What Bible do you use?

[randomguy1]

nkjv here

 

[Caedmon]

BTW, all you King James Only fools (I only say it because its true), the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which was compiled (thats right, put together) by Erasmus of Rotterdam. A CATHOLIC apologist and humanist (different humanist from today however). When he was compiling the list and did not have the greek texts he needed, HE TRANSLATED THE LATIN VULGATE INTO GREEK. What the junk. If you ignore the history to hold to your holier than thou view of Bible translation you are in league with a Catholic Apologist that opposed Luther.

When you defend the KJV, you defend the Catholic Church as well.

That's an interesting argument. I think it's also interesting to note that the first printing of the KJV contained the Catholic deuterocanon (apocrypha to Protestants) in the Catholic order (not separated and placed between the OT and NT), and the Book of Common Prayer specifed that passages from the deuterocanon (apocrypha) were to read as morning and evening prayers during October.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Apocrypha

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Interesting discussion....and I'm new here btw.

I use the NASB mainly, I own an ESV and NKJV but rarely take them off the shelf.

 

[JerryL]

Interesting discussion....and I'm new here btw.

I use the NASB mainly, I own an ESV and NKJV but rarely take them off the shelf.

Welcome, glad you found us. The NASB is my carry around Bible also.

 

[Ave Maria]

BTW, all you King James Only fools (I only say it because its true), the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which was compiled (thats right, put together) by Erasmus of Rotterdam. A CATHOLIC apologist and humanist (different humanist from today however). When he was compiling the list and did not have the greek texts he needed, HE TRANSLATED THE LATIN VULGATE INTO GREEK. What the junk. If you ignore the history to hold to your holier than thou view of Bible translation you are in league with a Catholic Apologist that opposed Luther.

When you defend the KJV, you defend the Catholic Church as well.

Wow. Real charitable of you to call those of us who are KJV Only fools.

That said, here is the response to your thing about Erasmus being Catholic. You do realize that Erasmus' works were condemned by the Catholic Church as heretical right? He was not in any sense a Catholic even though he never officially left the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I'm going to quote The Answer Book by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp.

[SIZE=+2]Question #57[/SIZE]

QUESTION: Was Erasmus, the editor of the Textus Receptus, a "good" Roman Catholic?

ANSWER: Erasmus, who edited the Greek text which was later to be known as the Textus Receptus, was an embarrassment to the pope and a poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic.

EXPLANATION: Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years.

Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them. Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say in the matter.

Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries.

His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered.

He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times.

Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called "heretics." He is even credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.

One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.

He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He often compared the crusade leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius." He also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell, written in anonymity was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge that its author was Erasmus.

He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.

Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They were brought out successively in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. His first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 150 A.D. Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority. Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus's request, but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time of Erasmus's work.

The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas.

He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the fourth century. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century.

He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find.

Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived, he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man. While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses.

Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby." He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to that declaration.

Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible.

It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched." There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works.
He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink.

Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.

He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.

"Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He ... nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood. " He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world."

Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the 16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term "fundamental.")
So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a "good Catholic."

But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

I have added spacing to make it easier to read.

 

[JacobHall86]

That article is full of false/manipulated facts. Most notably that Erasmus not in good standing with the church. He was, at least according to the Catholics.. In fact, he was offered the place of a Cardinal close to the time of his death.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm

Sam Gipp is a joke, and a fool, and will be held accountable for leading people astray with KJO.

I called those who are KJO fools because they are, its not just people who use the KJV, but people who say its the ONLY version to be used. Its a foolish doctrine held by fools.

 

[dies-l]

Wow. Real charitable of you to call those of us who are KJV Only fools.

I agree with you that calling anyone a "fool" over a theological disagreement is a bit harsh.

But, my experience is been that KJVOnlyism tends to lend itself to a somewhat uncharitable attitude to those of us who find great value in modern biblical translation. I have yet to hear a convincing historical, logical, or biblical argument to support the notion that the KJV is better or more accurate than modern Bible translations, let alone that it is the only valide English translation. In fact, I would argue that changes in the English language over the past 400 years render it unnecessarily confusing and the false cognate phenomenon causes unnecessary misinterpretations. Furthermore, advances in archaelogy and linguistics render the scholorship of the KJV seriously out of date. This is not to mention that, like many modern translations, the KJV was translated with a particular theological bias. The difference is that modern translations allow the reader to compare various translations to enable us to read past the biases to help us understand the intent of the original greek and Hebrew. Thus, I can compare my NIV, which has a slightly evangelical bias with my NRSV, which has a slightly liberal bias and so forth to see where the substantive meaning of the translation differs (which is a very rare occurence). KJVOs don't have this luxury, so they are left to treat a very biased translation as though it is completely faithful to the original text, which unfortunately, like any attempt to translate an ancient text, it is not.

 

[student ad x]

Welcome, glad you found us. The NASB is my carry around Bible also.

I still use my NKJV from time to time, because the Lord began to draw me with that translation, but the NAU is the English translation I pick up first and study from (a close word to word literal translation that I implicitly trust as faithful to the original languages). Over the last year or so I've been using the ESV more frequently (due to the readableness, accuracy & the literary style and to a large degree due to the Reformation Study Bible & quality of the ESV Study Bible) but I keep my large print NAU open as well. I gave away my Zondervan NIV Study Bible after reading a fraction of the ESV Study Bible. (I really didn't use the Zondervan much anyway and I suspected the gift would be beneficial to this person.) I have a wide range of translations (NRSV, NLT......KJV) and still compare them.

God's blessings to you folk

 

[Ave Maria]

That article is full of false/manipulated facts. Most notably that Erasmus not in good standing with the church. He was, at least according to the Catholics.. In fact, he was offered the place of a Cardinal close to the time of his death.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm

Sam Gipp is a joke, and a fool, and will be held accountable for leading people astray with KJO.

I called those who are KJO fools because they are, its not just people who use the KJV, but people who say its the ONLY version to be used. Its a foolish doctrine held by fools.

Well, thank you for pointing out that there are errors in that article. I did not know that it was full of errors and false/manipulated facts.

However, I still think it is way too harsh of you to be calling King James Onlyists fools.

 

[TheDarkestHour]

JacobHall don't hide behind your computer and call anyone names.

 

[ife88]

The Holy Bible-New Century Version

 

[JacobHall86]

JacobHall don't hide behind your computer and call anyone names.

Sorry mom. If the KJO argument wasnt a foolish one, i wouldn't say it. But it is, and the people who follow it are fools.

 

[JacobHall86]

Well, thank you for pointing out that there are errors in that article. I did not know that it was full of errors and false/manipulated facts.

However, I still think it is way too harsh of you to be calling King James Onlyists fools.

Look at the arguments made by KJO people, they are totally foolish arguments and only a fool would believe them. Because its called authorized its the only real one? Seriously.

 

[TwistTim]

JacobHall, I want to encourage you to keep fighting the good fight, there are those of us who agree with you. We just lack your gumption to call them fools, though they are.

Oh and since I haven't posted in a while... I need to say, I got an Mp3 Audio Bible - ESV haven't listened to it much, but I do like it.... it's the one read by Stephen Johnson. Not the Best reader, but better than that guy who reads the KJV....Alexander Scorby.... Scorby puts me to sleep with his monotone.....

 

[dies-l]

JacobHall, I want to encourage you to keep fighting the good fight, there are those of us who agree with you. We just lack your gumption to call them fools, though they are.

And, some of us agree with his stance on KJVonlyism, but take Jesus' teachings too seriously to call another brother or sister a "fool" or any other derogatory name for that matter. See Mt. 5:22 (no matter which translation you look in).

 

[JacobHall86]

And, some of us agree with his stance on KJVonlyism, but take Jesus' teachings too seriously to call another brother or sister a "fool" or any other derogatory name for that matter. See Mt. 5:22 (no matter which translation you look in).

I take the command seriously, and will not call someone a fool who is not a fool. The idea of KJO is foolish, and fools follow it.

 

[JacobHall86]

btw, you have Bell in your signature, and you don't claim to be Baptist, you gotta go if you aren't Baptist.

 

[the particular baptist]

btw, you have Bell in your signature, and you don't claim to be Baptist, you gotta go if you aren't Baptist.

Yeah, I'll go on record and say Rob Bell is a heretic.

 

[dies-l]

btw, you have Bell in your signature, and you don't claim to be Baptist, you gotta go if you aren't Baptist.

First, if you want to debate the merits of Rob Bell, then you are perfectly welcome to start your own thread to do so. That would be the perfect place to state your specific objections to his teachings and/or writings. If you want to debate the merits of the actual quote that is in my sig (which is largely substantiated by the passage of Scripture immediately following the quote), once again, I suggest that you start your own thread to do so, rather than hijacking someone else's thread. As long as you continue to speak in labels and generalities on unrelated threads, I have no reason to take you seriously, especially when your own signature seems to confuse John Calvin with Jesus Christ.

Second, I have found nothing in the forum guidelines that say that one must profess to be a baptist to participate on this forum. I see that one must believe as Baptists do, embracing the statement of faith of one of the major Baptist denoms and accepting six specific enumerated beliefs. I am a Christian; I am a follower of Jesus Christ; I agree with the statement of faith of the SBC; and I agree with the six enumerated point on the forum guidelines. My salvation, however, does not come from the SBC (or any other Baptist denom), nor does it come from any form of Calvinism or any other movement or denomination within the Church; my salvation comes exclusively from Jesus Christ. So, unless you or someone in a position of authority on this forum can show me where I missed something, I will participate in this forum as I please.


My suspicion is that your hostility towards me is not based so much on your disagreements with Rob Bell or the content of my signature, but more on the fact that in this, or some other discussion, I have quoted Scripture that has struck a nerve with you, and you are resisting conviction from the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, I pray that you will be open to His (not mine) guidance and allow Him to reveal to you His Truth through the Holy Scriptures.

Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus. My prayers are with you.

 

[student ad x]

Yeah, I'll go on record and say Rob Bell is a heretic.

I find myself having to second the position above.