Bible translations - CLOSED

[carlson1]

I guess we are off topic. I tried not to post, but the post keep coming. I hope this will be my last post, but for now I would like to say there are only two streams of texts and Bibles coming down through the centuries. (1)There is the pure stream that the KJV is based on, which is the text of the Bible believers for the past 1900 years. It is the text of the Waldensians, Anabaptists, and the other ancestors of true Baptists. It was the text of Luther and the Reformation. (2) There is the polluted stream that all the modern versions are based upon. It is the text of Origen, Constantine, Eusebius, the Westcott & Hort, and all of the apostates today. I have never met a modernist yet that said that the King James was the best or the most accurate. They all prefer something else.
None of the popular versions are translated from the Textus Receptus, and this includes the New King James Version. A careful reading of the Preface will reveal that it is not based entirely on the same texts that underly the King James Version. By the way the King James Bible is the only one that does not have a copyright. I wonder why that is? Could it be God said to publish it. Psalms 68:11 “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.� I guess I am just simple enough to Trust God!

[RASmith12241986]

Hey Carlson1,

How would you define a modernist? Just curious!

[carlson1]

Hey Carlson1,

How would you define a modernist? Just curious!

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.

And the answer to your other question is YES I am saved. I was Born Again by (1) seeing myself as a sinner, (2) realizing the penalty of sin as hell, (3) realzing Christ paid the price for my sin in FULL by His Death, Burial, And Resurrection, and (4) realizing my only hope was Jesus Christ. Placing all my Faith and Trust in Christ on October 30, 1986.

[KBCraig]

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.

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

[gigag04]

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.

Beat me to it. As a future missionary I find this to an interesting viewpoint - that non-english speakers must use the KJV, lest they be "modern."


To Carlson1:
If the KJV pushes you closer to Jesus, great, but don't impose you're rule on those that prefer a more literal translation (NASB, NKJV) now - I'm sure you think that the NASB or New King is the devil's translation, but, well you're just wrong.

But I am glad to see that you are carrying and a preacher.

I would be curious to see your view on defending yourself against persecution. Certainly if someone came in the church to shoot you up, that would be persecution (which historically has furthered the church and strengthened the faith).

-nick

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is generating more heat than: .45 v. 9mm; Weaver v. Isosceles; 1911 v. Glock.; . . .

Why don’t we just call it a day on this one folks?

Happy New Year,
Chas.

[wrt45]

This is generating more heat than: .45 v. 9mm; Weaver v. Isosceles; 1911 v. Glock.; . . .

Why don’t we just call it a day on this one folks?

Happy New Year,
Chas.

(':banghead:') Thanks!

[stevie_d_64]

I knew that after three pages of discussion...Starting off with pelletgun penetration opinions...Sewing needle impalements...

Jonah was sure to be the next thing on the list...

I heard God had a new keyboard installed last week...

It has a a special key on it (Bill Gates invented it)...

Its between the "up arrow" key and the "end" key over there on the right...

Its called "smoat"...

I'm steering clear now...