Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:39 PM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
Near the end of Joyner's rant he points out

I am so busy soaking up what the bible is trying to impart to me, I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation, I have enough trouble with English let alone Greek.
By all means, take that avenue of approach. There's no such thing as a word-for-word translation, anyway

That's what some of my brothers and sisters are doing, too.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #32  
Old 05-03-2008, 12:30 AM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation...
Sad - what help is it to you to water down the Word of God by mixing it with corrupt translations from corrupt texts? You can't learn the truth by mixing it with error.
  #33  
Old 05-03-2008, 04:08 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default inspiration is claimed only for the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord
Dr. Robert A Joyner's historic fundamental position has always been that inspiration is claimed only for the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. he goes on to point out
Hi Gord,

Brandon gave you a superb response to this, however one point has not been addressed.

Is this position historic to Robert Joyner ? Or does he actually claim that this is the historic position of the Bible believers, with emphasis on the writings of the early church writers and the Reformation confessions and textual analysis writers ?

If so, perhaps it deserves its own thread. My research has indicated that this is a fairly new position (less than 150 years) and thus only minimally historic. And that the Reformation position was clearly au contraire. And that the early church writers were far more in synch with the Reformation position than the "historic Joyner" position.

Maybe you could start by sharing any specific quotes he gives from before the 19th century. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven
  #34  
Old 05-03-2008, 04:17 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord
a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content
Which textual content are you trying to understand ? The Greek texts that claim that the ending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, "God was manifest in the flesh .." and the Acts 8:37 baptism testimony and the Johannine Comma are all man's corruption (which is the Greek text that has gross errors like the swine marathon from Gerasa and Jesus saying he is not going to the feast).

Or do you desire the underlying source text of the King James Bible and the historic Reformation Bibles, that accepts and declare these beautiful verses and sections as God's word, inspired and pure scripture.

One is truth, one is error. On this level, there is no issue of translation whatsoever. There are times where we are called to:

..choose you this day whom ye will serve..Jushua 24:15

Shalom,
Steven
  #35  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:36 AM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry View Post
Sad - what help is it to you to water down the Word of God by mixing it with corrupt translations from corrupt texts? You can't learn the truth by mixing it with error.

Oh, don't worry about it. It's more important to have the Holy Ghost teach you than to have a ("Politically correct?" LOL) Bible. Remember the Philippians ref? Christ is still preached.
  #36  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:28 AM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDOC View Post
Oh, don't worry about it. It's more important to have the Holy Ghost teach you than to have a ("Politically correct?" LOL) Bible. Remember the Philippians ref? Christ is still preached.
Again with the cart before the horse!
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So, if you don't have the record of the word to begin with, how is it brought to your remembrance?
  #37  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:35 AM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
I am so busy soaking up what the bible is trying to impart to me, I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation, I have enough trouble with English let alone Greek.
I've already explained why the words come first -- not the "content." The content is the result of the conveyance through the words. You don't get reliable content without the right conveyance. We should not settle for admixture of error when there exists a pure form of the word.

As for this parallel means of study -- how is this helpful, for example, on the last twelve verses of Mark or 1Ti 3:16? Most modern versions will either remove the last twelve verses of Mark or say that nobody knows the correct ending. Here's a passage with no parallel elsewhere in Scripture. How does it bolster your faith to be told those verses may not even belong in the Bible? And how does the corrupt critical reading of 1Ti 3:16 ("He who" instead of "God") make it easier to understand the verse?

MDOC is trying to make the point that the Bible does not support a form of "onlyism" in Bible study -- I'd say he's got the argument backwards. Where in Scripture do we find the "parallel" method of study advocated? When did Christ ever look for just the right rendering among competing authorities?

And as to this notion that it simply isn't important:
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
  #38  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:37 AM
Gord's Avatar
Gord Gord is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
Hi Gord,

Brandon gave you a superb response to this, however one point has not been addressed.

Is this position historic to Robert Joyner ? Or does he actually claim that this is the historic position of the Bible believers, with emphasis on the writings of the early church writers and the Reformation confessions and textual analysis writers ?

If so, perhaps it deserves its own thread. My research has indicated that this is a fairly new position (less than 150 years) and thus only minimally historic. And that the Reformation position was clearly au contraire. And that the early church writers were far more in synch with the Reformation position than the "historic Joyner" position.

Maybe you could start by sharing any specific quotes he gives from before the 19th century. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven
Thank you for that, however let me step up and let you know, I'm still on my first read through most of the old testament, and 2nd and 3rd read in the new testament. So I still have a level of basic understanding to soak up first.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit guided the pens of the original authors to write the words on the accepted medium of their time in the then used language by the author at the time of penning the Holy Spirits words.

The only affect the Holy Spirit had on the various versions, was to inspire the translators to perform their task of translation from their source of choice following their guidelines for translating at the historic time of the translation.

I can buy the fact that at the time of the reformation, my guess is there was a lot more prayer and guidance sought from the Holy Spirit by the translators to produce the final product as clearly and accurately as humanly possible given there understanding and technology of the day that I can give the accuracy edge to the KJV. Their historic human motivation was far greater then say the translators of the NASB whose original motivation firstly came from the Lockman foundation, I believe those translators asked for that same guidance from the Holy Spirit, but with far less intensity for the final product then did say the translators of the KJV.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
Which textual content are you trying to understand ? The Greek texts that claim that the ending of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, "God was manifest in the flesh .." and the Acts 8:37 baptism testimony and the Johannine Comma are all man's corruption (which is the Greek text that has gross errors like the swine marathon from Gerasa and Jesus saying he is not going to the feast).

Or do you desire the underlying source text of the King James Bible and the historic Reformation Bibles, that accepts and declare these beautiful verses and sections as God's word, inspired and pure scripture.

One is truth, one is error. On this level, there is no issue of translation whatsoever. There are times where we are called to:

..choose you this day whom ye will serve..Jushua 24:15

Shalom,
Steven
My main goal is to understand the basic content first, get the big picture, before I start worrying about periods, comma's and the like. That I know will come later. Your comments still give me much more food for thought, and I thank you.
  #39  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:44 AM
Debau's Avatar
Debau Debau is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
Near the end of Joyner's rant he points out

I am so busy soaking up what the bible is trying to impart to me, I find it a blessing to read NASB, NKJV, ESV along with my KJV for that parallel comparison to help be understand the content rather then the actual word for word translation, I have enough trouble with English let alone Greek.
Quote:
Oh, don't worry about it. It's more important to have the Holy Ghost teach you than to have a ("Politically correct?" LOL) Bible. Remember the Philippians ref? Christ is still preached.
Gord-MDOC,
If we start finding contradictions in His words, that should concern you. God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33), nor is He a liar (Tit 1:2). I won't bog you down with many verses. I would offer you one verse at a time for comparison to try to convince you of the integrity of the King James Bible, and the lack thereof the rest(NASB-ESV-NIV, etc.).
I would first ask you who killed Goliath? Look in your NASB-ESV-NIV at II Samuel 21:19.

NASB:
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV:
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

I always thought David killed Goliath!

KJB:
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The KJB does not contradict I Chron 20:5, which says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath. The new perversions outright contradict the account in I Sam 17:51 and I Chron 20:5 in their own bible. This contradiction would make God a liar. "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160). Now this is a Holy God who imparted these words to us, and promised to preserve them. I, or any of these learned folks here will give you the numerous verses of God's repeated promise to preseve His words. If we cannot bank these promises, we cannot trust our promise from Him of eternal life. You can get saved from a pornography book if it has some truth of God's words(this has in fact happened). Is just getting saved, and then abandoning doctrine what you believe the Lord wants you to do? According to Strong’s Greek Concordance doctrine means “instruction (the function or the information):--doctrine, learning, teaching.” Do you go home and read the pornography book you got saved from reading to get your teaching? Do you care at all about doctrine? Will you follow a translation of a false, corrupt Critical Text that has 2886 less words, and effects 356 doctrines in the NT? Do not the words make up doctrine? How are you going to have the Holy Ghost teach you? With visions or voices? The fact is the perversions do not teach what the KJB does. They water down every doctrine that is holy of the Lord. His deity, the vigin birth, His omniscience, omnipresence, omniopotence, and every holy attribute of the Lord Jesus Christ. The perversions end up preaching a different Christ. You will be following a lie if you believe using different versions will help give you better understanding. That's why they are different. Two things that are different are not the same.

Last edited by Debau; 05-03-2008 at 07:49 AM.
  #40  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:57 AM
Gord's Avatar
Gord Gord is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent View Post
As for this parallel means of study -- how is this helpful, for example, on the last twelve verses of Mark or 1Ti 3:16? Most modern versions will either remove the last twelve verses of Mark or say that nobody knows the correct ending. Here's a passage with no parallel elsewhere in Scripture. How does it bolster your faith to be told those verses may not even belong in the Bible? And how does the corrupt critical reading of 1Ti 3:16 ("He who" instead of "God") make it easier to understand the verse?
I did not know that at all, so I opened QuickVerse and I just looked at a parallel view of KJV, ESV, NKJV and GWT at the last verses of Mark and I see all up to vs20 in all versions, do I don't see what you say is missing.

I do see the subtle difference with the word He compared to the word God in 1Ti 3:16 but in each version I look at the whole sentence and understand He to mean God, because I'm looking and reading the whole sentence, that's not a deal breaker in my basic understanding.

I need better then that to be sold on KJV-only.

Last edited by Gord; 05-03-2008 at 08:00 AM.
 

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 03:34 AM.

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