Discuss your favorite verses, ask questions about passages, etc.

Moderator: Bouncers

Souljah4Christ
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Eldorado IL

by Souljah4Christ Thu May 29, 2003 1:44 pm

I agree with you Happy.Personally, I like the NIV. But, as far as what translation is correct, Any translation is correct (As long as it is the Word of God.) Different people understand different translations. It just depends on what you can understand easier.
"We've come here tonight to say one thing To Hell with the Devil"...Five Iron Frenzy
awaitingchrist
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: NC

.

by awaitingchrist Thu May 29, 2003 2:11 pm

Yeah, ALOT of KJVers are ultra-aggressive, I don't know why, heck I hope its not rubbing too much onto me :p . I'm not trying to start arguments, my original post was a question on which translation people use and then, why? It was supposed to be more of a discussion but I don't know, it just turned out different. I myself try to make sure that I'm backing up all my arguments with scripture.

But I would ask this:

If
But, as far as what translation is correct, Any translation is correct (As long as it is the Word of God.)


How do you know if its the word of God, if that discernment is placed in the hands of whoever picks up a Bible? Do you see that flaw? If each version is correct how do you find the flaws? Where do you see the difference? It places the word of God in the hands of the fallible and sinful man, open to each individual interpretation.

" 9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

I know its hard to read the KJV in today's day and age, it sounds kind of weird to our ears. But it is not us who find understanding in the Bible, but the Holy Spirit working within. If you fervently desire and hunger for God's word, he will make it known to you.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." Matthew 13:44

The words of the Lord are a precious and beautiful thing, seek him and he will reveal himself to you :).
How many Quarks make up a Baryon?
isaiah53
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:00 pm
Location: greenhills oh

by isaiah53 Thu May 29, 2003 6:07 pm

i personally use a kjv. i picked it up at a thrift store for a quarter. it has the best concordance and dictionary, great cross references, notes on how to witness to 19 different types of nonbelievers, pronouncation guide. i write in my bible quite a bit also. it is my chioce for bible study. i am not that much of a scholar( as far as versions go) to dispute if any other versions are wrong. some versions i would not even considor reading, because i like good study bibles and most of these are the newer ones. iwant to get into the inductive study method as kay arthur does. i even bought an inductive study bible ( $60) it is an nasb which one of my best christian friends use. i can not get into it mainly because of my old bibles notes i have in it. my fault not the versions.
i would reccommend reading the book "wide as the waters" by benson bobrick( igot it at berean recently) it is the story on how we got the english language bible. it talks about the gevena bible and how it was the bible of choice for the puritans and the pilgrims. when the kjv came out they rejected it as being to liberal. i literatly fell out of my chair on that it was a good laugh especially for those who say other versions are liberal( i agrre with yhat somewhat.)
all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own ways; and the LORD has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all.
User avatar
iamsozo
Bouncer
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Gastonia, NC

by iamsozo Thu May 29, 2003 7:21 pm

[quote="markjcollier"]"Intended text"... interesting. I am not sure I want to ask about where that phrase came from. I am sure that I like you, not sure about the style... :eek:

quote]

I have to agree with Mark. This style will send more people running away than it will attract. You might want to consider if it just might damage your witnessing. Just a thought.
iamsozo

Acts 14:22
Strengthening the souls of the Disciples, exhorting them to continue in faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the Kingdom of God."
User avatar
AllElseFailed
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 2:42 pm
Location: Manitoba, Canada

by AllElseFailed Sat May 31, 2003 2:46 pm

Personally, I LOVE my KJV. But unfortunately there ARE others out there who don't get the "thee"'s and "thou"s, so I would never say KJV ONLY! I don't know if any of you have an NCV (New Century) but I ditched that after (when reading along in C&C) I couldn't follow what the teacher was reading, because the text had been left out of my Bible! There are also errors in the KJV. Turn to Acts 12 if you would and verse 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. Easter is a pagan tradition (no, I'm not talkin' Passover, I'm talkin' the ACTUAL EASTER), so why would the name "Easter" be used in scripture, if it's the name of another god (the god of fertility, thus the egg hunts)? I asked someone who was KJV-ONLY about it once, and they said they were actually referring to that holiday. But as I look back, Herod wanted to please the Jews. The Jews would not have cared if anything were to occur during a pagan festival, however it would have erked them to think someone was *gasp* bringing a prisoner to the people on PASSOVER!
I see it like this: the Holy Spirit will guide you and show you what is truth and what is deceit. I prefer the KJV, but would love an interlinear Bible **drools**, but there are some folks who prefer the versions that are easier to understand and use modern day language.
For generation upon generation God retained a silence that shattered the hearts of men. And for a season, all else failed.
markjcollier
 

by markjcollier Sat May 31, 2003 9:30 pm

[quote="AllElseFailed"] I don't know if any of you have an NCV (New Century) but I ditched that after (when reading along in C&C) I couldn't follow what the teacher was reading, because the text had been left out of my Bible! There are also errors in the KJV. Turn to Acts 12 if you would and verse 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. Easter is a pagan tradition (no, I'm not talkin' Passover, I'm talkin' the ACTUAL EASTER), so why would the name "Easter" be used in scripture, if it's the name of another god (the god of fertility, thus the egg hunts)?

Hey AllElseFailed! Good to hear from you -- and good thoughts. Just a thought of my own. I am not promoting the NCV nor the KJV but I would encourage you to examine reasons why to accept or reject a particular version. To reject a version simply because your teacher's Bible has something that yours doesn't is not a decision based on facts but rather on the assumption that your teacher must have the right one and anything different is wrong (again, I'm not suggesting that the NCV is good or bad, just that the logic needs some work).

Similar gaps in logic exist in your concern about "Easter" in the KJV. Although I have not looked to the Greek to see what it says, the fact that the people who captured Paul referred to Easter on the calendar means nothing. If I refer to Easter myself that does not indicate anything about me other than that I may be referring to a particular day on the calendar. Until you look to the Greek, we really cannot say whether a word belongs or not and, honestly, the logic used leaves a lot of gaps.

Again, I am not promoting a specific version but rather a more complete and logical line of reasoning.

May God bless you richly and guide you by His Spirit and NOT my opinion in your journey to know Him more!

Mark
sensatj1
 

by sensatj1 Sun Jun 01, 2003 11:21 pm

Being in the ministry for quite some time I have faced this issue several times. The first time I heard the KJV-Only arguement scared me to death because of the aggresiveness of the KJVer. In our discussion I stated something to the fact of, "Whichever version brings one to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ is okay with me." His response was (paraphrased), "If someone got saved by reading the NIV or being witnessed to by use of the NIV, I would have to question whether they really got saved at all." I was dumbfounded that someone would be so dogmatic that they would question someone's salvation based on what version of the Bible they read.

Long story short, I decided to do some research and came across an article that I believe will help in a lot of ways. I will post both the link to the website that posted the article and a copy of the articel itself. Please feel free to check them both out.

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine.
a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God.
b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant.
c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate.
d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b).
e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible.
f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed.
g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine.
a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV.
b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions.
c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.


5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself.
a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence.
b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse?
c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic Church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible.
a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text.
b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen.
c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion.
a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation.
b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries.
c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.


Bibliography

1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883].
Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978.
Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, Eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.
Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977.

2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Guest
 

by Guest Mon Jun 02, 2003 7:13 am

THANK YOU!!! I'm elated that you were able to make the point, and that you had the sources to back it up.
MetalAngel!
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:24 pm

by MetalAngel! Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:43 am

iamsozo/markjcollier:

(The phrase "intended text" comes from my vocabulary. It means the underlying text that was "intended" to be used for the tranlation, not the perverted text underlying the niv.)

If you were addressing me, I would say to that, if you read a statment as "agressive" or a "fight phrase," you are reading into things. You see, when someone is posting on message boards, it is very hard to read emotions.
I present the Truth, and I do it in love. There is a way to be firm and stern, and to be loving at the same time.
If you were to be there when I witness to others, you would know how I speak and how the Holy Spirit leads me to approach each and every single situation.

If you are insinuating that I am perhaps antagonistic, I will tell you simply that I am just absolutely No Compromise in matters of Faith. Perhaps this is what you have interpreted as antagonistic. My responses are very much prayed through, and posting takes some amount of time, as I must obey God's Holy Spirit and type what He has told me or allowed, and to erase any and everything that is not of Him.
I appreciate your ecouragement to do so.

Someone wanted to know which Bible I have been led by the Holy Spirit to use, and I have answered. There are many reasons, and it is my utter conviction that, as of yet, the KJV is the most accurate English Bible in print today.

My defense of the KJ is actually one of pure love, not of a debate to fulfill selfish motives. I have no other reason to encourage the reading of the King James than this: that everyone will receive the Truth and Spiritual Weapons in as much abundance as possible.
I am not defending an opinion, which is why I am not offended. This has been a matter of great prayer, discernment and research.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(Galatians 2:20)
MetalAngel!
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:24 pm

by MetalAngel! Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:09 am

P.S. To say that KJV only Christians are spiteful and disrespectful is to attempt to lump a group of people into a whole, and pass the attitude of a few onto many.
Ludicrous.
People are individuals, and must be dealt with as such.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(Galatians 2:20)
User avatar
iamsozo
Bouncer
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:00 pm
Location: Gastonia, NC

by iamsozo Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:12 pm

I am sorry. It is possible that I am mixing people that I have dealt with that are KJV only, and your post. But to tell you the truth, I went and re-read your post and it still seems kind of forceful. Passive aggression is still aggression. However it is true that it is hard to tell emotion just by reading a post, so I am more than happy to take your word that that is not how you deal with people. And that is not how you meant it to come across. Sorry again if I miss read your post.

Still friends? :)
iamsozo

Acts 14:22
Strengthening the souls of the Disciples, exhorting them to continue in faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the Kingdom of God."
User avatar
bryankayrocker
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:41 am
Location: blaine, mn

by bryankayrocker Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:21 pm

I read the NLT and the NIV now. When i was younger i read the KJV and the Living Bible-not sure what acronym that had. I've been a Christian for 38 years. They're all good as far as I'm concerned. From what i've heard recently, the NIV is based on the oldest manuscripts available-manuscripts not available when the KJV was written. Since in the day of the old manuscripts, everything was hand written and copied when they started to wear out, i tend to believe the older the better. You can nitpick any version. it's whether the basic orthodox Christian principles are adhered to that matters. :D
So I got that going for me, which is nice.

God created everything, so he's the real King of Rock n Roll.

God Bless Disciple!!!
markjcollier
 

by markjcollier Thu Jun 05, 2003 7:29 pm

MetalAngel! wrote:P.S. To say that KJV only Christians are spiteful and disrespectful is to attempt to lump a group of people into a whole, and pass the attitude of a few onto many.
Ludicrous.
People are individuals, and must be dealt with as such.


You are right of course. If anything I said sounded like I was talking about "all KJVers" I apologize. That was not my intent at all. I have, however, referred to a number of people posting in here at times and, when referring to them, referred to specific things that they typed, not to the person, since I obviously don't know them.

Sozo was also right in that it is difficult to discern tone or intent in posts. I have known and am friends with a number of KJVers and my personal experience (note that) has been that without exception they all have been ultra-agressive on this topic and have lacked any sense of tact. That does NOT represent all KJVers, but is a truthful assessment of ALL I have known. Are we good friends? Yes. Do the 5 friends of mine come on like a house-a-fire about the KJV, burning and burying all who stand in their way? Yes. It is odd that that personality is so common with that belief...

ALL of you on this board have shown yourselves to be intelligent loving men of God who have been willing to listen rather than just pound away and I appreciate that greatly (most of the time). If I am ever to change my opinion, it will be because of that kind of approach. (Don't hold your breath, tho! ;) )
isaiah53
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:00 pm
Location: greenhills oh

by isaiah53 Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:05 pm

There are also errors in the KJV. Turn to Acts 12 if you would and verse 4and 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] Easter is a pagan tradition (no, I'm not talkin' Passover, I'm talkin' the ACTUAL EASTER), so why would the name "Easter" be used in scripture, if it's the name of another god (the god of fertility, thus the egg hunts)? I asked someone who was KJV-ONLY about it once, and they said they were actually referring to that holiday.

i would like to show you that easter is the correct translation. the easter here is a roman pagan holiday that celebrated the regeneration of the earth after winter. it was always held in late april, and the chief deity was astarte; also known as ishtar.
the key to unlocking verse 4 is the last part of verse 3 "then there the days of unleavened bread". as we will see the feast of unleavened bread always follows passover.
Exodus 12 tells of Moses leading the israelites out of egypt. they were to take a lamb kill it and eat it on the 14th day of the month in the evening vrs 6. in verse13 we see that GOD will "passover" those who put the blood on their homes. vrs14 and 15 tell us about a feast that shall be kept forever, the feast of unleavened bread.
Numbers 28:16-18 and the 14th day of the 1st month is the passover of the LORD. 17 and the 15th day of the month is the feast: 7 days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
Deuteronomy 16:1-8 retells about passover and the feast of unleavened bread. it also say that the feast is one of three times when all males shall appear before the LORD. (vrs 16)
Ezra 6:19 & 22 (this is when the israelites came back from the babylonion captivity and the rebuilt temple was dedicated)vrs 19 and the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the 14th day of the month vrs22and kept the feast of unleavened bread 7days with jo: for the LORD had made them joyful
now as we have seen from scripture that passover always precedes the feast of unleaven bread. the passover meal was eaten on the eve of the 14th not the entire week. it happened on 1 night not 7. the feast of unleavened bread is never referred as passover in scripture.
now back to acts 12:3 and 4. with what we have learned from scripture and seeing how herod wanted to wait until after easter (or passover) to bring Peter to the people. passover has come and gone and would not be celebrated by the jewish people for another year. would herod really have waited another year to bring Peter before the people?Herod didn't care about jewish hloidays( passover ) just as they didn't care about roman ones.
(easter which is celebrated in late april just after passover and the feast)
Herod probally didn't want this incident to get in the way of his partying.

But as I look back, Herod wanted to please the Jews. The Jews would not have cared if anything were to occur during a pagan festival, however it would have erked them to think someone was *gasp* bringing a prisoner to the people on PASSOVER

one last thought. when was JESUS brought,condem and crucified? what was the peoples reaction? the jewish leaders would not of thought much of Peter.acts 4:13 also look up John 9:22 and John 16:2
[/code]
all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own ways; and the LORD has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all.
MetalAngel!
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:24 pm

by MetalAngel! Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:09 pm

iamsozo/markjcollier:

Yeah, we're still friends! ;)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(Galatians 2:20)
MetalAngel!
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:24 pm

by MetalAngel! Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:14 pm

On the King James Version:

I have many sources of information concerning this version (as I said, my decision to use the KJV is researched, prayed about, and discerned).
One source of information I will post, as it is in regards to other posts made on this thread. It deals with many of the questions and information given and asked of the KJV.

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

It's also a GREAT source for Gospel tracts! :cool:

Blessings of Christ,
MetalAngel!
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(Galatians 2:20)
markjcollier
 

by markjcollier Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:17 pm

Metalangel -- I am sincerely impressed! You really have done your homework and I respect your decision on what version to read. In fact, I have no desire to change it at all. You've made a good decision with a version that can be trusted. My only concern with many people who have chosen the KJV because the other versions "can't be trusted" (I may not be talking about you cuz we just don't know each other's viewpoints well enough ;) ) is that they make grand statements about other versions that just simply aren't true even to the uneducated eye or are at least true, but misleading on purpose.

For example -- I went to the link you provided and checked out most of the site. One of the sections that disturbed me the most was the one comparing the NIV and KJV, siting the "changes." The clear implication, though not stated, was that the NIV doesn't tell "Why Jesus came to earth", that "repentance is not important", that Jesus did not die for us and so on down the list. Many of the offending passages even make the point that they are accused of ommiting in the verse IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING OR FOLLOWING the one noted! The author of the site added the headings in red to lead the reader to come to the same conclusions he did even though they are misleading. If he would just point out the differences without his own commentary, it would be much more intellectually honest because, yes, there are differences. Do you see my concern?

One of the many other offensive quotes was this one on why the KJV's translators were superior: "The translator is simply rendering the text in your language… nothing more. But you will have the confidence of knowing that you are not trusting another man's understanding, or theology, but can make up your own mind what God wants. The King James Bible was translated using this approach."

That is misleading and intellectually dishonest as well. They did NOT simply render the text in my language. They also rearranged the sentence structures completely so that it would flow better and added connecting words and phrases that the Greek and Hebrew languages don't have. They added chapter divisions. They made thousands of contextual decisions on how to translate words that have multiple meanings. EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION ON THE PLANET HAS ALL THESE THINGS! That paragraph is false and misleading on it's face and it's that kind of stuff that offends me -- not the translation itself or the people who love and cherish it. I think it is a good translation and have no trouble recommending it to anyone.

Again -- I am not directing this at you personally. I just want you to hear my heart as to why so many anti-NIV, etc people are ignored or marginalized as irrelevant.

I hope you hear my heart and concerns -- and your thoughts are welcome! I really enjoy hearing from intelligent men and women who think differently from me cuz it's the only way I can become better! One last simple point: If you and others are indeed right and that the KJV is the only God-approved translation today, PLEASE don't give up on me because I need to know the truth. It just is not the truth as I currently understand it. I hope we all stay strong to the things we are convicted by but not closed to any future things God would have us to know! :D

Rock on guys! This type of conversation is why I have recommended this board to everyone I know!

Mark
Vegan At Home
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 10:06 pm
Location: Sumner, WA

by Vegan At Home Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:49 am

I prefer the New King James version (a good one, with the textual notes comparing the differences between the manuscripts). Unfortunately I lost mine, so I use a New American Standard, which I still recommend but not as highly. I also recommend the original American Standard (1903), but beware, the English is hard to grasp.
User avatar
Andrew
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

by Andrew Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:17 pm

I read the New Living Translation. It's worded a little differently... but it makes God's word so much easier to understand - I think that if something like that will get someone reading the bibe, who cares?
"Go out into the world and preach... if necessary, use words." - St. Francis of Assisi

Generation Joshua Youth Ministry - Fayetteville, NC
P.O.D. - Warriors4Jah.com
Vickie Easterday
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Eternal Spiritual Bliss

by Vickie Easterday Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:49 pm

I prefer the KJV, as to me it is written very poetically. I also have Today's Parallel Bible which consists of the KJV, NIV, NLT, and NASB. I refer to it if I have questions or misunderstanding of scriptures in the KJV.

Vickie Easterday
Disciple Dove
I love Jesus..... and everything else is just DOVE dark chocolate !

Wash me; Cleanse me; Heal me;
Make me a Mothman.

Alas!!!! I am now a butterfly!
Return to The Word

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest