Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

I have a few questions for againstheresies:

How do you know when you are reading God's infallible Word?

What is your final authority?

How do you know the definitions in your "original language" sources is accurate?

What would it take for anyone in this forum to convince you the KJB is the Word of God?

Just a few honest questions...no offense intended.

Spot on. Like the various cult members who knock on your door,New age version users cannot give difinitive answers to any of these questions.

Can you imagine the course of the conversation if a Jehovas Witness knocks on the door of the new age version user?

J.W... 'My New World Translation says that Jesus was not God in the flesh"

NAVU... "Well, my Bible of the Month version seems to indicate that, barring any translation or scribal errors, he could have been!!"

J.W... "Prove it"

NAVU... " Well, I cant be 100% sure, the words werent translated exctly, more like a general thought tranference. And I dont have the originals.....but we can check out what the Greek says!"

J.W... "Hey, is that a copy of Wescott and Horts Greek New Testament you have there?"

NAVU... ' Yep, I got it at Bible college"

J.W... "Wow!, Its the same one we use at Watchtower trianing sessions.

NAVU... "Really?, well maybe we have more in common than I thought, would you like to come in for a cup of tea?, by the way, what do you think of the King James Bible?

J.W... "We dont use it anymore, its too different from our bible."

Navu..." Right on, brother, I agree....."

Group hug anyone???


Fundy

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

From Againstheries: Proverbs 29:18 (KJV) Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Okay. What is the meaning of "vision" in this passage, and how did you come to that conclusion?

From the context of the passage and using an English dictionary, "vision" would seem to indicate purpose and/or direction.

I think you asked that question to try and say we can't know what that means unless we know the original Hebrew word. I find myself a little resentful about that kind of thinking. After 400 years and no English Bible is correctly translated? Why have an English Bible at all? Personally, I believe God has more power and authority than that. The KJB's 400 year legacy speaks for itself.

This post was in response to:
“Originally Posted by ok.book.guy
If I can't understand what the Bible says in English, I'm sure not going to understand it in another language.”

My point was to demonstrate the fallacy of that statement. The Lexicon is a helpful tool. Looking this verse up in Hebrew or even looking it up in the Strong’s Concordance may have helped Jack Hyles to understand the meaning of this passage. After all the meaning of the Bible is God’s Word. We must be careful to correctly understand what the Bible means and not make it mean something that it does not.

If someone does not have the ability to read Hebrew or cannot do a word study, they may be able to compare other translations for clues to what the word may actually mean. For example, the NKJV is much clearer in this passage. The translators have interpreted the Hebrew word “chazon” as revelation. You may find that the NKJV at the very least would be a helpful commentary. After all a commentary is mostly a scholars interpretation of a passage and is guided by the reading in the original language.

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law. (Proverbs 29:18 NKJV)

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

I have a few questions for againstheresies:

How do you know when you are reading God's infallible Word?

What is your final authority?

How do you know the definitions in your "original language" sources is accurate?

What would it take for anyone in this forum to convince you the KJB is the Word of God?

Just a few honest questions...no offense intended.

1. How do you know when you are reading God's infallible Word?

When the text or translation represents the autographic text.


2. What is your final authority?

I assume you mean which text or translation, if so then the autographic text.


3. How do you know the definitions in your "original language" sources is accurate?

The art and science of lexigraphy is well established. It is well sourced, verified, documented, and under constant peer review.


4. What would it take for anyone in this forum to convince you the KJB is the Word of God?

The KJV is the Word of God. I do not think it is the only valid translation. It never was and it is not now an infallible translation. It is a good translation. It is the Word of God.


5. Just a few honest questions...no offense intended.

No offense taken. We may not agree on these issues but surely we can agree to disagree. I have no problem with anyone challenging my position. After all I like most of you would seek the truth, even if it caused me to change my views.

It is sad that some of the dialogue on this post has been a bit juvenile, some people have made assumptions about my intentions that are not valid, and others are not able to make a cogent enough argument to warrant a reply.

Thank you for your honest and intelligent challenge and I look forward to further dialogue.

My intent was not to promote my views, but rather gather yours. I remain unconvinced. It is my opinion that most of the objections to the NKJV given here are fallacious and are not based on either sound logic or from an informed perspective. At a minimum I hope we can disagree in an agreeable manner.

Inspiration

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.

While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.

The term "NEW TESTAMENT", is completely omitted.

It is interesting to note that Hebrews 9:15-20 in the NKJV lines up with the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible).

According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "PEDDLE" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God .... "But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not -- they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to peddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

See this article here http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html

Ploughboy

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.”

Let me use a little thought transference to translate the above into a form of language that the common man can understand. Surely you won't object, as this is the same reasoning used when the KJV was deemed too hard for modern readers..

My translation of your artical 10 is as follows:

We believe that God was not able to keep his promise of preserving his word forever and while He was able to to muster enough power to keep a lot of what he said intact, we arent quite sure what is the good stuff and what are the mistakes.
We deny that essential elements of the Christian faith are un-affected by the absence of the autographs, despite the fact that without the autographs we cannot be sure what those basic elements truly ar, as all copies made since are corrupt with error.
We deny that just because two or more different versions say two or more different things, that they arent all the word of God.




Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Fundy

Let me use a little thought transference to translate the above into a form of language that the common man can understand. Surely you won't object, as this is the same reasoning used when the KJV was deemed too hard for modern readers..

We believe that God was not able to keep his promise of preserving his word forever and while He was able to to muster enough power to keep a lot of what he said intact, we arent quite sure what is the good stuff and what are the mistakes.
We deny that essential elements of the Christian faith are un-affected by the absence of the autographs, despite the fact that without the autographs we cannot be sure what those basic elements truly ar, as all copies made since are corrupt with error.
We deny that just because two or more different versions say two or more different things, that they arent all the word of God.

Uh, could you translate what you just said

Cheers Ploughboy

This topic, no matter where it is discussed, sure does cause some upset. I remember having this discussion with a Pastor in Rhode Island. He was getting louder as the dialogue progressed. After 2 hours of "discussion" I asked this question:

"If all I used was the KJB and all you used was the NIV, who would live a better Christian life?" He said, "You would". I responded with: "I rest my case".

"againsheresies" has made it clear his position is unchanged by this discussion thus far. I believe it will remain unchanged. The reason people get upset about this issue has more to do with someone attacking what they hold as absolute. Like attacking one's security.

The first time I was confronted with this issue, I felt like the people who used a different translation of the Bible believed something different than what my Bible said. I immediately noticed their NASV ommited the last half of Romans 8:1. That shook my faith. That was around 30 years ago. It caused me to dig into this issue further. I've come to the conclusion that only ONE rendering of a passage can be correct.

My "choosing" the KJB as the only valid English Word of God was simple. What "version" does the devil hate the most? It seems obvious to me he hates the KJB because it is the "version" he attacks the most. Another reason is longevity. Another is the fact God seems to be preserving it. I can't find where any other "version" since the KJB has survived as well. The NIV seems to be "popular". However its popularity is diminishing due to up and coming newer "versions".

Maybe that isn't proof enough for others, but it is a glaring fact that can't be ignored and needs to be answered.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

The KJB looks to me to be the ultimate winner here.

Something else I've noticed about using multiple translations: There are those who, if they don't like a rendering in one translation, they just look for one they do like. Also, if they can't justify the doctrine they are teaching from the Bible they are reading from, they just toss in "the Greek/Hebrew word is ???". I've heard some wild ones in my time.

Several things I find funny about againsheresies (from what I can recall, Ireneus - unsure of spelling - who wrote "Against Heresies" was not sound in the faith...) is that he supposedly came here looking to understand our position, but in actual fact is here to push his NKJV.

Secondly, he asked for our reasons - then states they are unjustified. They may not be enough to convince him, but obviously they were reasons enough for many here to turn away from the NKJV.

Originally Posted by jerry

Several things I find funny about againsheresies (from what I can recall, Ireneus - unsure of spelling - who wrote "Against Heresies" was not sound in the faith...) is that he supposedly came here looking to understand our position, but in actual fact is here to push his NKJV.

Secondly, he asked for our reasons - then states they are unjustified. They may not be enough to convince him, but obviously they were reasons enough for many here to turn away from the NKJV.

Jerry:
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.

The reason I challenged many of the arguments given was to see if a more cogent response could be given. This exercise has been somewhat helpful to me in that I now better understand why people from your perspective hold to your positions. I do not expect my conclusions to mirror yours.

The only disappointing thing about this experience was that much of the dialogue seemed to be a bit mean spirited. But perhaps people on this forum believe anyone that is not a KJV only person should be considered a heretic.

I think I will ask that question under a new thread to get the response of this community.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

This post was in response to:
“Originally Posted by ok.book.guy
If I can't understand what the Bible says in English, I'm sure not going to understand it in another language.”

My point was to demonstrate the fallacy of that statement. The Lexicon is a helpful tool. Looking this verse up in Hebrew or even looking it up in the Strong’s Concordance may have helped Jack Hyles to understand the meaning of this passage. After all the meaning of the Bible is God’s Word. We must be careful to correctly understand what the Bible means and not make it mean something that it does not.

If someone does not have the ability to read Hebrew or cannot do a word study, they may be able to compare other translations for clues to what the word may actually mean. For example, the NKJV is much clearer in this passage. The translators have interpreted the Hebrew word “chazon” as revelation. You may find that the NKJV at the very least would be a helpful commentary. After all a commentary is mostly a scholars interpretation of a passage and is guided by the reading in the original language.

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law. (Proverbs 29:18 NKJV)

As I've said any number of times previously, I use the original 1828 Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, because I'm reading God's infallible word in english. Noah Webster's entry for Vision says something you missed or didn't bother to consult:

4. VISION IN SCRIPTURE, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events. Such were the visions of Isaiah, of Amos, of Ezekiel, &c.

THere you have it. Your pet word that makes the whole thing open up for you. We all get it here too because we make use of this ENGLISH dictionary.

Brother, you are confusing a language version of God's word for a lexicon. The language version of God's word will sometimes not use the word you want. And that's okay. I was always okay with "vision" because I know from reading God's word it means a revelation. The first occurence in the bible of the word "vision" tells me this:

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

You should've looked up your example in Webster's before too easily convincing yourself you had refuted my obviously true statement, which was and still is: "If you can't understand a passage of scripture in english, you're not going to help yourself by appealing to the dictionary of a language you don't know. You want to refute that? Just tell me how many different language versions of the bible you looked up that verse in Proverbs for help, after reading it in the KJV I mean? Did you see "vision" and think "Mercy! I better see what the French Olivetan has here, and then I"ll check out the Spanish Valera version. And then if I'm still confused,. . .let me see. . .I don't read syriac either, so I"ll look it up in the Peshitta next!!!!"

But, that's not the reason you look things up in the greek. . . is it? No, you do it because you labor under the illusion that it gets you closer to the word of God. But the greek and english are both versions. One does not trump the other. God providentially preserved the greek version (TR). Then God gave us the english version. Now it is authentic, same as the greek. According to Edward F. Hills, the KJV and the greek are actually and simply two versions of the received text.

Webster's is an invaluable tool in reading God's infallible word in english. His definitions usually have a special entry for when the word in question is used in Scripture. Note he says Scripture, not "version" not "translation" but Scripture.

Look brother c'mon. Are you receiving anything that anyone here is saying to you? Any number of us here have stated our use of the original 1828Webster's dictionary. And some here have stated their use of the Strong's lexicon.

You're not doing your argument (nor yourself) any good here. You're scattering doubts around, hoping some may stick. But its apparently stuff off the top of your head. You apparently are not taking anything in that is being said here. I say apparently because you're not using any of it. Its like we're both talking to the great void instead of to each other!