• 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.

What is the difference between fundamentalist christians and Conservatives?

Discussion in 'Fundamentalist Christians' started by PraiseHisName9, Jul 30, 2013.

  1. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    DeaconDean stated:

    "And you still have not shown where th scriptures where God said He would preserve His word in the KJV bible."

    It is obvious that God did not say, "I will preserve my word in the KJV Bible." What He did say is:

    Psalm 12 (KJV- Translated from the TR)
    6 The words of the LORD arepure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Psalm 12 (ASV- Translated from the WH by textual critics, published in 1901)
    6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.

    7 Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    I am aware that you are a product of 'modern biblical scholarship' and will simply reject the above as 'bad translations'; that is what you have been 'taught' to do. The simple truth however is that God said He would preserve His "words". You might not like that, you may even reject it; but you are still left with the FACT that these verses have been in the Bible for HUNDREDS of years. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, feel good about it or not, there is evidence (that you ignore and/or call faulty) that supports the fact that God, has in fact preserved His "words", and His "Word", though out the generations since David.

    This is the difference between Fundamentalism, and Conservatives; while those of us at the far right end of the spectrum believe the words of Psalm 12:6&7 to be literally true about the Bible we hold in our hands; while those at points farther to the left on the spectrum either hold beliefs taught by modern scholarship (people like you), or are actually ignorant (they simply don't know) of the actual teachings of modern scholarship.

    Dr. Wesley l. Clark (a Pastor of mine years ago) was a graduate of the seminary at Louisville, Kentucky back in the 50's, and later received his D.D. in the 80's would often tell us that when he went through seminary they were trying to tell him that God did not preserve His word. It was his opinion that seminary has ruined the faith of more young men going into the ministry than it has helped. I hold the same opinion.

    I have a very simple belief, the same belief of Dr. Clark, the same belief of "Dr's" too many to mention; the belief that God preserved His words, and Word, since He made that promise to David!



    Jack
     
  2. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    No.

    To quote Dr. Jimmy Draper:

    If one lokks, in the first S.o. F. for the SBC, in the preamble, there is a clause that states that one can disagree with the Confession, and still be a member of the SBC.

    "Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard

    http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/...es/creeds.html


    Ernest Risinger said:

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  3. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You said:

    That, I have neever denied. And you'll find no posts here where I said that.

    What I have said and maintained is you have not shown any scripture that states God will preserve His word "perfectly" in the KJV (or any version for that matter).

    You call me: "a product of 'modern biblical scholarship', and fault me for looking to the original language of the New Testament rather than blindly acepting what is written in the KJV.

    And you still will not accept the fact that the writters of the NT, the Apostles, were the only ones who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

    You would have us believe the translators of the KJV were "inspired" the same as the Apostles who wrote the original autographs.

    Fact: The translators of the KJV, used copies of copies of copies.

    The message of the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelations, is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

    That word, God has preserved.

    Joseph Prince says:

    "When you take "text" out of "context" all your left with is a "con".

    When John Gill wrote his "Exposition of the Entire bible" he included this in the introduction to Psa. 12:


    What are the three basics of sound biblical hermanutics?
    1. Context
    2. Context
    3. Context
    As to Psa. 12:6-7, we read:

    John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Psa. 12:6-7

    Source

    Fault me as you wish. Make fun of me as you wish. It only means your not doing it to somebody else.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2013
  4. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    There are many who are KJV Only. We have one such here.

    From "Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the KJV of the Bible, By: Douglas S. Chinn, and Robert C. Newman", we have the typical arguement by KJV Onlyists:​


    Even in this article, they are quick to point out:​

    Source


    Here are a few facts:​


    Where do we get the term "Textus Receptus"?​



    It originated through a highly exaggerated statement -- actually a publisher's blurb -- in the preface to the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. In this Latin preface they called their book "the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." This is how this Latin term textus receptus (text received) came to be applied to a particular text of the Greek New Testament. On the European continent, aside from Great Britain, the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.​



    Did the translators of the KJV use this version?​



    No. Even the first Elzevir edition was not published until 13 years after the date of the KJV. ​



    What Greek text did they use then?​



    It was based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament issued by the Parisian publisher Stephanus (Latinized form of Estienne) in 1550. ​



    Was the text of Stephanus on which the King James Version was based identical with the later "textus receptus"?​



    No. The two differed in 287 places.​



    Were the translators of the KJV convinced they were correct?​



    No. They recognized the possibility of copyists' errors, and showed this by making marginal notes to variant readings at 13 places. For instance, in Luke 17:36 their marginal note reads: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." In Acts 25:6, where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days." ​



    Is there any harm in looking at earlier manuscripts for the meaning of Greek words as opposed to just accepting the KJV?​



    God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers. It is impossible to copy a book of any length without making some mistakes. In the case of the New Testament we have more evidence for determining the text of the original writers than for any other book from ancient times. While there is rarely anything harmful in the later manuscripts, it is desirable, if we truly wish to know God's Word, to base our text, as far as possible, on early manuscripts. ​



    It is sometimes said that since God gave an inerrant Bible in the original we can be sure that He would cause that it be preserved without error. What do you think of this statement?​



    I'll quote Allen A. MacRae on this:​



    "This is the sort of argument that rests on human ideas and not on God's revelation. One might as well say that if God gave His Son to die for the sins of all who will believe on His Name we can then be sure that every person who has lived since that time would be fully informed about Him. We know that this is not true. Millions of people have died without ever hearing about Christ. There are people in this country who have attended church faithfully all their lives, but have only heard the social Gospel and have never been told how they could be saved through Christ. We know that whatever God does is best, but we do not have the wisdom to say that He must have done things in a certain way. ​


    God has caused that the books of the Bible should be marvelously preserved. We can get extremely near to the precise text as it came from the hands of the authors, but there are many minor points on which we cannot be sure. None of these points affect any important fact of Christian doctrine or life. ​

    God could have caused His Word to have been written on tables of stone and preserved in a room kept at exactly the same temperature, protected from any change, like the authoritative standards kept by the U.S. government. He did not choose to do so. This is a simple fact. No two manuscripts of the New Testament exactly agree. No manuscript agrees exactly with the textus receptus.

    There is more material available to see how the Bible has been translated and to try to get near to the exact words of the original authors than of any other book from ancient times. We can be very sure that we are very near to the original text. We cannot say that we have it exactly. Maybe some of us would have done it differently, but this is the way God did it."​

    I have been called "a product of 'modern biblical scholarship'".​

    Yes I am, and proud of it.​

    I am a Baptist, and in seminary, one of my teachers saw to it I received an education in Reformed Theology. And I thank God for men like Dr. Jim Willingham. ​

    Thank God he taught me the value of sound biblical exegesis. including looking at the original meanings of the Greek words.​

    God Bless​

    Till all are one.​
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2013
  5. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Lets go one step further.

    The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.

    In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.

    I cite:

    Source

    Continued...
     
  6. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Why is the above article important?

    If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".

    Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures.

    Here I cite:

    The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, By B. H. Carroll

    Why is this important?

    "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 Authorized King James Version

    If the God has indeed preserved His word in the KJV as is supported by a certain person, then you absolutely cannot have remission of sins without being baptized as recorded in the AKJV.

    Yet, in 1915, it is recorded in "The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth", the theology handbook for Fundamentalsts, it states:

    The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Chapter 10, Regeneration, Conversion, Reformation, George W. Lasher, D. D., L.L. D.

    And:

    The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Theology, Chapter 12, The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D

    Also, according to Titus 1:3-5, in the Greek, washing, regeneration, and renewal are in the Genetive case. Genetives show "possessioin". And these words are either Genetive attributive, or Genetive Possessive. This proves also the renewal, washing, and regeneration are possessed of and that these things are done in us by the Holy Spirit and not of baptism.

    It seems, as far as Fundamentalists were concerned, in regards to Acts 2:38 in the Authorized King James Verioin, there was an error in translation. And B. H. Carroll, a staunch supporter of biblical inerrancy showed/proved the KJV translators got it wrong.

    Judge for yourselves.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2013
  7. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Let me also say that if the Authorized King James Version is correct in Acts 2:38:

    "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

    Then this song, sung in every Fundamentalist and Baptist church:

    "What can wash away my sin?
    Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
    What can make me whole again?
    Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

    Robert Lowery, Nothing But The Blood

    Should never ever be sung in any church for it is incorrect, in error.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  8. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    DeaconDean stated:

    "And you still will not accept the fact that the writters of the NT, the Apostles, were the only ones who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

    You would have us believe the translators of the KJV were "inspired" the same as the Apostles who wrote the original autographs."

    I am fully aware that you read Greek, however your understanding of θεόπνευστος (inspiration of God) is flawed. You keep saying it was the "writers" that were "inspired", but that is not correct. What "is" (present tense) θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired) is the γράφω (scripture). What is "scripture"? The holy writ, the "words". It is the "words" that are inspired; not the writers that were inspired. I have never said the translators were inspired. I have only said what the Bible says, that the γράφω (holy words of scripture) are θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired.

    Why is this so important? Because it takes the focal point of the "words" being 'authored' by man (giving little to no authority to the "words"); to being authored by God (giving the "words" absolute authority).

    Hence, these "words" are 'living' words. Words that "are" profitable. Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. God didn't preserve a "storyline" in the Bible as a whole to be profitable; He preserved His "words" because it is the "words" that "are" profitable.

    These are the words written by John Gill that YOU posted, made bold and underlined:

    "The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. The Gospel, and the doctrines of it, are the words of God; that is the sincere milk of the word, pure and incorrupt; as it is in itself, and as it is dispensed by the faithful ministers of it; and they are all according to godliness, and tend to encourage and promote purity and holiness of heart and life; See Pr 30:5;

    Look at the "words" of the first sentence above. "The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. "

    "The promises are the words of God" How can anyone have a promise, if you don't have "words" to base that promise on? That is what makes a promise a promise! KEEPING YOUR WORDS! I couldn't have said it better myself!

    In Post #45 DeaconDean states:

    "Lets go one step further.

    The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.

    In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.

    I cite:

    "The very core of Christian history is an unequivocal belief in the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. Irenaeus wrote, "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

    Notice the words of Irenaeus (115 - 200 A.D.) when describing the Scriptures: "the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

    Again, from the same source you cite:

    "Martin Luther said, "He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." Elsewhere he wrote, "Scripture cannot err," and "The Scriptures have never erred." Calvin gave the following appraisals of the Bible: "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles.""

    Notice Calvin's (1509 -1564) "appraisals of the Bible". Would you mind explaining to me hoe the "Bible" can be, "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles."; if the "text" of the "Bible" has "errors"?

    You also cite:

    "Augustine, in discussing alleged inconsistencies, declared, "I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it." Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

    Notice the words you cited from Luther (1483 - 1546): "Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

    There is no way Luther could have been speaking of the "originals״, because he didn't have them. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can have concerning his meaning of "scripture", is the "copies" of MSS he could hold in his hands, or that had been preserved by the power of God, even to his generation, and were available to mankind in his generation. According to what YOU CITED, the above was said by Luther regarding, " those who find errors in Scripture". (Again, not the "originals", because he said, "those who find errors ..." .) One can't "find" something that is not "available" to look at. Luther had to believe in the preservation of the inerrant words of God, by faith that God, not man, kept it pure!

    In Post #46 DeaconDean stated:

    "If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".

    Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures."

    Right about now I'm saying, "Hmmm"?

    Since I do my best not to throw the baby out with the 'bath water', allow me to say that while B. H. Carroll (1843 - 1914) was a good man, I must point out that to say one believes in the inerrancy of scripture, and then say the translators of KJV were in error when translating part of the scriptures" is to place himself in a higher level of qualification to do the job of translating the scriptures, than those whom I (and many others with me) believe were actually called of God for that purpose. Knowledge of the Greek does not constitute a qualification to translate scripture. A 'call' from God does.

    By the way, Acts 2:38 was translated properly; with the meaning of 'because of', not 'in order to'.

    As you cited:

    "There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning."

    Notice point (2) " the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith)".

    Nowhere in the 'canon' of scripture is there a means of salvation other than the "blood" of the slain Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

    By the way, you never directly answered what MSS were available to Erasmus? And, are you telling me (and everyone else reading this) that your education 'qualifies' you to sit in judgement of Erasmus and his work?

    Jack
     
  9. Metal Minister

    Metal Minister New Year, Still Old School!

    +450
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Hey Jack, please do us a favor and utilize the "Quote" button in the corner. It will make it much easier for us to follow your posts, and respond accordingly. Thanks! :)
     
  10. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    So...the writers were not inspired, just the scripture?

    Moses did not want to go to Pharoah because as he said:

    "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." -Ex. 4:10 (KJV)

    And what was the Lord's reponse?

    "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." -Ex. 4:11-12 (KJV)

    I guess Moses wasn't "inspired" huh?

    WHo told Moses about everything that happened prior to his birth? Did it come to him by word of mouth?

    When God told Moses He would teach him what to say, did the authority depend on God or Moses who said it?

    The authority of the scriptures has been, and always will be God.

    Its just that the words penned by the authors was of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    The authors were not typewriters. They did not take dictation. It was Godthe Spirit using them so that the very words they used are the words of God.

    I have never argued against that. The words are authored (written) by man, but under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The very definition of "plenary inspiration" says this:

    Another source says:


    Another says:


    It is recorded in "The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth":



    Inspiration, Evangelist L. W. Munhall, M.A., D. D.,

    So to say that the words, and not the writers were inspired, shows that you are not a Fundamentalist!

    Where did I say anything about Martin Luther and the original autographs, furthermore, where does the article say anything about the original autographs?





    Yep I did.​



    So anybody who took Greek is automatically disqualified from translating the scriptures from Greek for themselves since we have the KJV?​


    Yea, right. ​



    "eiV" 1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among ​






    Ok, lets say your right, then Matthew 12:41 is still translated incorrectly.​



    The Greek says:​



    "andreV nineuitai anasthsontai en th krisei meta thV geneaV tauthV kai katakrinousin authn: oti metenohsan eiV to khrugma iwna, kai idou pleion iwna wde."​



    Lets say yoru right, I'm wrong, in every instance "eiV" means "for" as it is translated in Acts 2:38. Then the scriptures in Matthew 12:41 are incorrect. And the people repented "for"/ "in order to" get Jonah to preach.

    This really opens up a whole can of worms.​

    If one is baptized "for", "in order to" the remission of sins, hows does water wash them away?​

    You could pour the whole world's water supply over my head or dunk me under it and none of my sins would be washed remitted.​

    And,...what is meant by "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"?​

    Be baptized and the Holy Spirit will "indwell" you?​

    Now thats not tecnically correct either.​

    And,..what exactly is the "gift of the Holy Spirit"?​



    You really should research the words more. Try using The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.​



    And here again, one is not baptized in order to have their sins remitted. It is also clearly stated in "The Fundamentals, A Testamony to the Truth":​






    The Doctrines That Must Be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By: Evangelist L. W. Munhall, M.A., D.D., Germantown, Penn. ​







    Who "baptized" the disciples?​


    "(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" -Jn. 4:12 (KJV)​



    Never said there was. Prove I said otherwise! Post it here for us to see!​



    And here again, you completely missed the point. In Acts 2:38, it says that in order to have remission of sins, one must be baptized. It says that plainly.​



    Show scripture where water washes away sin!

    Just another point which proves to me that you are not a Fundamentalist!​






    Thats funny, you putting me down all the while your guilty of doing the same thing to me.​


    Thats rich.​



    You seem like the type of person who would go to a class and argue with a person who has a Phd in the subject they are teaching.​



    Well, thats enough from you, you have sufficently shown to me that your no Fundamentalist.​



    Hello ignore list.​



    God Bless​



    Till all are one.​
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  11. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    The difference between what I believe and what 'a modern thinking' fundamentalist believes is very simple: I believe that God, through His own provision, has preserved His words perfectly. He has preserved the OT in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and the NT in the Majority Text. Furthermore, God called godly scholars together at Hampton Court in 1604 for the purpose of translating His words from the original languages into English. God then gave them "wisdom from above" to perform this great task. When this task was complete in 1611, the translators did in fact produce a perfectly translated, handwritten English translation of the words of God.

    When the printers of the 1611 KJV put this English Bible in print, there were printing errors. These errors were NOT translation errors, as modern scholarship teaches, rather, they were simply the common errors that take place in printing, even to this very day. By 1769 there were four major Editions of the KJV (in addition to the original 1611), by which time the text was perfect. The KJV Bible that is held in people's hands in this present day is the 1769 Edition.

    Without God's provision, and His giving the 'called' scholars, "wisdom from above"; this task could not have been done correctly. Many people call "believing" God, "blind" faith. I call it, just trusting in my God!

    The scholars of today have a different belief. They contend that the "original" autographs (the actual handwritten works of the Bible by its writers) have been lost. It is therefore the job of scholars to "reconstruct" the Bible from MSS in the original languages, and them properly translate them into English.

    While this may sound noble, it lacks truth. There are several reasons this lacks truth, I will name two: 1) Although there is no argument that the "original" autographs have been 'lost', there is no credible reason to believe that the majority of copies did not remain pure to what was written in the "originals"; and 2) There is no reason to believe that God would give us His "inspired" words, and not give men the wisdom to translate those words into the languages of the world perfectly. That would be the equivalent of God washing away 'past' sins for salvation, and leaving it up to us to remain sinless in the power of our flesh, in order to retain our salvation.

    I have been told on many occasions that I have been "blindly" following the work of men like Erasmus, and the translators of the KJV. While those who contend for Bibles such as the NIV say they trust the "scholarship" of the "textual critics" that continually 'edit' the Greek text (the NA/UBS 28 [the 28 represents the fact that the text has gone through 28 editions] the modern versions come from, as well as coming up with hundreds of different 'translations' of the same 'Bible', in the same language, and still say they're all the same. How can over 100 versions of the same story all be the same? If they would be the same, there wouldn't be over 100 versions would there?

    If you search for "The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy" by Wayne Grudem and Vern S. Polythress, at Amazon, you will find this in the description:

    "“The Bible is God’s own Word to us.” Translating the words of God has become an even more daunting task in recent years as the pressure of “political correctness” and various activist agendas have sought to influence the landscape. No issue has become more controversial than genderneutral Bible translations, especially with the release of the TNIV.


    Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem examine the translation practice of replacing the generic “he” and the specific “father” with the gender-neutral “they” and “parent” with special attention focused on the TNIV. While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts."

    Notice the last sentence above: "While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts."

    That has been my argument throughout this thread. With each "edition" of either the Greek Text, or the English, by the "scholars", there is, at the very least, a subtle change in the meaning of the original texts.

    People can say that because I refuse to let textual critics control how I believe, I am not a fundamentalist.

    I believe:
    1) In the inerrancy of the Scripture (that I hold in my hands);
    2) In the normal, literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of the Bible;
    3) In major doctrines of the Bible, such as (but not limited to) salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and a final judgement for all; both saved, and condemned.

    The last time I checked, that was the definition of a fundamentalist.

    Jack
     
  12. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    To quote the great Fats Domino:



    Fats Domino, I hear you knocking

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  13. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Sad, very sad.

    It has been argued that God preserved His word for all time. Even the translators were "guided" in their endevors.

    2 Sam. 5:4 says David was thirty years old when he began his reign over Israel.

    2 Sam. 15:7 says Absolom, (third son of David) after 40 years wanted to leave to pay tribute to the king. (David)

    How can this be?

    Is there an error in translation?

    No way says one.

    Judge for yourselves.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  14. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Oh well, what the (insert adjective) do I know.

    I do know this, according to CF, the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid "authority".

    Since I am bound to be "branded" here, I'm unsubscribing.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  15. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    It is said that Acts 2:38 is translated wrong in the KJV. This is based on how the Greek word used in Acts 2:38 is translated in other passages of the Bible. I believe that statement is incorrect. This is same logic is used in Acts 12:4 in the translation of the Greek word τηρέω, translated "Easter". The Greek word τηρέω is used (by my count) at least 27 times in the NT. 26 of those times it is translated "Passover". So why didn't the KJV translators translate τηρέω as "Passover" in Acts 12:4?

    The answer lies in knowing, and understanding what was happening in the days of "The Acts of the Apostles". All that I am about to share is easily verifiable by doing just a little bit of research. (Isn't it wonderful to live in the 21st century?!

    Lets look at the word Easter.

    Easter (Old English Eastre or Eostre; Latin; Pascha; Greek Πάσχα Paskha, from Hebrew פֶּסַח Pesah)

    Eostre is the pagan "goddess of fertility" that can easily be traced back to the days of Rome and beyond. (One of the common practices of paganism was the carrying in of 'gods', from one culture to the next. For example, when the Persians defeated the Babylonians, they adopted the Babylonian gods to quench rebellion among their captives. The same happened when the Greeks conquered the Persians; and the Romans conquered the Greeks.) Hence, Eostre or Eastre the pagan goddess of fertility can be traced back to Rome.

    What about Acts 12:4?

    There were three desperate celebrations taking place in Jerusalem (at that time under Roman [pagan] rule):
    1) The pagan Easter; (a celebration of fertility)
    2) The Passover, (a celebration of Jewish culture)
    3) The Resurrection; (a Christian celebration).

    Acts 12
    1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
    2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
    3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
    4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    I have already stated the three celebrations, and who was celebrating what. The question of the hour is; Why would Herod be concerned with interrupting "Passover", (a Jewish holy day) to kill Peter; a man the Jews hated, and wanted dead immediately? He didn't care about the holy day of Passover; he was to busy looking at half naked women (celebrating fertility) to be concerned with (in his mind) a worthless Jew. The witness of the Holy Spirit as to the event in Rome recorded in Acts 1:4, was that Herod decided to wait until he was done celebrating his pagan holy day, before killing Peter. Hence, the translation of the Greek word τηρέω into the English Passover would have been a misrepresentation of what actually happened in Jerusalem at that time.

    Today's modern "Ph. D's" may be "scholarly", but that doesn't always make them right. I have always said, "There are two kinds of scholars: those who use the Bible to correct their intellect; and those who use their intellect to correct the Bible".

    I have never claimed to be a scholar, but I am of the belief that I must always let the Bible correct me. There are those however, who believe their intellect has reached such a level, that they are qualified to correct the words of God.

    I hope this has shed light on this issue.

    Jack
     
  16. theophilus40

    theophilus40 Newbie

    876
    +40
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    There is an inconsistency between the first and last paragraphs of your post. I agree with your definition of fundamentalist in the last paragraph and so I am a fundamentalist but I completely disagree with the first paragraph. Even the people who translated the KJV would have disagreed with it.

    The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?
     
  17. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,570
    Anglican
    Married
    Not so. SOME Conservatives do. This is the Conservative Christians forum's statement: "Some conservative Christians also hold church tradition to be a source of authority."

    The 'Conservative Christians' forum accepts as members both Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics. Provision is made, therefore, for the Conservative Catholics, whose doctrines are based upon Tradition.

    Conservatives are not, however, defined as people who believe in Tradition as a religious authority. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is that Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid authority.

    Conservative Protestants, as we all know, almost always reject the authority of Tradition in favor of Sola Scriptura.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  18. Faith.Man

    Faith.Man .

    +306
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    :thumbsup:
     
  19. Jack Koons

    Jack Koons Guest

    +0
    The following is an excerpt of the Preface of the 1611 King James Version Bible:

    "There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your MAJESTIE: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present unto your MAJESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

    And now at last, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAJESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soveraigne, but as to the principall moover and Author of the Worke. Humbly craving of your most Sacred Majestie, that since things of this quality have ever bene subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and Patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as your Highnesse is, whose allowance and acceptance of our Labours, shall more honour us and incourage us, then all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; we may rest secure, supported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conscience, having walked the wayes of simplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; And sustained without, by the powerfull Protection of your Majesties grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endevours, against bitter censures, and uncharitable imputations."

    Notice:

    "... That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; ..."

    And,

    "... So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse ..."

    Directly followed by,

    "... or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; ..."

    Interesting words, at the least!

    Jack
     
  20. Sasquatchit

    Sasquatchit Member

    436
    +10
    Well, I tend to think they r the same. These r saints, God's people, who r trying to live rightously by His word. We live by the pattern in the N.T. church.

    We r like salmon swimming upstream in this sinful world!! Praise the Lord most high!!
     
Loading...