible" to be true for that - something the bible doesn't claim for itself and is blatantly untrue.

 

[ebia]

You cannot have the one without the other. We know nothing about the Word of God apart from the word of God. There is no other source or fountain of revelation from the true God. Apart from God's written words all you have are the workings of fallen man's imagination, dreams and mysticism.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

Signposts don't need to be "infallible". They only need to be reliable enough to get you to the destination.

 

[Keachian]

You cannot have the one without the other. We know nothing about the Word of God apart from the word of God. There is no other source or fountain of revelation from the true God. Apart from God's written words all you have are the workings of fallen man's imagination, dreams and mysticism.

I agree but you have still yet to provide evidence for the idea that the KJV is the only way in which this is displayed in the English language, or that there is need for infallibility in the scriptures.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

Both of those talk about hearing, I think we should look more at the rest of Romans 10, specifically part of the preceeding passage:

[13] For whosoeuer shall call vpon the Name of the Lord, shalbe saued. [14] But how shall they call on him, in whome they haue not beleeued? and how shall they beleeue in him, of whom they haue not heard? and howe shall they heare without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, Howe beautifull are the feete of them which bring glad tidings of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

How, shall they hear without a preacher? Paul is not putting an emphasis on the Bible as that which brings people to salvation here and I'd say the same holds true of Jesus in John 5:24, but rather he is focusing more on evangelism.

 

[brandplucked]

Four popular views about The Bible


1. The Roman Catholic View - The Holy Mother Church and tradition define what is in the Scripture

2. The Liberal View - The Bible is full of myths and legends

3. The Neo-Orthodox View - The real issue is what the Bible teaches, not its historical accuracy

4. The Fundamentalist View - All of the fundamentals of the faith are in the Bible in spite of its mistakes and errors

All these views have one point in common: you don't actually have the Word of God in your hands. The Bible merely contains the Word of God.

The Bible Believer's View - We do have the inspired Word of God in our hands

God's Book of the LORD = the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Accept no substitutes.

Will Kinney

 

[ebia]

.

 

[Keachian]

I find your classification of the "Neo-Orthodox" view to be silly, as if anything other than your view is unorthodox.

Anyway I'll proudly say that, no I'm not a Bible Believer, rather I am a Christian.

 

[brandplucked]

I find your classification of the "Neo-Orthodox" view to be silly, as if anything other than your view is unorthodox.

Anyway I'll proudly say that, no I'm not a Bible Believer, rather I am a Christian.

Does anyone else besides me see the amazing irony in these statements? Only a modern day "Christian" could both say that he is "not a Bible Believer" but is "proud" to be a Christian.

By God's sovereign mercy and grace I am very thankful (not 'proud') to be both a Bible believer and a Christian.

 

[Keachian]

Christianity isn't actually about the Bible though, sure the framework of our faith is in the Bible and it is useful for teaching, reproof and training. But our faith is in a personal God who does not require sacrifice because he has already paid the price.

 

[Arvoreen]

political correctness is the destruction of Christianity

 

[brandplucked]

political correctness is the destruction of Christianity

Good quote. I like it. Thanks.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Unix]

Using that many versions causes inconcistencies, Godsappintedtime. Look at this quote which is a hillarious fact about the 1978 NIV btw:

God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original Hebrew text about 7000 times, but the New International Version (NIV) fails to mention it even once. When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer (1922-1980), Th.D.(Doctor of Theology), Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:

"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."

I have Esword and I currently use 34 translations.

 

[Keachian]

Using that many versions causes inconcistencies, Godsappintedtime. Look at this quote which is a hillarious fact about the 1978 NIV btw:

I'd argue that that many is a good amount of translations to consistently use in study. One of the things about translation is that it is not a perfect thing to do, going word for word (most translations including the NIV fall down this end of the spectrum) doesn't capture all the nuances because quite often there isn't a word equivalence in the target language, in the same way I'd argue that the KJV shouldn't be used in this culture purely because we are 400 or so years removed from the culture that spawned that translation, Luther's ideology of Bible translation is so pertinent to me in where I feel God pulling me at the moment (to translation) the idea is that Scripture speaks loudest, most powerfully and mightily when it is expressed in such a way that it flows from our mouths and in order to do that it should be grounded in how we speak already.

 

[brandplucked]

" I'd argue that the KJV shouldn't be used in this culture purely because we are 400 or so years removed from the culture that spawned that translation"

Yet most of your guys always end up "going to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek", even though there is no such thing as "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. Yet these languages are far more antiquated and difficult than anything you will find in the English of the KJB. The central issue is this - Has God given us a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language or not? Most Christians today deny that He has and end up as unbelievers in the Infallibility of the Bible. I and many others believe He has and it is the King James Bible. IF I really believe God has done this and given us an infallible Bible and the Standard of written truth, then that is what I will use and measure everything else by.

People today are actually reading these modern versions less and less and believe them less and less. Those are the facts.

I would rather have the pure and infallible words of God in a somewhat old fashioned English than a modern easy to read version that omits thousands of God's words, changes the inspired Hebrew texts and adds hundreds of false words from some copies of various alleged Septuagint perversions.

Your choice - easier to read falsehood or a bit harder to understand infallible truth. I'll take the truth as found in the King James Bible.

 

[Unix]

Do they/we, brandplucked? Since You are saying that this thread is about Catholic influence, read this quote and go to the link:

I notice that there has still not been developed a Catholic Edition reverse interlinear English-Greek of the Septuagint Deuterocanon since the Brent Septuagint (and it's not reverse, is it?): Amazon.com: David Bennett's review of The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and E... - the NRSV Apocrypha (note: not NRSV-CE edition strangely enough even though Catholics are more numerous) is Under Development but done very soon, and it's not even included in the Original Languages base package and will not be. AND I would have prefered they make a REB Apocrypha reverse interlinear.

How do we "go" when there is not yet any reverse interlinear Apocrypha English-Greek?

And another point is that the unabridged 1611 KJV has 4 Esdras. Since the making of the KJV, a manuscript has been found which reveals the verses missing after 5:35 in the KJV. (7:35 in the KJV numbering.) Do Yourself a favor and buy the 1989 REB Apocrypha! 104 verses are missing in the KJV.

Yet most of your guys always end up "going to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek", even though there is no such thing as "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. Yet these languages are far more antiquated and difficult than anything you will find in the English of the KJB.

Still can't be done:

Make sure you have at least one translation that includes the reverse interlinear feature

Then why not the 1865 Common English New Testament for the NT? It has the exact same textual basis as the KJV NT so there's no omissions whatsoever. The language is modern enough for EVERYONE to read.

I would rather have the pure and infallible words of God in a somewhat old fashioned English

 

[brandplucked]

Do they/we, brandplucked? Since You are saying that this thread is about Catholic influence, read this quote and go to the link:How do we "go" when there is not yet any reverse interlinear Apocrypha English-Greek?Still can't be done:Then why not the 1865 Common English New Testament for the NT? It has the exact same textual basis as the KJV NT so there's no omissions whatsoever. The language is modern enough for EVERYONE to read.

Hi Unix. I'm a bit confused by your post. I don't understand your point. I do not believe the Apocryphal writings are inspired Scripture so why would I care about having one in Greek or English? I don't. As for the 1865 Common English N.T., it apparently was never much used or blessed by God since I have never even heard of it. Is there a copy online somewhere? In any case, it would not be a complete Bible; just the N.T.

If you know of a copy online, please give the link. I would like to at least take a look at it. Thanks,

Will K

 

[Unix]

I edited my post and added a point.

I'm a bit confused by your post. I don't understand your point.

It's not online for sure. I can mail You pages from it. I obtained it page-by-page from a U.K. library, so what I have is copies. Which passages do You want? I'll PM You my email address so You can write Your postal address. You don't need to pay me for the postage.

In any case, it would not be a complete Bible; just the N.T.

If you know of a copy online, please give the link. I would like to at least take a look at it.

 

[brandplucked]

I edited my post and added a point.It's not online for sure. I can mail You pages from it. I obtained it page-by-page from a U.K. library, so what I have is copies. Which passages do You want? I'll PM You my email address so You can write Your postal address. You don't need to pay me for the postage.

Hi brother. I appreciate the offer but I really don't need one. What you might do however is look up Revelation 19:8 and 2 Peter 3:12 for me and just post here what it says in those two verses. Thanks,

Will K

 

[Keachian]

Yet most of your guys always end up "going to "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek", even though there is no such thing as "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek.

That's what critical texts are for, is it that hard a concept to grasp?

Yet these languages are far more antiquated and difficult than anything you will find in the English of the KJB.

I didn't say anything about the antiquity of the language as being the problem with the KJB this time, more that culturally we are distant from the 17th Century, if you studied the culture of the 17th century then yes the KJV would be just as good as any other translation of the Bible, again translation is not just about language to language, but rather it is more towards culture to culture.

The central issue is this - Has God given us a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language or not?

No, nor did he say he would. He did however say that he'd provide us something to guide us into all truth, I believe he has done this and continues to do this through the work of the Holy Spirit in both the reading of scriptures and our times of stillness.

Most Christians today deny that He has and end up as unbelievers in the Infallibility of the Bible. I and many others believe He has and it is the King James Bible. IF I really believe God has done this and given us an infallible Bible and the Standard of written truth, then that is what I will use and measure everything else by.

And you're free to do that, the problem comes when you go around saying those that don't are any less Christian. That is my main problem.

People today are actually reading these modern versions less and less and believe them less and less. Those are the facts.

Not in my experience or even my community of believers, however this is likely because the Church that I go to has unified on a translation to use throughout its services, etc. I think that this is a far more important thing especially for new believers.

I would rather have the pure and infallible words of God in a somewhat old fashioned English than a modern easy to read version that omits thousands of God's words, changes the inspired Hebrew texts and adds hundreds of false words from some copies of various alleged Septuagint perversions.

Wait a minute, you just said that there wasn't "the" Hebrew, but thats a sequitor.

Let's take the KJV off the table for a moment here, would you rather see Christians engaging in the scriptures or going off doing their own thing?

Your choice - easier to read falsehood or a bit harder to understand infallible truth. I'll take the truth as found in the King James Bible.

There is no doctrinal difference between a theology drawn out of the KJV and one drawn from pretty much any modern orthodox translation. The only difference doctrinally that lies in my mind between me and you is this doctrine that the KJV is "the" only bible that you are holding on to.