|
Post by Thane on Nov 4, 2005 1:23:27 GMT -5
The KJV is infalliable? This is the first time I have ever heard this, I am very used to hearing how much it is messed up. Why is it that in 4 out of 4 seminary schools I have looked into, it is mandatory to use the NASB. I look at translations like clothes. Why do some people wear Wranglers, others wear Levis, others only wear slacks. Bottom line is that they are wearing something, not the brand. I know this may cause a huge pot to get stirred up, but its what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 4, 2005 7:17:00 GMT -5
You compare the Bible with clothing brands? I guess any old book will do for you then. Yes, I believe my Bible is infallible. What kind of Christian would I be if I thought it was full of mistakes? If you can show me one obvious error in the King James Version by all means please do.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:48:53 GMT -5
marksunter “please dont pity me, I have found my place in the world and with God, thats good enought for me. As for what you do and dont understand, humer is a good thing.” I agree that having a sense of humor is good, but not in the form of blasphemy. My general rule is this – I take God serious and not myself. If you knew me, you would know I make fun of myself all the time, but am more than willing to “earnestly contend for the faith”.
“please dont dont sit two high on that two legged stool.” If you mean resting on the Lord and the Bible, I will continue to sit on that “stool”.
”It is very interesting to me that there are so many version of the bible. I dont take that as division or mass doctrinal confusion, I take it as different interpretations. I am not bent on judging or telling anyone my view is correct. I am sure if my heart is open, then if I read any version of any bible, god will speak to me.” Most of the doctrinal confusion and denominational splits in this country and around the world have happened after the introductions of the thousands of “translations” based off the Alexandrian Manuscript Family for the New Testament.
“Are you not open to other religious liturature, The kuran, budist teaching, and others. I think you might be missing the point. I am happy to listen and read anything and in any way God wants to speak to me. there are many ways to the lord, not just one...” I have studied these other religions so that I know what they believe. It also allows me to be kinder to them when I share the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with them. By the way, if you feel that there are many ways to the Lord and Heaven, then you are not saved. · “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” [John 3:16-18] · “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” [John 3:36] · “I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” [John 10:9] · “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6] · “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” [Acts 4:12] · “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” [1 John 5:12] · “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” [Matthew 7:13-14] · “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” [Luke 13:24]
”by the way, I think you might be right about the baptists not going to heaven.” My grandfather was going to be one of those Baptists not going to Heaven. He sat on a Baptist pew for his entire life. He didn’t get saved until he was 80 and laying flat on his back on a hospital bed due to his sin of smoking. Praise God he got saved before it was too late. Being the member of any church, let alone a Baptist one, or a religion won’t save you. Only Jesus Christ does that.
”peace out” I will, as the Apostle Paul, continue to “fight the good fight” as the Bible commands.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:50:49 GMT -5
RDC, I agree 100% about what you said. Here is an outline of a message I preached once that touches on that very subject. LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC Matthew 16:13-16
CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING A LIAR: He lied about being God. Very seldom people are willing to die for a lie. Also it is even less likely for others to later lay down their lives to propagate the lie after it had unraveled and fell apart. If Jesus has been a liar, when He had been crucified, He would not have risen from the grave and the apostles would have been too disheartened to continue.
CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING A LUNATIC: He was deluded into believing that He was God. Once again, He would have died but not been able to raise Himself from the grave. No crazy person is able to do that. There have been some mentally insane people that have led great followings, but their followers scattered when their leader was killed. The same would have happened with Jesus and the disciples.
CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING LORD: The following supports this claim: 1. He fulfills all Old Testament prophecies about Himself [astronomical odds]. 2. He was born to a virgin [impossibility outside of Divine intervention]. 3. There are a recorded 35 miracles to His credit during His 3 year ministry. 4. The fact that He rose two people from the dead and then Himself, which only God can do.. 5. He allowed Himself to receive honors and worship, which only God is to receive. 6. He forgave peoples sins, which only God can do. 7. He had power over all evil spirits, including demons and Satan himself. 8. He claimed to be God – John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; John 1:1; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:14-16; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 1:3
Conclusion: Philippians 2:10-11
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:52:32 GMT -5
Doug, Yes, we can disagree and be cordial. That is what brothers do.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:55:05 GMT -5
Shane, Amen. Since Satan has realized that he cannot destroy the Bible, he has attempted another tactic. Flood the market with counterfeits, each one just slightly different. There is a book out there called "Things That Are Different Are Not The Same" by Dr. Mickey. It is a good one for those who think that each of these various "tranlsations" are exactly the same doctrinally.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 7:59:29 GMT -5
Thane, “The KJV is infalliable? This is the first time I have ever heard this, I am very used to hearing how much it is messed up. Why is it that in 4 out of 4 seminary schools I have looked into, it is mandatory to use the NASB. I look at translations like clothes. Why do some people wear Wranglers, others wear Levis, others only wear slacks. Bottom line is that they are wearing something, not the brand. I know this may cause a huge pot to get stirred up, but its what I believe.”
You have raised some good questions. Of the Bible colleges and seminaries I am familiar with, they only allow the usage of the KJV Bible. They do not accept the NASB due to its flawed foundation. When I say this, I want you to keep the following in mind. Until 1997, I used the KJV, NIV, and NASB interchangeably. I believed that they were the best translations on the market. I was unaware of the different doctrinal positions held on the Bible. Then I began to do research about it. There are three major positions on the textual issue. [There are also some minor positions, but they will not be addressed.]
1. The King James only position: This is the position that the KJV is the exclusive Word of God for this age. It was re-inspired in 1611 and supercedes even the autographs [original manuscripts]. If a non-English speaking person wants to have God’s Word, then that person must learn English and read the KJV. Dr. Peter Ruckman and other extremists supports this position. Though one must admire the supporters of this view for their zeal for the Bible, there is no historical or Scriptural support for this position.
2. The Critical Text position: This is the position that the New Testament must be reconstructed from the extant [existing] manuscripts by scientific means. This is the position I used to hold. The ecumenical, modernist, and liberal factions within “Christianity” hold this position. The Critical Text position essentially follows this logic: 1. The autographs may or may not have been inspired and inerrant. 2. The autographs have been lost. 3. All that exists today is conflicting copies of the autographs, all with some degree of errors. 4. Through textual criticism the original text hopefully can be reconstructed by scientific means. If you use any of the modern bibles based off the Critical Text, you must agree with and believe the previous four statements.
3. The Preserved Text position: This position holds that God has providentially preserved His Word through the traditional Received Text family of manuscripts and translations. Fundamentalists hold to this position and accept that the KJV is the best translation to ever come from this line - for the English language. God has also made sure to preserve a copy in each foreign language from this manuscript foundation.
I believe the manuscript, historical, and doctrinal evidence support the Preserved Text position and that is what I now accepted.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 4, 2005 8:02:23 GMT -5
Shane, I think what we need to say is that the Bible is infalliable in the inspiration and inerrant in the preservation. We also need to be careful of getting into the relativism argument about the Bible “translation”. It eventually gets to the point of arguing which ice cream flavor is the best. Instead, we need to look at the foundation [manuscript family, historical evidence, doctrinal issues, etc.] for our support of the Bible rather than personal opinions and preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Parrish on Nov 4, 2005 10:11:41 GMT -5
Bryan, if I may, I'd like to add just a touch to your most recent reply to Thane. I picked it up off the Way of Life website, and I'll have to paraphrase.
If it means the best English version of the bible, then yes I am King James only. If it means the most accurate translation of the best original sources, then yes I am King James only. If it means that people who don't speak English must use the King James or be condemned, then no I am not King James only.
There is a really good list of these at the website, and it really greatly supports a stance to use the King James Bible.
God Bless. Doug P.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 7, 2005 9:12:11 GMT -5
Doug, Exactly, we cannot fall into the trap of some who believe that everyone must read the KJV Bible. God has preserved His Word in each language. I have posted elsewhere some of there various foreign versions that are just as accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Thane on Nov 7, 2005 11:37:52 GMT -5
Billy Graham said it best in an interview some time ago.
Interviewer - "Billy, what is the best translation of the Bible to use?" Billy - "What ever one you will read!"
|
|
|
Post by Doug Parrish on Nov 7, 2005 12:33:31 GMT -5
Thane, Brother, while I agree with the spirit of the quotation, there are certain "versions" "translations" or "paraphrases" I try to avoid at all costs. The Living Bible may be one way to get folks to read the Bible, but it is extremely watered down. The Message, well let's just say save your money. I'm a tad more liberal than Bryan when it comes to other translations, and would recommend NKJV to someone who just now started reading the Bible and had no idea what "begat" meant....
God Bless. Doug P.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 7, 2005 22:03:49 GMT -5
I would also recommend staying away from the TNIV.
|
|
|
Post by Thane on Nov 8, 2005 5:22:18 GMT -5
Shane, I have to agree with you, I believe the Message should not even be allowed to have the name Holy Bible associated with it. Most new people I talk to I usually recommend the NKJV or CSB
|
|
|
Post by Doug Parrish on Nov 8, 2005 7:42:26 GMT -5
I was with you until you said CSB. What's the CSB? Please excuse my ignorance on this...
God Bless. Doug P.
|
|