TexasCHLforum.com

Oh, what the heck. Let's ride this out until our benevolent host either moves the discussion into a new topic category, or deletes it and tells us to stop.

And just for the record, disagreeing about specifics of Christianity doesn't make us enemies for Life At Large. On matters of the Texas CHL and penal code, one of the first people I'll turn to for questions is Steve Rothstein, a libertarian and cop who is also a devout Jew.

carlson1 wrote: Once again temptation follows me.
I believe a modernist is anyone who does not hold to the fundamentals of the faith which are:
1. The Virgin Birth.
2. The Substitutionary Death Of Jesus.
3. The Bodily Resurrection of our Saviour.
4. The Verbal Inspiration of the KING JAMES BIBLE.
5. The Second Coming of Christ.

1, 2, 3 and 5 are purely Biblical and undebatable. There is no Biblical basis for a special revelation of the KJV, so any claims of such are de facto extra-Biblical, relying on externalities.

I note that you gave special credit to the KJV of 1611. How recently have you preached from Bel and the Dragon or Simon the Maccabee? The Apocrypha were included in the 1611 KJV, you know.

There is no the Version of 1611. The first three editions carried a considerable number of what can generously be called "typographical errors". By 1613, there were 300 textual differences from 1611, and in the next 150 years, 30,000 marginal references were added. And of course, the Oxford Edition of 1679 made a number of changes.

The most important thing to note is this: disagreeing with the "King James Only" position is not a rejection of the KJV. I admire the KJV as the divinely inspired Word, but to insist that it is the only acceptable Bible means that non-English speakers are just out of luck when it comes to reading the Word. That's rather at odds with the Great Commandment.

Kevin

NASB is my favorite, because it's the most accurate translation. It's accused of being "too literal" and not readable, but I'm amazed that the translators made it as readable as it is. It doesn't trip off the tongue like the NIV, but you know it's correct, with no paraphrases.

My favorite aspect of the NASB is the use of brackets and italics to show words that weren't present in the original, or which have been changed in tense to make sense in English; both situations are simply a way of dealing with different grammatical structures. All translations (even the KJV) have had to add or change these words, but the NASB makes you aware of the changes. Plus, it has extensive footnotes for alternative translations of certain words.

I do not slight the KJV, and I hope I'm not perceived as doing so, but it's worth noting that it was not a complete, original translation. The title page notes that all previous versions were revised and compared. The exact percentage escapes me, but something like 93 or 96% of the KJV is word-for-word from previous versions, such as the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale and Wyclif.

That does not diminish its worth as a translation, but instead confirms the stability of the Bible through the ages.

Now... let's talk guns. If you really want a religious fight on your hands, just challenge the infallibility of John Moses Browning.

Kevin

wrt45 wrote: Not to be argumentative (nor off topic) but out of curiosity, why accept as absolute the "Textus Receptus" which is produced over fourteen centuries after the events of the New Testament?

C'mon, now. Don't you know that King James personally wrote the Bible in 1611, and that anything before or after is heresy?

Kevin