TexasCHLforum.com

I was just going by the article. I am dead sure not a pathalogist, but I would say anything is possible. Just like the whale who swallowed Jonah.

BTW: It was a FISH that swallowed Jonah.... Let's keep our biblical quotes straight here.

CaptDave wrote:

I was just going by the article. I am dead sure not a pathalogist, but I would say anything is possible. Just like the whale who swallowed Jonah.

BTW: It was a FISH that swallowed Jonah.... Let's keep our biblical quotes straight here.

I am not a pathalogist, but I am a Preacher I have it right. . .Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. KJV

carlson1 wrote:

CaptDave wrote:

I was just going by the article. I am dead sure not a pathalogist, but I would say anything is possible. Just like the whale who swallowed Jonah.

BTW: It was a FISH that swallowed Jonah.... Let's keep our biblical quotes straight here.

I am not a pathalogist, but I am a Preacher I have it right. . .Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. KJV

Ok preacher,
Here we go....

Not to turn this into Texas CHL Bible Study, However:

Jonah 1:17: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah..." KJV

Jonah 1:17 (NIV): "But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah..."
Book of Jonah - Authored by .... Jonah 760 B.C.

Matt. 12:40 (NIV) "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish,..."

If you really want to go further, please PM me as we are slightly off topic--Jonah was there, Matthew was about 820 years (+/-) later-he was in a hurry- I'm going with Jonah on this one

We can take it as far as you would like. The King James Bible is preserved for English speaking people. If you would like to email me at pastor@fbcirving.com I will send you a study sheet and you will see that half of the Bible verses are gone in the NIV. Just example try out these:
Daniel 3:25 who was in the fire?
Matthew 18:11 why did Jesus come to earth?
I Samuel 17:50 and II Samuel 21:19 who did kill Goliath?
Acts 8:37 what did the Ethiopian eunuch beleive?
Be sure you have a KJV because some of this is not in your NIV (Not Inspired Version)
God Bless looking forward to your email

I promise this is my last post on this -

I'm an English speaking people --- most of the time,

However, I'll 'pass' on the study sheet, but thanks for the offer. Although it could appear that the offer of said study sheet might be construed as an attempt to baffle with bull those you can't dazzle with Brilliance, as it is "off topic" of our already wildly off topic discussion here -with it's irrelevant references meant to distract from our subject matter - but I am far too much of a gentleman to accuse anyone of such activity.

So, back to our theological discussion - when, in the inspired KJV, book of Jonah, (since you don't believe in the NIV -check your sources it stands for:"New International Version" ) chapter 1 verse 17 states: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish..."

hmm, KJV, book of Jonah, "great fish",

Boiled down to just the KJV : Jonah vs. Matthew, just maybe we could agree there was a little loss/glitch/dropped pronoun, etc. in the translation.

And then we can both agree, that I am right.
Thank you, God Bless and Good Night

And, once again, my apologies to Charles and the forum members for our little off-topic discussion here.

About Jonah...

Guys, It was a Leviathan.

"There are very few people who have not heard the story of Jonah and the big fish. Most believe the big fish to be a whale, since we think of this as the only sea creature large enough to swallow Jonah whole and sustain his life in the interim. Some argue that it could not be a whale, because the scripture uses the word, "fish," and a whale is a mammal. This last argument is a typical interpretation error that arises when one tries to exegete scripture using English translations. The Hebrew word used here is "dag," which is usually transliterated as "Leviathan" and is simply used to refer to a large sea creature. We don’t know what kind of sea creature seized Jonah from the ocean waves, but we know that something did."

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/jon/32_01_17.html

I will accept what Jesus said in Matthew 12 (whale) from the KJV which was translated from the Textus Receptus which was not corrupted as Wescott and Hyott.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm

carlson1 wrote:I will accept what Jesus said in Matthew 12 (whale) from the KJV which was translated from the Textus Receptus which was not corrupted as Wescott and Hyott.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm

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? The "received text" was not produced until the advent of mechanical printing in the 15th century.

What consideration should be given to earlier texts, say the Vulgate or earlier Greek texts? Just curious..........

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

Just to jump in late...

The NASB is a word for word translation from the greek lexicon. Here is what it has to say:

"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matt 12:40

(emphasis is original to the NAS indicating that it is an approximate translation as there is no direct english correlation).

As for study sheets I can offer tons of pages that show why the KJV is NOT the best translation...but honestly it doesn't really matter in the scope of this board.

-nick

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

gigag04 wrote:As for study sheets I can offer tons of pages that show why the KJV is NOT the best translation...but honestly it doesn't really matter in the scope of this board.-nick

As for study sheets you feel free to email anything you THINK you have that the King James is not the Word of God.
Facts:
1. The oldest form of the Bible discovered to date are the 92 papyra, dated 180AD and 220AD and 85% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 15% agree with the other Bible versions.
2. Of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
3. Of all the Onicals (which is text written in block capital letters), 97% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 3% agree with the other Bible versions.
4. Of all the 2,000 Cursives (text written later in history when people began to write in long-hand), 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
5. Of all the 2,000 Lexicons, 100% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 0% agree with the other Bible versions.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."

The KJV is God's Word, all others in English are perversions translated from corrupt texts. By the way, who says a whale isn't a fish? Just because we call it a mammal doesn't mean God considers it so. Obviously He doesn't.

The most important question though is, are you guys saved? Have you been born-again by trusting Christ alone as your Saviour? Hope so. God bless you all!

"carlson1" wrote
1. The oldest form of the Bible discovered to date are the 92 papyra, dated 180AD and 220AD and 85% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 15% agree with the other Bible versions.
2. Of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
3. Of all the Onicals (which is text written in block capital letters), 97% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 3% agree with the other Bible versions.
4. Of all the 2,000 Cursives (text written later in history when people began to write in long-hand), 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
5. Of all the 2,000 Lexicons, 100% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 0% agree with the other Bible versions.

The problem with such a statement is that "text agreement" is a subjective art of the translator. While one might agree, another might render somewhat differently.

I am reminded of a time years ago when I encountered a very prim and proper but somewhat mean-spirited lady in my church. She refused to accept that any translation other than KJV was acceptable for public reading. After giving me a tongue -lashing for suggesting a different study Bible, I asked her to stand and read aloud to the group 1 Kings 16: 11. After her initial embarassment, she acknowledged that there might be some merit in other translations.

On the other hand, my saintly grandmother went to her grave believing that KJV was the only real Bible.........

That said, thats my last comment on this thread. Besides being off-topic, it's probably not a good idea to let two old preachers get started on a Biblical/historical discussion...........