Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-19-2008, 12:57 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by againstheresies View Post
Please do not impugn my motives. I have stated clearly my motive is simply to gather and understand your arguments for rejecting the NKJV. Thus far it is my opinion that your arguments are weak, mostly flawed, and uninformed. I am sure you think they are excellent, but I disagree.
I don't know what your motives are - I was questioning your posting.

I didn't say all the arguments presented were excellent - but obviously some of them are important. The most important being the Septuagint being used for the OT, the Critical Text notes within the Bible itself, and the myriad of changes in meaning (not just changes in wording). That is enough for anyone who is convinced the preserved texts (Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus) are the only solid basis for a translation. What else do we need? We love the Word of God and we don't need the devil messing around with it.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #92  
Old 02-19-2008, 05:03 PM
ok.book.guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
You may find that the NKJV at the very least would be a helpful commentary.
Right, in fact I know two of the men who worked on it, and for that reason, I have used it before as just that. . .a commentary.
  #93  
Old 02-20-2008, 09:30 AM
Pastor Mikie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In regards to the word "vision" in Proverbs 29:18 I'm supposing I came across as ignorant because I didn't refer to the word "revelation" as defined in websters dicitonary of 1828 or "the original" which gave the same definition. However, I still hold to my original statement concerning purpose and/or direction. I wasn't attempting to do anything but understand what it is saying to me as a reader. Without a "revelation" from God (vision), we would have no purpose or direction, just a "guess". Jesus said in John 15:5 ...without me ye can do nothing..

So, unless we have a vision, we will perish. We get that revealed through God's Word. So, again I ask, if the KJB isn't God's Word to us who's native tongue is English, then where is it? After 400 years of multiple English translation, one would think we could have an infallible version by now. Does God require us to go to the original languages to get a clearer understanding? If I can't trust the "Bible" I'm reading to be accurate and infallible, then I need to get one I can.

The Bible text itself does a terrific job of explaining what it means. If the KJB would have said "revelation" instead of "vision" in Proverbs 29:18, I would have come away with a different understanding of the verse's meaning. I believe God chose the words as He did to us who speak English to tell us what He wants us to know, so we can understand what He is saying.

Concerning the variant readings in the original 1611, I take them more as a help in definition. If the variant reading and the text were switched around, that would altar the verse's meaning as well. I have to trust that God saw to it I got what He wants me to know through His Word. Maybe the translators didn't know or acknowledge being inspired, but 1st Timothy 3:16 does because of the word "is".

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


I also believe it is inspired as we read and speak it.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

If I don't understand a word, I go to the dictionary and get a definition. However, if I want to fully understand it's meaning, I need to consider how it is used. For example: my wife says she loves me with all her heart. I go to the dictionary and find a few definitions.
1. It's a hollow muscular organ.
2. The seat of emotions.

Since it is contextually obvious she means the seat of her emotions, that would be the proper definition. But since my wife is telling me this, it means a whole lot more. The dictionary didn't take into account who said it, the expression of the speaker, or under what circumstances.

Therefore, when I read Proverbs 29:18, no dictionary or lexicon can convey expression or circumstances (the 1828 dictionary attempts to, though). So, because of the words chosen, the context given, and the Holy Ghost to inspire it, I can know what the expression and circumstances are, and know what the verse means. Dictionaries and lexicons are tools only. But the final authority has to be the inspired Word of God itself.
  #94  
Old 02-20-2008, 12:47 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Bible is already inspired - it doesn't become inspired as you read or study it. It never loses its inspiration.
  #95  
Old 02-20-2008, 10:50 PM
LIVNBYFAITH
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up Spirit is removed

Who here believes that the Holy Spirit is in the KJB? If you truly believe this, then you CANNOT DENY, Rev. 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life"

This is saying God's Spirit is not in the book (NKJV).

My question to againstheresies, does this passage not make you think, even for a moment, just make you doubt that any other word or translation, He will have no part of it?

You know before I was saved, I would read the KJV and it confused me, I won't lie. but after I was saved the spirit directs you, and gives you understanding. It's funny, I was raised in a home where we never went to church, more over even dared to figure what was the True Word of God. But after I was saved, and attended church regularly, I never questioned what was the True Word. And understanding was given me by the Holy Spirit. If no one here can change your mind about this, or even bring a good enough argument to convience you, then go to the final Authority, Pray and ask Jesus, what is the true word of God. We may not have all the answers to your questions, but I know He does. I mean no offense to you or mean to belittle you, but by praying and fasting he will reveal it to you.
  #96  
Old 02-21-2008, 10:14 AM
Pastor Mikie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From Jerry...The Bible is already inspired - it doesn't become inspired as you read or study it. It never loses its inspiration.

I agree with the 2nd half of your statement. I'm not implying that it ever loses its inspiration. I believe the inspiration of Scripture is ongoing because of Hebrews 4:12...For the word of God is quick, and powerful....When I read or speak it, it was inspired, is inspired and will forever be inspired...it is Quick (very much alive) and powerful.
  #97  
Old 02-21-2008, 10:19 AM
Pastor Mikie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PS: Jerry,

I didn't mean just the 2nd half of your statement...I agree with your statement, and I was attempting to explain what I really meant by my previous posting...
  #98  
Old 02-21-2008, 10:23 AM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you for clarifying. That is an excellent verse about the living power of the Word of God:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
  #99  
Old 02-22-2008, 09:18 AM
ok.book.guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
From Againstheheresies

One of the major areas of disagreement between us is apparently the Doctrine of Inspiration. It is my contention that I hold to the orthodox position of the church and most of you apparently hold to a heterodox position. My position is best stated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm


The statement that immediately addresses our disagreement is Article 10

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

This is my position. You may not agree with it, but you should not mischaracterize it. I would highly recommend reading the Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
__________________
I do highly recommend reading "The Ecclesiastical Text" by my great and good friend, the late Theodore P. Letis. He was a bona fide work-a-day scholar of the history of the text of the bible and was the protege of Edward F. Hills. In it, he traces all down the church age, the historic/orthodox doctrine of "Infallibility" and shows the recent doctrine that replaced it "Inerrancy". Your confession is a product of 1978 and is the first confession/statement IN HISTORY that invokes "Inerrancy" (I've already dealt with The Chicago Statement in post #6 of "Why Do YOu Call It Baloney"). The church's doctrine has always been "Infallibility". Inerrancy says only the autographs were inspired and today we can only reconstruct the original text within a high degree of certainty. Infallibility says the original autographs (they don't use that language, I'm just doing so for clarity) were immediately inspired but their copies (apographs) were providentially preserved and therefore "authentic" (not just high degree of reliability). The church has always treated the translations as being commanded by God (inferred in the confessions since God commands us to search the scriptures and from the fact that the scriptures have been received in lands other than hebrew/greek speaking ones) and as such, are not the work of man, but of God (What God commands, God provides).

Do check it out.

Last edited by ok.book.guy; 02-22-2008 at 09:26 AM.
  #100  
Old 02-23-2008, 03:31 PM
ziggy2sound4u ziggy2sound4u is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Alger, Oh
Posts: 19
Default

1.The NKJV does Not make the English more understandable.
2.The NKJV changes doctrines of the Bible in some spots.(Matt. 20:20,I Cor. 1:18, He. 10:14)
3.The NKJV used the Hebraic Biblia in the Old Testament, versus what was actually used by Jews then and now.
4. The NKJV contains an obvious lie in He. 3:16.The NKJV denies Old Testament history that they entered Canaan. Paul taught that not all Israelites from Egypt died in the wilderness, due to the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb.
I think this should be plenty enough to avoid the NKJV!
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com