Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-27-2008, 09:36 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default Does the KJB not follow the Hebrew texts?

Does the King James Bible depart from the preserved Hebrew texts?

In the ongoing battle for the Bible those who do not believe such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible exists now or ever did exist in any language on this earth have recently taken up a new tactic to try to convince the Bible believers that our King James Bible is just as corrupt as their multitude of conflicting, error filled Bible of the Month Club versions. In fact, they come right out and say it. “See, even if our modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NET, etc. DO reject, depart from and change the Hebrew texts, so does your King James Bible. You’re in the same boat we are.”

It is an undeniable FACT that all modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman and the NKJV often and in numerous places clearly reject the Hebrew readings and either replace them with some partial Septuagint readings, the Syriac or they just make them up out of thin air, and often not even in the same places as the others have done it.

For specific and provable examples of this, please see these two articles:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing! In his internet posts he likes to refer to “the scripture” but he never comes right out and tell us what he means by “the scripture” nor where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever Bible version we’re reading now so we can see the differences. It seems his only spiritual interest is to get us to believe like he does, that is, that no such thing as an inerrant Bible exists.

Here is the list of alleged King James Bible departures from the Hebrew texts that Brian recently posted at one of the Bible Agnostic ....err... Christian clubs that abound on the internet today. What we see here is a rather silly attempt by a couple of men who do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever has been the complete and inerrant words of God.

Many of these examples even go against their own Bible of the Month Club versions so popular today. Yet you will not hear one peep of protest from any of the other members there who use their NASB, NIV, or ESV’s even though this goofy list criticizes their own preferred versions. The only important thing to the Bible Agnostic is that he is attacking the final authority of the King James Bible, and that is what they all have in common.

Let's take a look at the examples posted and see if there is any merit to them.

Genesis 41:56 Hebrew: what was in them LXX & KJV: storehouses

Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, 1917, 1936 all translated it the same way as the KJB. Better burn those modern versions guys. This man has the only true handle of what God REALLY said ;-)

Exodus 8:23 Hebrew: ransom LXX & KJV: division

RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, 1917 Jewish Publication Society, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Youngs = KJB. NKJV- difference; NIV = separation; NRSV= distinction. Looks like we'd better stoke those fires nice and hot. Nobody got it right except this guy and his imaginary and never published “scripture”.

1Samuel 16:4 Hebrew: he said LXX & KJV: they said (not true. wrong verse?)

1Samuel 25:8 Hebrew: is upon us LXX & KJV: we came

- No idea what he's talking about. NASB, NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, Holman, Young, 1917, 1936 all = KJB

2Chronicles 17:4 Hebrew: God LXX & KJV LORD God

- "LORD" is in italics in the King James Bible, showing you that the word LORD was provided by the translators, but the parallel passage in 1 Kings 22:43 reads LORD and so it is supplied from that place. The addition also emphasizes that it was the one true LORD (Jehovah) God that is being referred to in the context. Also reading "LORD God of his father" are Wycliffe, the Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Lamsa 1936, Amplified 1987, KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

ALL the new versions frequently "add" the words God or Lord to various texts when they think the context calls for it. In fact, the NIV, by their own admission, has added the words God or LORD some 104 times in the Old Testament when it does not occur in the Hebrew text and they have omitted it some 51 times when it DOES occur. Then in the New Testament the NIV has added the word JESUS 336 times when not in the texts, and the word GOD 117 times. Yet all this is brushed aside and seems to be OK with the modern version bible agnostics - BUT, when the King James Bible does this type of thing one or two times, then they blow a gasket, rise up in sanctimonious indignation and cry “Error!”. Go figure.

For several examples where versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV etc. add and even omit the words God and Lord, see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Godfd.html

Job 15:11 Hebrew: gently LXX & KJV: secret

- This is another translational issue, not a textual one. The NKJV has another totally false footnote. It says the LXX reads "secret thing". This is a bald faced lie. The LXX copy I have is so far out of whack it is laughable. Instead of saying: “Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?” the LXX actually reads: "Thou hast been scourged for but few of thy sins; thou hast spoken haughtily and extravagantly."!!! It is totally unrecognizable when compared to any other bible version out there. The NKJV editors are lying to you.

Most modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB generally say something like: "Are the consolations of God too small for you, And the word spoken gently with you?"(NKJV). However it should be noted that the words "word spoken" are not in any Hebrew text and there are a wide variety of different translations.

Agreeing with the King James Bible's "is there any secret thing with thee" are the 1549 Italian Diodati, the 1602 Spanish Reina Valera "cosa oculta", Luther's 1545 German bible, Geneva Bible "strange thing", Websters 1833, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read "secret thing". The Modern Greek translation also agrees with the KJB saying "he exeis ti apokruphon en heautoo" = "Do you have any hidden thing in yourself?"

The New English Bible 1970 reads "a word whispered quietly"(which would agree in sense with the KJB). Wycliffe read "shrewed words" while Bishops had "lying words" and Douay had "wicked words".

John Gill makes no attempt to “correct the text” and comments on the verse: “is there any secret thing with thee? any secret wisdom and knowledge which they were strangers to; or any secret way of conveying comfort to him they knew not of; or any secret sin in him, any Achan in the camp, that hindered him from receiving comfort, or put him upon slighting what was offered to him.” See also Adam Clarke’s commentary and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on this verse. They all support the King James Bible’s reading.

Hosea 13:16 Hebrew: is held guilty LXX & KJV: become desolate

- Another ridiculous example of allegedly departing from the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word, like most Hebrew words, has multiple meanings. It is translated as "desolate" 5 times in the KJB and even though the NKJV here has "Samaria is held guilty", yet the NKJV and the NIV translate this same word as "desolate" in other places, as in Isaiah 24:6 and Ezekiel 6:6. Agreeing with the KJB's "Samaria shall become desolate" are the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, Youngs, the Geneva Bible, the New English Bible 1970, Luther's German bible 1545, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Diodati 1549 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 and 1995 "Samaria será desolada", and the KJV 21st Century 1994.

Agreeing in sense are 1395 Wycliffe "perish";1535 Coverdale, the 1568 Bishops bible, and the 1960 Bible in Basic English - "shall be made waste".

Proverbs 24:28 Hebrew: would you deceive? LXX & KJV: do not deceive

- Apparently the guy who made up this silly list has lost his mind. The NKJV reads like this self-professed "scholar" suggests, but agreeing with the King James Bible's "and deceive not with thy lips" are the NASB, NIV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions. Somebody is really desperate to try to find just one provable error in the Book.

Lamentations 1:8 Hebrew: became vile LXX & KJV: is removed

- This is another really lame and misleading attempt by the NKJV editors to undermine the authority of the King James Bible. The NKJV says: "Therefore she has BECOME VILE" and then they footnote "Septuagint and Vulgate read 'moved' or 'removed'. Again, this is not true. The Septuagint version says "therefore has she come into tribulation".

The Hebrew word used in Lamentations 1:8 is found only once but it comes directly from another Hebrew word which has multiple meanings including "to be removed, to wag, to make move, to bemoan, to shake, to be sorry, to take pity, to flee, and to skip for joy”. The NKJV itself translated this same word as "to move" and "to drive away" in Jeremiah 4:1; 50:3 and 8, and Psalm 36:11.

Not only does the King James Bible say in Lamentations 1:8 "Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she IS REMOVED" but so too do the following Bible versions. Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible, Darby, Green's literal MKJV, Webster's 1833, the Amplified bible 1987, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 “será removida”. The KJV 21st Century says "has become a wanderer" and even the Message says "she is an outcast".

Jeremiah 50:11 Hebrew: heifer threshing grass LXX & KJV: heifer at grass

- Well, if this is supposedly what the Hebrew text says, then a whole bunch of translators, both Jewish and Gentile have entirely missed it. "Heifer at grass" is the reading found in the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 translation, Complete Jewish Bible, Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Amplified bible, Green's literal, Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Darby, Douay, the RSV, NRSV, and the ESV. Even the NASB admits that "heifer at grass" is another Hebrew reading.

Proverbs 19:24 Hebrew: bowl LXX & KJV: bosom

- Again, this Hebrew word has a couple of meanings, one being bosom and the other dish. Agreeing with the KJB are the Geneva Bible, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1649, the French Martin 1744, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium bible 1998.

Ecclesiastes 9:14 Hebrew: snares LXX & KJV: bulwarks

- Again, this false information comes from the bogus NKJV footnotes where it says "snares" and then footnotes that bulwarks comes from the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate. Sorry NKJV guys, but the Hebrew word is translated here as 'bulwarks' by the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Amplified bible, Bishops' bible, Luther's German 1512 " Bollwerke", the Italian Diodati, Italian Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 "baluartes", French Martin and Ostervald 1996 (forts), Green literal, Bishops' bible, Coverdale, and the KJV 21st Century.

Not even the NASB, NIV, RSV or ESV agree with the NKJV. They all say "seigeworks", which is much like the KJB’s “bulwarks” instead of the NKJV's 'snares'.

Isaiah 1:17 Hebrew: reprove the oppressor LXX & KJV: relieve the oppressor

- This is another case of blind stupidity trying to discredit the Authorized King James Bible. The guy missed what the verse says in the King James Bible and is completely wrong about what the reading should be. The KJB says "relieve the oppressed" not "relieve the oppressor".

The modern fake bibles can't even agree among themselves. The NKJV and NASB say "REPROVE the oppressor" while the NIV says "ENCOURAGE THE OPPRESSED" (which is more like the KJB). The NEB 1970 falls more in line with the KJB when it says "champion the oppressed", the Living Bible has "help the oppressed" and the ESV says "correct oppression". The Judaica Press Tanach has "strengthen the robbed" and even The Message has "help the down-and-out".

Agreeing with the Hebrew reading correctly translated in the King James Bible "RELIEVE the OPPRESSED" are the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Complete Jewish Bible, Bishops's, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Youngs, Hebrew Names Bible, Douay, the NRSV, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

Speaking frankly, the guy who put together this bogus list of alleged errors in the King James Bible is an idiot (See original Greek;-) who has no inerrant Bible in any language to give or recommend to anyone. “Idiot” of course in the literal Greek meaning of the word, that is, one who is ignorant and follows his own peculiar ways. All he has are his own personal opinions and preferences along with a massive dollop of misinformation and outright lies which he uses in his vain attempts to overthrow God's time tested and always true inerrant words of God - the King James Holy Bible.

Get a copy. Read it and believe every word of it. You will never go wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

Will Kinney
  #2  
Old 11-27-2008, 03:52 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Thank you Will. Your work is always appreciated.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen
  #3  
Old 11-28-2008, 06:53 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default God's perfect Book - the King James Bible

I brother. Glad to hear the article is of some benefit in defending God's pure words. There is one minor correction to be made. It is only the word "spoken" that is not found in the Hebrew texts in Job 15:11, where the nkjv has added it and changed the meaning. There is a word there that can mean "thing, matter, or word". The KJB has it as "secret THING" and it is of course correct.

Praise God for His precious words of truth and grace,

Will K
  #4  
Old 11-28-2008, 07:05 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am the "man named Brian Tegart" that Brandplucked refers to in the post above. Brandplucked's post was a side tangent from a more important discussion we were having (which he alludes to in the post above), and for some reason he posted his reply on several boards. He says "A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing!" A man named Will Kinney has yet to explain to us why that's a problem because he believes the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. What he is really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and he has yet to explain why I should (or why he does). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem he is avoiding. Anyone interested is invited to view the history and participate in the whole discussion by visiting the Bible Version Discussion Board.

God bless,
Brian
  #5  
Old 11-28-2008, 07:24 PM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default Does the KJB depart from the Hebrew texts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT View Post
I am the "man named Brian Tegart" that Brandplucked refers to in the post above.

He says "A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing!"
Brian
Hi Brian. Let's take this one step at a time. First, is my statement concerning what you personally believe about a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible accurate? Is it true that you do not believe that such a thing exists now or ever did exist?

No fancy footwork please. Just a straight Yes or, if a No, then a brief explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Will K
  #6  
Old 11-28-2008, 07:34 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Will, I'm not going to duplicate the same discussion all over the internet. Please continue the discussion where it started ( http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...ic/4202?page=2 ), I am more than willing to answer your questions there, and am still waiting for you to answer mine.

God bless,
Brian
  #7  
Old 12-02-2008, 05:28 PM
Vendetta Ride
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Sorry for getting your name wrong earlier. I hope you realize no offense was intended, it was a simple mistake.
That's easy enough to say, now that the damage is done. It broke my heart, quite frankly. But my heart's been broken before. I'm not bitter: oh no, not me....

Quote:
Then where does it come from? Why seven stages (again, Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English Bible)? If it's not a fulfillment of prophecy, then is it not based simply on fallible understanding and assumptions about history?
Where does what come from? The King James Bible, or the seven-stage thing? The seven stages form a happy and convenient matrix for my understanding of the issues. They are not the integration point of my theology, as Francis Schaeffer used to say: the resurrection of Christ is that integration point. But the seven stages, or the several sets of seven stages, add to my appreciation and enjoyment of the Bible. As for a "fallible understanding ... of history," I certainly plead guilty; that's one reason why I depend so completely an a final and infallible authority: God's propositional revelation, the Authorized Version.

Why, man, my own understanding of myself is fallible! How could I be expected to get history right? Some of the brightest minds at my university tried to teach me history, and on occasion they succeeded; but I did not join this forum because of my prowess as a historian.

(By the way, Donald Waite's schematizations are as utterly irrelevant to me as Paris Hilton's tastes in evening attire. The Dean Burgon Society is like today's Republican Party: neither fish nor fowl, fundamental or neo-orthodox, hot or cold: just a confused, inarticulate dinosaur. Let Donald Waite and John McCain go commiserate over the mysteries of the cosmos: I'm sure they'd have a happy time of it.)

Quote:
What, if I may ask, are some of the others?
The Valera edition in Spanish comes to mind, as does Luther's German translation. Neither achieves the perfection of the Authorized Version, but they are accurate and dependable, and are understood by a much larger percentage of the world's population than Greek or Hebrew.

Quote:
If I were to purify some silver 7 times in a furnace of earth, what would be the practical difference between the 6th purification and the 7th? Is not the 6th purification "pure silver"? What if I did an 8th - does it somehow become less pure than the 7th?
Go to, brother! You're jabbering like a Jesuit. I mean no offense; but it should be obvious that if something so base as silver needs seven refinings, so does something as sublime as the word of God. Actually, it matters very little to me (as I have mentioned a few times already) whether God's word was refined seven times, or seventy times seven; the point of the discussion is that the final purification came with the Authorized Version. Do you, Brother T, actually believe that the NASV or the NIV are improvements over the AV? I certainly won't throw rocks at you if you say "yes;" you'll only be speaking for the majority of American Christians. But is that really your position?

And, if those versions (or the other 225+ versions) are not improvements, then what's the point?

Quote:
As a simile, the whole verse is clear enough. It is not worded like other prophecies, it is not explained in other scripture, it is not seen as a prophecy by anyone (that I can find) until a 7th Day Adventist preacher in the 1930s.
Let me say, in as friendly a manner as possible, that I do not give a hoot in Hell (Is. 34:11) when a truth is discovered, or by whom it is discovered, as long as it is true. As for the wording of prophecies, it varies widely and, one might say, wildly. Some of the most personally meaningful prophecy in the entire Bible, to me, is found in the Song of Solomon: but it isn't prefaced by "thus saith the Lord."

Quote:
But how can you identify which [multiple fulfillments of prophecy] are real, and which aren't? Without a real authority identifying them, it's all just near-worthless speculation at best, and just more causes for schisms and divisions and fights at worst.
What on earth are you talking about? A prophecy says, "Jerusalem will fall." It falls in 70 AD. If it falls again later, after having been rebuilt, is that second fall less "real" than the first? The facts of history are not subjectively discerned; they happen, or they don't.

Quote:
If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history? Was it sad then? Why did God make it all so sad?
You have never heard me say that the Christian church was without scripture for the first 80% of its history. As for sadness in general, God allows a lot of it, for many reasons. Usually, it is intended as a didactic or disciplinary tool.

Quote:
Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet (as demonstrated even on this forum) disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? If a KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is not true, but a "modern" version reader concludes it is true, is it not the modern version reader that has God's word hidden in his heart? Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?
I believe that an illiterate aborigine can receive revelation about the Trinity and the Second Advent from the revelation of nature; and he can derive a pretty good sense of morality from the revelation of conscience. Does that mean that no propositional revelation is needed?

No kidding: does it? And, if a propositional revelation is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible? How do you know that the Muslims don't have that all-important "correct understanding?"

I'm being serious, by the way. I await your response.
  #8  
Old 12-02-2008, 06:34 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

BrianT proposed:
Quote:
Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet ... disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? ...
Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?
Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.

Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text? How can one draw truth from error? Most modern versions have enough basic truth to provide the foundation for the fundamental doctrines, (and even that is fading with each new generation of versions) so, yes, there will be agreement in a general sense. The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent. The NIV, NASB, and ESV all do the same. What is interesting is to examine Colossians 1:16 as a parallel. The MVs alternate between "by" and "through", even contradicting themselves within the verse.
  #9  
Old 12-02-2008, 07:52 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Vendetta Ride,

Quote:
The Valera edition in Spanish comes to mind, as does Luther's German translation. Neither achieves the perfection of the Authorized Version, but they are accurate and dependable, and are understood by a much larger percentage of the world's population than Greek or Hebrew.
Then we are not so far apart, for I also do not require total absence of textual imperfections to call a Bible "the word of God". I just see no authoritative reason, as already explained to attribute a quality of "textually inerrant" to the KJV. So perhaps we are running out of things to talk about.

Quote:
I mean no offense; but it should be obvious that if something so base as silver needs seven refinings, so does something as sublime as the word of God.
Huh? If something base needs refining, so does something pure? No comprendo. The words were already, and always, pure. No refinement needed.

Quote:
the point of the discussion is that the final purification came with the Authorized Version
Actually, the point of the discussion is the question of authority behind such a claim. If you personally don't even see it as a prophecy, and admit it's just your personal belief and not authoritative or binding on anyone else, I have absolutely no quarrel with you - I just think you're wrong.

Quote:
Do you, Brother T, actually believe that the NASV or the NIV are improvements over the AV? I certainly won't throw rocks at you if you say "yes;" you'll only be speaking for the majority of American Christians. But is that really your position?
In some aspects, yes, in some aspects no. That is why I don't limit myself to a single translation, but use a variety of translations for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

Quote:
Let me say, in as friendly a manner as possible, that I do not give a hoot in Hell (Is. 34:11) when a truth is discovered, or by whom it is discovered, as long as it is true. As for the wording of prophecies, it varies widely and, one might say, wildly. Some of the most personally meaningful prophecy in the entire Bible, to me, is found in the Song of Solomon: but it isn't prefaced by "thus saith the Lord."
My point is simply that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. There cannot be new doctrines for the church that could not be doctrines for the entire church, unless they are given with true authority.

Quote:
What on earth are you talking about? A prophecy says, "Jerusalem will fall." It falls in 70 AD. If it falls again later, after having been rebuilt, is that second fall less "real" than the first? The facts of history are not subjectively discerned; they happen, or they don't.
I am talking about authority. If scripture says Jerusalem will fall, the authority is scripture. When it happens, because scripture was clear about it, we can be sure of the fulfillment, but we ourselves do not have the authority to say what the fulfillment is even if we are correct about the fulfillment. I can stand on the side of the highway and identify speeders, but I have no authority to write and hand out legally binding speeding tickets. When things are less clear, such as when there's no reason to believe something has a secondary prophecy meaning in the first place (let alone what the fulfillment would look like even if it was a prophecy), the lack of authority is even more evident. It's theoretically possible that someone making the claim is actually correct (just as I might correctly identify a speeder even when I have no idea what the speed limit is or what speed the person is doing), but it's all just non-binding guesswork and fallible opinion by someone with no authority. And if I were to stand out on the highway and try to pass out speeding tickets, it would not be wrong (in fact it would be right) for someone to challenge my authority.

Quote:
I believe that an illiterate aborigine can receive revelation about the Trinity and the Second Advent from the revelation of nature
And what's the success rate on that? How many illiterate, aboriginal, never-heard-the-gospel Trinitarians are there?

Quote:
if a propositional revelation is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible?
When I want to know how to program a computer, I read a computer manual, not a cookbook. When I want to know what the King's message is, I read a translation of the King's speech, not a translation of the memoirs and philosophies of a violent pedophile. But just because I read the King's speech does not mean I'm going to understand it all correctly, even with the Holy Spirit's help - it still goes through the filters of our bias and limited, fallible comprehension. But I stand a much better shot of getting the King's intended message by reading the King's speech and not something else.
  #10  
Old 12-02-2008, 08:08 PM
BrianT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Brother Tim,

Quote:
Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.
I never said it did. My point is simply if you hold the word of God in your hands, but it doesn't make it any further than that, how has it benefited you?

Quote:
Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text?
Simple. Suppose I have three different texts, each claiming to be a translation of the same source: "I lick cookies", "I like corkies" and "I like cookees". I can read any of the three, in isolation or comparatively, and get the correct understanding. I can read "only begotten God" and/or "only begotten Son", and conclude that Jesus is God the Son, begotten.

Quote:
The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent.
Good example. Yes, you could understand it that way, but must you? If I say we are saved "through" him instead of "by" him, does that move him from being an active agent of salvation to being a passive agent - or is the correct understanding still possible?

God bless,
Brian
 

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 12:04 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