Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-04-2008, 05:43 AM
avbunyan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Need Greek-Hebrew?

Back to the OP - John Bunyan (best I can tell) knew neither Greek nor Hebrew and only read a few other books in his life (Practice of Piety, etc.) besides the scriptures and look what he produced!

I personally do not believe the average saint needs more than the scriptures and a good English dictionary...I like Webster's 1828. Later good commentaries, etc. are, of course, a great help.

If the saint reads the scriptures, seeks to define the words from the context first, then from the scriptures themselves, and then from the dictionary with prayer trusting the Holy Spirit then this saint has done more than any or at last most AV Corrector have done or will do and glean more from the word than these "enlightened ones" with all their Greek-Hebrew, lexicons, manuscripts, modern versions ,etc.

God bless
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #52  
Old 10-04-2008, 03:22 PM
LindaR LindaR is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cleveland, MS
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke View Post
Do we need the Greek and Hebrew? No!
Can it be helpful? Yes
I will use Dr. Ruckman as an example.

Several of Dr. Ruckman's sermons have references to the Greek and Hebrew. It is helpful to a small degree, but not to the degree that most fundamentalists carry it.
Using the Greek and Hebrew to clarify a passage is one thing; using it to "correct" a passage is an entirely different thing.
The main thing I use Greek and Hebrew for is to show the superiority of the the King James Bible to the new versions, and to show the gross errors of the Minority Texts. I rarely go into the Greek or Hebrew, but on occasion have found it helpful as a subordinate point (in other words, it is never a main support for whatever I am teaching - always a secondary support.) A working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew also helps silence the mouths of the Bible correctors. If you can start showing them things from Nestle's, they generally turn and run - they don't want to mess around with someone who might know as much or more than they do!

The KJ translators were well versed in several languages, and this was very helpful to them when they translated the Greek/hebrew into English. Having a knowledge of many other languages only helps in the understanding of our Bible, especially in light of the fact that the KJB is written in British English, not American English. Never short yourself on education!

I disagree with the interpretations given above on Zeph. 3:9 - I believe this is a reference to the Millenial kingdom. One thing English is NOT is pure - it is a mongrel conglomeration of many different languages. Hebrew is very much the same as it was in the Biblical era.

My two cents,
I agree!
  #53  
Old 10-14-2008, 09:35 PM
tlewis3348
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First of all, I would like to say that I only use that KJV and refuse to use any of these other translations. That said I do not believe that the King James Version was inspired. If it were inspired then all other translations that have been used by the many faithful men before the KJV was finished as well as those that cannot understand English must have been inspired as well. Are we prepared to say this? How do we decide what has been inspired and what has not? If the KJV is the only thing that we have today that has been inspired then what are the Spanish and German and all the other languages supposed to do? Was God's inspired Word not in existence before 1611?

I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text. I also believe that as a result of the extreme carefulness and great knowledge of the KJV translators that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language. Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word). This can be done by simply looking up the word in a Strong's Concordance. This will give you the Greek or Hebrew word, its meaning and how it has been translated in different parts of the Bible. This makes it possible for anyone to be a Greek or Hebrew 'scholar' without actually knowing those languages.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I do not believe that any of the modern translations are good and I do believe that they all contain drastic contradictions as a result of being translated from the Critical Text. And while I do believe that it is theoretically possible to have a new translation based on the Majority text that would be better for us today as a result of being in our modern language, I believe that such a translation would not be as accurate because it would not use the various more precise forms of different pronouns and words that do not exist today. If anything were to be changed about the KJV today, I believe it should only be the punctuation and some spelling and capitalization (which should be done very carefully so as to be sure that the original meaning was not changed) because much of this has changed today and making those changes would make many passages more clear (the punctuation of a sentence can greatly affect its clarity and capitalizing pronouns and words referring to the deity could help clarify many passages that would otherwise take some study to understand). This very thing was done to the KJV that we have today. I understand that the people who did the NKJV tried to do this; however, I do not believe that they were as careful when they did what they did. Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV.
  #54  
Old 10-14-2008, 10:48 PM
stephanos's Avatar
stephanos stephanos is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wenatchee WA
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
First of all, I would like to say that I only use that KJV and refuse to use any of these other translations. That said I do not believe that the King James Version was inspired. If it were inspired then all other translations that have been used by the many faithful men before the KJV was finished as well as those that cannot understand English must have been inspired as well. Are we prepared to say this? How do we decide what has been inspired and what has not? If the KJV is the only thing that we have today that has been inspired then what are the Spanish and German and all the other languages supposed to do? Was God's inspired Word not in existence before 1611?

I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text. I also believe that as a result of the extreme carefulness and great knowledge of the KJV translators that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language. Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word). This can be done by simply looking up the word in a Strong's Concordance. This will give you the Greek or Hebrew word, its meaning and how it has been translated in different parts of the Bible. This makes it possible for anyone to be a Greek or Hebrew 'scholar' without actually knowing those languages.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I do not believe that any of the modern translations are good and I do believe that they all contain drastic contradictions as a result of being translated from the Critical Text. And while I do believe that it is theoretically possible to have a new translation based on the Majority text that would be better for us today as a result of being in our modern language, I believe that such a translation would not be as accurate because it would not use the various more precise forms of different pronouns and words that do not exist today. If anything were to be changed about the KJV today, I believe it should only be the punctuation and some spelling and capitalization (which should be done very carefully so as to be sure that the original meaning was not changed) because much of this has changed today and making those changes would make many passages more clear (the punctuation of a sentence can greatly affect its clarity and capitalizing pronouns and words referring to the deity could help clarify many passages that would otherwise take some study to understand). This very thing was done to the KJV that we have today. I understand that the people who did the NKJV tried to do this; however, I do not believe that they were as careful when they did what they did. Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV.
There are many that would agree with what you've just said. I however am not one of them. I believe God promised to preserve His Word, and He has done just that. He's preserved a perfect Bible in the King James Bible of 1611. This Bible is a faithful and error free preservation of the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic that God, by the hands of men, penned a very long time ago. This Bible is as inspired as those ancient texts.

I should mention that your idea of a Majority Text is flawed. There is no such thing as a Majority Text.

From http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/kinn...hell-game.html:
There really is no such thing as the majority text since what passes for this today is based on Von Soden's work of PARTIALLY comparing only about 400 of the 5000 Greek manuscripts that presently exist.

Even the TR isn't faithful to the reading of the KJB in every instance. So you have to ask yourself an important question; did God when He said that He isn't the author of confusion preserve His Words scattered across thousands of texts that only so called expert textual criticism scholars can track down (when they all don't even agree) or did He preserve an error free Holy Bible that can be completely trusted and read and cherished by all peoples from all backgrounds, and all educational levels?

When I answered that question, I found that I had enough for me to believe. Though there is more for those willing to dig deeper into the subject.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen
  #55  
Old 10-15-2008, 01:46 PM
JMWHALEN JMWHALEN is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
First of all, I would like to say that I only use that KJV and refuse to use any of these other translations. That said I do not believe that the King James Version was inspired. If it were inspired then all other translations that have been used by the many faithful men before the KJV was finished as well as those that cannot understand English must have been inspired as well. Are we prepared to say this? How do we decide what has been inspired and what has not? If the KJV is the only thing that we have today that has been inspired then what are the Spanish and German and all the other languages supposed to do? Was God's inspired Word not in existence before 1611?

I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text. I also believe that as a result of the extreme carefulness and great knowledge of the KJV translators that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language. Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word). This can be done by simply looking up the word in a Strong's Concordance. This will give you the Greek or Hebrew word, its meaning and how it has been translated in different parts of the Bible. This makes it possible for anyone to be a Greek or Hebrew 'scholar' without actually knowing those languages.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I do not believe that any of the modern translations are good and I do believe that they all contain drastic contradictions as a result of being translated from the Critical Text. And while I do believe that it is theoretically possible to have a new translation based on the Majority text that would be better for us today as a result of being in our modern language, I believe that such a translation would not be as accurate because it would not use the various more precise forms of different pronouns and words that do not exist today. If anything were to be changed about the KJV today, I believe it should only be the punctuation and some spelling and capitalization (which should be done very carefully so as to be sure that the original meaning was not changed) because much of this has changed today and making those changes would make many passages more clear (the punctuation of a sentence can greatly affect its clarity and capitalizing pronouns and words referring to the deity could help clarify many passages that would otherwise take some study to understand). This very thing was done to the KJV that we have today. I understand that the people who did the NKJV tried to do this; however, I do not believe that they were as careful when they did what they did. Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV.
_______________________

"First of all, I would like to say that I only use(my emphasis) that KJV…."
" I do not believe..."
"I believe..."(5 times)

My comment: So, you "use" the KJV. Are you saying you "prefer" it, or it is your first "preference?"(correct me if I misunderstood you). I "use" a car manual, a "Strong's", a "dictionary…..
And I "prefer"/"like" ice crčme, my "favorite"/"preference" being Vanilla , I "prefer" not going to work, my "preference being sleeping late, I "like"/"prefer" smoking, my "preference" being "Now" shorts, and I "prefer" other "religions" instead of Christianity…….

The question seems to me to be:
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

"….that we can say that the KJV is as close(my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word(my emphasis) in the English language…"

My comment: Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?"

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest(my emphasis)) me to be a Christian…" Acts 26:28


"...to go back to the Greek or Hebrew…"

My comment: There is no such thing as "the" Greek, correct?


"….making those changes would make many passages more clear …"


My comment: You confuse objective revelation, through words, with subjective interpretation.



"Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV."

My comment: Do you believe it?

In and with Christ,

John M. Whalen
  #56  
Old 10-15-2008, 05:04 PM
tlewis3348
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear JMWHALEN,

I do not understand what you are trying to say, but I will try to clarify myself as best I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMWHALEN View Post
My comment: So, you "use" the KJV. Are you saying you "prefer" it, or it is your first "preference?"(correct me if I misunderstood you). I "use" a car manual, a "Strong's", a "dictionary…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMWHALEN View Post
And I "prefer"/"like" ice crčme, my "favorite"/"preference" being Vanilla , I "prefer" not going to work, my "preference being sleeping late, I "like"/"prefer" smoking, my "preference" being "Now" shorts, and I "prefer" other "religions" instead of Christianity…….
I use the KJV for my Bible reading wherever I am whether it is in church, in my room having devotions or witnessing to someone on the street. Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith (removing I John 5:7, for example, removes the one of the greatest proof texts on the Trinity that we have). Therefore, because I use the KJV in my devotions and in church and any other time, I refer to the Bible in my life I depend on it for guidance in my life. Further, I believe that any time I have a question in life I can go to it and find the answer. I use a Strong's concordance and a dictionary (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as a tool to help me understand passages that are somewhat confusing to me. I also consult commentaries such as Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible for further explanation although I do so with a critical eye because what he says is merely man's opinion on what the Bible means. The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMWHALEN View Post
The question seems to me to be:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMWHALEN View Post
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

"….that we can say that the KJV is as close (my emphasis) as we can get to God's inspired Word (my emphasis) in the English language…"

My comment: Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?"

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest (my emphasis)) me to be a Christian…” Acts 26:28
There are several words in the original languages for which we do not have an English word to describe fully. For example, one of the many facets of God's love is His loyal love to us. The Hebrew word that that expresses this concept is the word chesed. This word has been translated into the KJV as mercy or kindness. Strong's describes it as "kindness; by implication (towards God) piety; rarely (by opprobrium) reproof, or (subjectively) beauty: - favour, good deed (-liness, -ness), kindly, (loving-) kindness, merciful (kindness), mercy, pity, reproach, wicked thing.” However, no single English word fully describes this Hebrew word. Therefore, when the KJV translators translated that word they certainly did the best they could at finding the best English word to describe this Hebrew word. Consequently, it is obviously better to go back to the original language to find the full meaning of the word. Anyone that has learned a foreign language knows that this is true. So since I believe that God's inspire Word is preserved through the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have not been corrupted like the Alexandrian or Vatican texts (that is the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or whatever you want to call it) and the entire meaning of the words cannot be captured through any translation, I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.

Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?

Last edited by tlewis3348; 10-15-2008 at 05:22 PM.
  #57  
Old 10-15-2008, 06:09 PM
JMWHALEN JMWHALEN is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
Dear JMWHALEN,

I do not understand what you are trying to say, but I will try to clarify myself as best I can.



I use the KJV for my Bible reading wherever I am whether it is in church, in my room having devotions or witnessing to someone on the street. Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith (removing I John 5:7, for example, removes the one of the greatest proof texts on the Trinity that we have). Therefore, because I use the KJV in my devotions and in church and any other time, I refer to the Bible in my life I depend on it for guidance in my life. Further, I believe that any time I have a question in life I can go to it and find the answer. I use a Strong's concordance and a dictionary (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as a tool to help me understand passages that are somewhat confusing to me. I also consult commentaries such as Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible for further explanation although I do so with a critical eye because what he says is merely man's opinion on what the Bible means. The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.



There are several words in the original languages for which we do not have an English word to describe fully. For example, one of the many facets of God's love is His loyal love to us. The Hebrew word that that expresses this concept is the word chesed. This word has been translated into the KJV as mercy or kindness. Strong's describes it as "kindness; by implication (towards God) piety; rarely (by opprobrium) reproof, or (subjectively) beauty: - favour, good deed (-liness, -ness), kindly, (loving-) kindness, merciful (kindness), mercy, pity, reproach, wicked thing.” However, no single English word fully describes this Hebrew word. Therefore, when the KJV translators translated that word they certainly did the best they could at finding the best English word to describe this Hebrew word. Consequently, it is obviously better to go back to the original language to find the full meaning of the word. Anyone that has learned a foreign language knows that this is true. So since I believe that God's inspire Word is preserved through the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have not been corrupted like the Alexandrian or Vatican texts (that is the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or whatever you want to call it) and the entire meaning of the words cannot be captured through any translation, I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.

Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?
_______
My comments:

Originally Posted by JMWHALEN
What do you believe? Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

My comment:

Please answer the question. I did not ask if you “use”(“Prefer”, “like”…..), I asked:

Do you believe that the KJV is the word of God? Yes or no?

And you did not answer it.


“The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.”

Perhaps this will. I believe Christianity. However, I believe in Christianity not because I “like” it, or because I “prefer” it, nor because of its "usability"-I submit to it because it is true. Thus, the question.: Do you believe that the KJV is true=the inspired word of God? Yes or no? If it is true, i.e., the inspired word of God, we/you should submit to it, irregardless whether you “like“/prefer/”use it”. That is, preferabilty, usability, or likability are thus irrelevant. I "like" ice creme, but is it good for me, is it "true" to a healthy body? Should we chose which "the" Bible as we chose Christianity? Did you choose Christianity because you "like" it, or you "prefer" it, or because of its "usabilty", or because you determined, based on the evidence, it is true? Most choose "which 'the' Bible" as they choose which "religion", like a big buffet("a little of this, a little of that"), i.e., based on "usability", "preference", "likeability", and NOT TRUTH. Here is my article, hopefully expressing this point:


Bible Buffet/Stew-Truth or Preference
Submitted by John M. Whalen
(bold is my emphasis)

"Come, let us reason together...." Isaiah 1:18
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


Comments from posters(another board), on the question: “Which Bible translation do you favor, and why?

“ I personally favor…”

“I've tried the….”

“Love the …....that's probably my favourite for everyday use. I also like the……”

“I use the …. in my daily devotions, but I love the …..”


“My preferred bible is the….., although I love the archaic and poetic construction in the….. I also like …… translation, but my favourite New Covenant translation has got to be ...”


My fav is ….as well - I love the prose, the way it flows. I have others that I use…..”.


“….I prefer the ….”


“I like the…….and the……. These are the three that I use on a regular basis.”

“I read the….”

“I actually prefer the….”


“….which one do i use today?..... i prefer ….. but i get a better sense out of any verse or passage im studying when i use all that i have.”


“I read different ones.... the one we use in church is….. at home we also use a chronalogical Bible for some study……. but we do like ….. quite well.....”

“I chose other. My favorite translation is the..... It is for sure one of the best ones around of the ones I've read…… I also like the….I like…..”

“My favorite is the… as well. I love reading it on a daily basis. I still use the…..”


“my favorite translations in order of preference are :….”

“I used to read the…”

“I not only prefer the,,,,,,, it is the only translation I have any confidence in. To me, all other translations are full of errors and ommissions….., I use the ….”

“I have always used the…because I have found it reasonably well translated, but I know it has flaws like any translation, if I seriously thought….I would use that version as well..”

Vs.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13

“…for I trust in thy word.” Psalms 119:42

“Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:” Psalms 106:24

“…they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” John 2:22

“Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed;..” Acts 4:4
__________________________________________________ ___________

A serious comment that I would hope would be considered, for we serve a God of reason(Isaiah 1:18): I am under the assumption, which I feel is a reasonable assumption, given the depth/insight of many of the comments I have read on a vast number of theological subjects/questions, that there are many rational, reasonable, and prudent believers writing on these issues. Given this, I still would ask you to prayerfully consider the following: I understand that the question is

“Which Bible translation do you favor, and why? ", or, to restate the issue, "Which 'version' do you PREFER"? I would ask the following: Is it not more important not to ask which we "prefer", “favor”, like”, for implied in that question is the notion that "preference/taste/like determines truth", but MOST IMPORTANTLY, should not our criteria, the question be, "What is the Bible"? That's seems pretty simple to me. Do or do we not have a "the Bible" we can press to our heart, and say, without reservation, and without apology, that "This is the preserved word of God, without error-He inspired it, He preserved it, and it is without error." If we can do this, then, it seems to me that what we "prefer", what we “like”, what is our “favorite”, …. is not only irrelevant, it is subjective and should be discarded as the standard. After all, even though I may "prefer such and such version", if it is not the word of God, why read it, and certainlt we should not believe/trust it? That is, it is a moot point. I “like” smoking, and I “prefer” NOW shorts,…. I “like” not going to work, and “prefer” sleeping in bed Monday-Friday,…I “like” ice cream, and I “prefer” vanilla….

Allow me to elaborate.

"Religious" Pluralism, or "Religious Stew"

Religious pluralism is the world view that, when it comes to” religious" issues, "all roads lead to Rome". That is, it doesn't really matter what philosophy or "religion" you accept", as long as you've got "God"("THE UNKNOWN GOD"-Acts 17:23) thrown in there somewhere, and you're following your "heart"(despite Jeremiah 17:9); that is, you are "sincere"("The Oprah Winfrey Show") . This is an approach to "religion" that is sweeping the world. However, this approach is flawed in the best case, and is deception in the worse case.
.
I "like", I "prefer" sweets, and my brother is a doctor, so perhaps an analogy would clarify my argument. This may seem obvious, but there is a vast difference between choosing an ice cream flavor and choosing a medicine. When choosing ice cream, you choose what you like, what you "prefer".
When choosing medicine, you have to choose what heals.

When many/most(?) consider that of the spiritual realm as it pertains to God, they think of Him as they would of ice cream, not like they think of insulin. That is, they choose religious views according to their tastes, to what they "prefer", and not according to what is true. The question of truth hardly even comes up in their consideration.

Furthermore, the question of truth is somewhat of a confusing, almost incoherent issue to them. How can you test something like a "religious" claim to determine if it's true or not? That is, "religious" truth is what you believe-your "opinion", your "preference", what you "choose". It's that "blind leap of faith" you take, and ultimately it has nothing to do with reality. Thus, it is not anything you can test or measure. It is something you have to believe and hope against hope that it's true. It becomes a kind of wishful thinking, a religious placebo of sorts- "Fantasy Island", if you will.

In contrast, Christianity contends that you can test religious truth, and I'd like to offer one of those methods to you.

Someone once asked me to "try" "Jehovah's Witness's ism". I declined and provided my argument. The Jehovah's witness accused me of not being "open-minded", of being "intolerant"(ever you heard that-politics?) in that I wouldn't try it to see if it was "for me". This reveals something about how people choose "religion". They choose what they "like", what they "prefer", rather than what is true. I was considered "close-minded", intolerant, even "mean spirited" or "unchristian", because I wouldn't "try it" to see if I "liked" it.

But this admonition and criticism was misplaced. Why? Because "religion", isn't the kind of thing you "choose" because you "like"/"prefer" it. It isn't a matter of tasting, and sampling, and seeing if it "appeals" to you-it is not a buffet or stew where you "choose a little of this, a little of that".

Regrettably, not only is this a mistaken way of encouraging somebody to accept a particular "religious" view when done by a Jehovah's Witness", for example, or any "religion", it is also a mistaken way for Christians to appeal to non-Christians, because ultimately it is ineffective.

"Try my Jesus, you'll like Him." Although I have been a Christian for only 10 years, and I try to thank the LORD God every day for the joy I have experienced through the Lord Jesus Christ, there are a many times that I don't particularly like the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you find this shocking? Have not we all "been there" in our walk? The Lord Jesus Christ, and his standards, is not very convenient at times, in a sense. That is, the appeal, the conviction, of Christianity is not to preferences, not to what you "like", but to truth. The real question is this: "Is Jesus God, Lord, and Messiah, or not?" That ought to be the "bottom line" issue regarding Christianity.

The real issue is whether your "religious" beliefs are true or not, not whether you "like" them, not whether you "prefer" them, not whether you "try" them and find them appealing, or whether it is your “favorite” way of being acceptable to the LORD God..

Again, this is "Buffet/Stew Religion"-taking little bits and pieces of different "religions", mixing them together in one "pious smorgasbord", if you will.-go down the buffet line, pick a little here and a little there("prefer", "like", “favorites”), place it on your plate, and call it "your religion". When you put things on your plate you put them there for a reason. You put things on the plate in a smorgasbord because they are the things you like, not necessarily things that are good for you health-wise. This the inherent flaw the religious stew approach.

If you have this view, how do you know you haven't just invented a religious placebo based on what you "prefer", based on what are your “favorites”, that, in the end, and in the best case, doesn't do you much good ultimately, but just satisfies your appetite, and, at worst, will kill you(eating poisonous mushrooms)? It may be spiritual junk food, or empty "religious calories"--something that appeals to the palate, the senses, and you "prefer" it, but does nothing for spiritual health.

Is not much of "religion" in people's lives merely a placebo, like a sugar pill that they take to make them feel better, and not a pill that does any medicinal good, but a pill that helps them talk themselves into believing it will do some good? A placebo is given to people who are hypochondriacs and aren't really sick, but just think they are, so you give them a sugar pill. And they think it does some good and they feel better, but nothing has changed.

If you are looking for a religion that suits you, a religion that fits what you "'like" or "prefer", is it not true that you are simply manufacturing a "religious" view of your own invention?. This, of course, is the attack that philosophers through the ages some have used against Christianity, accusing Christians of inventing God out of psychological reasons, and for a "crutch"-we create God in the image of our own desires, our own "preferences".

To those I would respond as follows: If I were inclined to invent a "religion" and a "god", the LORD God of the Bible is the very last God I would ever invent. I would invent a "god" that would allow me to choose what I "prefer", or one who is my “favorite”-life would be more like ice creme.

I certainly would not invent a Holy(the most often stated attribute of God in scripture-not love) God whose perfect moral character becomes the absolute law of the universe. He is utterly demanding, encroaching on every corner of our life. Who would invent a God like that? That isn't the kind of God that would make me feel more comfortable, or the God I would "prefer", or my “favorite” “god.”. That type of God makes me feel uncomfortable, because that God's righteous demands are much greater than my ability to deliver on my own.

Some might think this idea of testing a "religious" truth is an unusual, an irrational concept, because in this day of religious stew pluralism, the notion that any one "religion" is true is viewed as "unlearned and ignorant"(Acts 4:13). It is viewed as "impolite, incorrect, mean-spirited, intolerant, divisive, closed-minded, irrational", coming from the minds of those who just aren't "enlightened". You just don't say that anymore, since saying that there is an objective truth that necessarily excludes all other "supposed truths" is not only intolerant, it is bad manners in this "civilized" society. And this is why Christians should be expected to be rejected by "the world".

Again, when choosing ice cream, for example, you choose what you like or "prefer"-your “favorites.” When choosing medicine, you cannot choose what you "prefer", you must choose what will cure you. If not, you will die.

In simple terms, due to the exclusive claims of Christianity, if Christianity is true(and it is!), all other "religions" are automatically disqualified by the law of non-contradiction. When somebody says I'm "close-minded, intolerant, bigoted", because I won't even "try" it, that's akin to someone saying to me "my brother is an only child, and you're so close-minded and intolerant you won't even take the time to investigate this", implying that knowing this truth involves some type of "Columbo" investigation, and I'm irrational and intolerant for not taking the time and effort to find out.

No, some things are obviously and irrefutably false. It is false to say "my brother is an only child"-this is a contradiction, and must be rejected as false, whether I "prefer" it or not. I have no rational obligation to even consider it. In the same way, if Christianity is true, all other "religions" are false, regardless of "opinion' or "preference".

And thus "religious stew' has got to be false by its very nature, and must be rejected, irrespective of what you "prefer". The only relevant question to consider is: Is it true?

Consider the implications of the preceding when witnessing to a predominantly Christ-rejecting, and thus lost and dying world.

I recently engaged in a debate on another board with a gentleman regarding this same issue. After many posts back and forth, he made a comment along the lines of this:

"That is your truth. What may be true for you, may not be true for me. My God would not(do such and such)............"

What was he saying? He was inventing a "god" of his own choosing, a "god" he "prefers", a "god" he "likes". His mind set is "That's good for you, but I don't need that, and I prefer......"

The problem is not that the nonbeliever doesn't "need" Christianity. How do we get them to feel the need for the Lord Jesus Christ, or "change their minds"(the biblical meaning of "repent")? The 'stumbling block" to the non-believer is that he/she does not have in their perception of reality the mind set that there is such a thing as truth-they are relativists. To them, Christianity is just a "preferred" activity of the Christian, or preferred notion or belief-an "opinion", if you will. The decision is simply a matter of preference. He/she "prefers" something different. And why would you fault him/her for their "preference", or what they "like", their preference? Why does he/she have to be like you in your "preferences"?

There's no sense that this is a world filled with both true and false notions, and that we have a rational, logical obligation to separate the two, and a moral responsibility to embrace and follow truth. Would I be "way off base" by the following observation?: Christians do not seem to understand this, because our own Christian world view is not broad. We don't have a rich understanding of the inevitable consequences of what we hold to be true. Instead, we embrace the rushing tide of the "world view"- things aren't true or false; they're pleasant or unpleasant, appealing or unappealing, "liked" or "disliked", "preferred" or "not preferred".

No, Christianity is not a question of our preference, or at least it should not be. As mentioned earlier, there are a "a lotta things" about the demands of this great Saviour of ours I just don't "like" or prefer". If our Christianity is what we "prefer", are not we misunderstanding our hope? As stated earlier, I will tell you, I "prefer" smoking, I do not "like" quitting. I do not "like" getting up early every morning going to work. I prefer staying home all day and smoking a few cigarettes! Similarly, I do not "prefer" Christianity. I "prefer" agnosticism, since it is not only much easier, it is much less troublesome. With it, I would have much more wordly freedom. However, I believe that Christianity is true based on the evidence, therefore I'm rationally and logically obligated to accept it as true, and not because I "prefer" it, and not because I “like” it, and not because it is my “favorite.”. And because it's true, there is a necessary quality to it. We can say this because we understand world views. That's why we approach this issue in this manner. But if we don't understand that our Christianity is necessary, that it is true, then we are incapable of discussing this truth when we try to witness to someone who doesn't share our "preference".

In "buckling under" to this notion of "preference", we try to appeal to the false view, instead of telling them the truth. We attempt to make the Lord Jesus Christ more likable, more pleasant, more appealing("Try him"! You will like him. He changed my life"-so do health clubs!), rather than clarifying that it is more true because that's what they're looking for, rather than clarifying that Christianity is more true. And so we fall into the trap of resorting to entertainment, rather than advocacy and conviction.

To restate the preceding in a somewhat different manner, consider that all begins with this great God, not man. If in fact man is all there is, the perspective of the atheist, for example, then the only place the atheist can start and end with is man. Then "preference" becomes the only relevant priority. However, if God does indeed exist, as Christians contend(and others), it is irrelevant what is "preferred". What only matters is: is it true?

Part of being "in Christ" includes a change in our world view, having "...the mind of Christ..."(1 Cor. 2:16), not just a change in our appeals to our senses. We adapt our lives to a new, true view of the world based upon the word of God and the exclusiveness of our faith, as opposed to offering a view that is meant to be adapted to our lives. So instead of trying to find a method of making the Lord Jesus Christ more pleasant, more agreeable, more appealing, more "preferable" to the lost, we explain that his/her view of the world is false, and then proclaim without reservation or fear that the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the truth, and all others are necessarily false. We conform, submit our desires, our "likes", our "preferences" , our “favorites”, to the truth, rather than the truth to our desires, our "likes", our "preferences", our “favorites.” Although we must make the truth appealing, for that is part of our roles as "... ambassadors for Christ..."(2 Cor. 5:20), but never can we, or should we, substitute appeal or "preference" for the truth. Or, as one writer stated this principle, we must never seek to build a temple of unity upon the grave of truth. This great God of ours expects more than this from those he calls his own.

Cannot the same be applied to the issue of this post?

If the Lord Jesus Christ's name is so precious to God the Father, and it is(Philippians 2:9, Eph. 1:21), and if God's own name is even exalted above all blessing and praise, and it is(Neh. 9:5), and if God has glorified His word (Acts 14:38, 2 Thessalonians 3:1), and He has, and if God has magnified His word above His own name, and He did and has(Psalms 138:2), is it not a disservice to frame the "Bible version debate" issue to a matter of "preference", or what we “like”? And, as a related question, given the glorification, magnification, and thus importance the LORD God has placed on his word, is it legitimate to ridicule and criticize those who stand on the premise that the LORD God, who created the universe, raised his Only begotten Son from the dead, and saved (formerly) dirty, rotten scoundrels such as all of were prior to his bestowing his infinite grace upon us, did in fact preserve his word without error as a present possession in a book we call "The Holy Bible"? "The" is singular, is it not? If the God as revealed in scripture is true, that is, possessing power we can not even imagine, much less comprehend, is it not "reasonable" to conclude that He could preserve his word without error? After all, what type of God do we serve, honor, and worship?

Does our "preference" miss the mark? "Try this version, you will like it." Was not this employed in Genesis, the "seed plot" of the Holy Bible(Genesis Chapter 3)? As outlined previously, the "appeal" to Christianity, as revealed in "the Bible", is not to preferences, but to the truth. The real question should be: Is this the word of God, or not, and not whether I "prefer" or "like" this "version".

Someone once said to me: I find people who limit God to the KJB do not believe in the full power and glory of God". I told this person this is backward. We do not limit God with the KJB-He limits us. If you can PREFER whatever version you want when you come to a passage you do not prefer-it is you that needs to be limited, because you are not under subjection to God's word, if in fact you are judging God's word as if you are superior to it-you are your own "god" and authority(Gen. 3:5). Do you not often find it to be the case that, when arguing a doctrinal point with someone, in the spirit of "...speaking the truth in love...."(Eph. 4:15), invariably your opponent, when his/her doctrinal argument seems to be "losing", will cite a passage in another "version" as proof text to support their "take" on a doctrinal issue?

I live in Texas. My preacher friend Mike Arnold provided me the below prize winning Chili recipe(ingredients). It is an 94.73% accurate "copy".

2 1/2 lb. lean ground chuck/ 1 lb. lean ground pork/1 c finely chopped onion/4 garlic cloves finely chopped/1 cn Budweiser beer(12 oz)/8 oz Hunt's tomato sauce/1 cn water/3 tb chili powder/3 tb ground cumin/2 tb Wyler's beef-flavored instant bouillon(or 6 cubes)/2 ts Oregano leaves/2 ts paprika/2 ts sugar/1 ts unsweetened cocoa/1/2 ts ground coriander/1/2 ts Louisiana hot sauce, to taste/1 ts flour, 1 ts cornmeal/1 tb warm water/2 ts ARSENIC

Pastor Jerry Lockhart of Berean Bible Church in New Braunfels, Texas points out that rat poison is 99.05% cornmeal, and .05% strychnine(a poisonous alkaloid). The .05% “gets the rat”. Satan’s deception is to “mix a little lie in with a whole lotta’ truth”, and the Body of Christ has bought into this deception.

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" 1 Cor. 5:6

The danger of relativism is not people believing nothing, but people believing anything. The devil is "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), and the essence of deception is "mixing" just a little bit error with the truth. As most believers know, the Jehovah's Witnesses "prefer" the following "version" of John 1:1:

"...and the word was a(emphasis mine) god"(notice also lower case 'g'-New World Translation)

I applaud one believer, who wrote, who wrote:

"... here is what the bible says.
Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The bible says that his words will be preserved from generation to generation. He also says that anyone who adds to his word, or takes away from it will be stopped.....my stand is that the KJV is the pure, perfect, and infallable word of God."

This person did not "prefer" this "version" of "the Bible", he/she took a stand. I find that not only refreshing, but uncompromising and courageous. Does not conviction "separate the men from the boys"? And, more importantly, is that not what the Lord God demands, not "prefers", from those who are his children, from those who he "...bought with a price..."(1 Cor. 6:20), that price being the death by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ on a lonesome hill we call Calvary?

I wrote this post not to frame the issue as (fill in the blank) vs. "the other versions". Many of you know are well aware of my stand on this issue. My motivation was hopefully to inspire reasonable thinking on this issue, for I know that most believers on this board embrace the notion, the truth, the conviction, that we have a "reasonable" God(Isaiah 1:18). And as such, how can we ever be convincing to a lost world of the "...truth in Christ...."(Romans 9:1), which is, by its nature, based on uncompromising exclusivity, and not PREFERENCE, if we, in fact, do not hold to this ourselves on a simple issue such as "what is the Bible"?

I ask that, like Mary of old, you "ponder" these things in your heart(Luke 2:18).

No one has stated that they believe every word of the Holy Bible. I do, and I will. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved, without error word of God foe English speaking people. The word of God, by definition, has no errors, or it is not the word of God, as it is written:

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalms 119:160

“…in the scripture of truth…” Daniel 10:21

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

___
  #58  
Old 10-15-2008, 06:21 PM
JMWHALEN JMWHALEN is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
Dear JMWHALEN,

I do not understand what you are trying to say, but I will try to clarify myself as best I can.



I use the KJV for my Bible reading wherever I am whether it is in church, in my room having devotions or witnessing to someone on the street. Yes, I do "prefer" it to the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the other modern versions because these other versions greatly weaken many of the great doctrines of my faith (removing I John 5:7, for example, removes the one of the greatest proof texts on the Trinity that we have). Therefore, because I use the KJV in my devotions and in church and any other time, I refer to the Bible in my life I depend on it for guidance in my life. Further, I believe that any time I have a question in life I can go to it and find the answer. I use a Strong's concordance and a dictionary (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as a tool to help me understand passages that are somewhat confusing to me. I also consult commentaries such as Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible for further explanation although I do so with a critical eye because what he says is merely man's opinion on what the Bible means. The next section of your quote does not make any sense to me. I do not understand how ice cream, sleeping late, smoking, and other religions instead of Christianity relate to each other or to the topic being discussed. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe that God inspired the KJV translators when they did their work that I will soon fall to these things? If that is true then that is quite a stretch.



There are several words in the original languages for which we do not have an English word to describe fully. For example, one of the many facets of God's love is His loyal love to us. The Hebrew word that that expresses this concept is the word chesed. This word has been translated into the KJV as mercy or kindness. Strong's describes it as "kindness; by implication (towards God) piety; rarely (by opprobrium) reproof, or (subjectively) beauty: - favour, good deed (-liness, -ness), kindly, (loving-) kindness, merciful (kindness), mercy, pity, reproach, wicked thing.” However, no single English word fully describes this Hebrew word. Therefore, when the KJV translators translated that word they certainly did the best they could at finding the best English word to describe this Hebrew word. Consequently, it is obviously better to go back to the original language to find the full meaning of the word. Anyone that has learned a foreign language knows that this is true. So since I believe that God's inspire Word is preserved through the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have not been corrupted like the Alexandrian or Vatican texts (that is the Byzantine Text, Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or whatever you want to call it) and the entire meaning of the words cannot be captured through any translation, I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.

Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?
___


“I must say that the KJV is as close to the intended meaning of the originals that we can get.” tlewis3348

My comment:
1. Again, you confuse objective revelation through words with subjective interpretation. The objective words are given by inspiration, not “the intended thought.”

2. How can you make this assessment/judgment, without “the originals”? They are “long gone."

3. “is as close”

Again, Is this "kinda like" "close to being pregnant", "close to being dead", "close to being alive", "close to being saved","close to being a Christian", close to being true", "close to being false", "close to being white", "close to being black"……...…….?

"Almost inspired"? "Closed to being inspired?"

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest(my emphasis)) me to be a Christian…" Acts 26:28

Please address.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen
  #59  
Old 10-15-2008, 07:13 PM
tlewis3348
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My replies are numbered according to your comments.

1. I understand that God inspired each word of the Bible. I believe this with all my heart. My point is that when the KJV translators translated the Bible from the original languages into English they had to make a decision as to what was meant by certain Greek or Hebrew words since many have multiple meanings. In order to accurately translate they had to have a great understanding of the Greek and Hebrew languages as well as the different cultures and contexts of the Bible. Therefore they had to know the "intended thought" of the specific inspired words that were in the original languages.

2. What specific "assessment/judgment" are you referring to?

3. I do not know how to explain this any better than I did in the second paragraph.

My main point has yet to be answered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlewis3348 View Post
Having said all that, I would like to restate my main point. How can we say that the KJV is the only thing that we have today that is inspired today when there are good Christian men and women all over the world that cannot understand the English language? How has God preserved His Word to them? In addition, Did God preserve His Word before the KJV came into existence? Where was God's inspired Word to Martin Luther, Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and King James himself? In other words, Where was God's inspired Word from A.D. 100-1611?
  #60  
Old 10-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Jeremy Jeremy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atlas View Post
Do we need Greek and Hebrew?

I'll say no, we never need Greek or Hebrew.


I hold to the belief that the KJV is the 100% perfect preserved Word of God, therefore I never need Greek or Hebrew.

If you believe that the KJV is God's preserved Word why do you even need Greek or Hebrew?


Atlas
That pretty much sums it up.
So, if the KJ is not a perfect version,than what are these others considered?,and are you really going to trust them? I don't. would using several versions be considered a good cornerstone?
If the preacher is not confident in one version ,how is the congregation ever going to be.
No ,we don't need to learn Hebrew and Greek,why else would we have the perfect Word of God that was translated into English and preserved to this day.
 

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 01:52 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