WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, thanks again but the bible speaks as the same base on your example. The spirit is perhaps thought as of today's 'Casper' Matthew 14:26 - And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
The KJV is only a translation. The translations are revised and changed as language evolves around the planet. The Jews took Gods ten laws and made them into 613 laws.
Mat 5:18 opens a whole discussion in and of itself. How does God preserve His word for us? Surely it is not the KJV.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Mat 5:18 opens a whole discussion in and of itself. How does God preserve His word for us? Surely it is not the KJV.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Well here's an example that multiple versions may bring confusion:
Ecclesiastes 8:10 (see what happen next to the wicked after death)
New International Version
Then too, I saw the wicked buried--those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.
New American Standard Bible
So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out of the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did such things. This too is futility.
Not only that, but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, they boasted in the city that they had done so. This also is an enigma.
Ecclesiastes 8:10 (see what happen next to the wicked after death)
New International Version
Then too, I saw the wicked buried--those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.
New American Standard Bible
So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out of the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did such things. This too is futility.
Not only that, but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, they boasted in the city that they had done so. This also is an enigma.
-
1
- Show all
A careful reading of the Law of Moses will confirm that the Jews had nothing to do with establishing those laws. It is God Himself (Christ) who gave Moses absolutely every law in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, the Jews were unable to obey those laws in full and as written. Later on they violated the Law.
If you take this view to it's logical [humanly speaking] position nobody could be saved if they were not expert in Arabic and greek.
Why must I accept your scholarship over the scholarship of those who translated the KJV?
Why [and I keep repeating myself over and again] do I prefer the translators of the KJV over the translators of the RSV, ASV and later translations? I prefer the translators of the KJV because I trust their theology. I do not trust the theology of Westcott and Hort and there is very good reason for not doing so.
I am not a KJV only ist. I actually read the ARV but only because I know the KJV well enough to spot the weakneses of the RVs. I LOVE the Living bible because it is in the Tynedale/KJV tradition theologically.
The International I shun.
I would read any bible if there was no KJV or ARV or Living bibles available and I do not blame anybody for a. finding the KJV difficult to understand [although I wish they would make the effort] b. if their understanding and devotion to God is bettered for reading modern translations.
-
1
- Show all
Yes. God's Word is presented in CORRUPTED form in the modern versions, but that does not make them acceptable.
Had Westcott & Hort done what they had been commissioned to do (and had a moral and legal obligation to do), they would not have corrupted the Bible and defrauded Christians. Today most of the scholars and critics are ADDICTED to Westcott & Hort (please see below). So you should study the history of modern Bible corruption to understand what has been going on.
“The acceptance of the newer critical editions of the New Testament does not rest on factual data which can be objectively verified, but rather upon a prevailing consensus of critical thought. IT WILL BE THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION TO SHOW THAT CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL TEXTS ARE, IN FACT, THE FRUIT OF A RATIONALISTIC APPROACH TO NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. ... Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.
The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts” (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, pp. 27-35
What this means in plain English is that not a single modern bible translation (version) is acceptable to Bible-believing Christians.
Had Westcott & Hort done what they had been commissioned to do (and had a moral and legal obligation to do), they would not have corrupted the Bible and defrauded Christians. Today most of the scholars and critics are ADDICTED to Westcott & Hort (please see below). So you should study the history of modern Bible corruption to understand what has been going on.
“The acceptance of the newer critical editions of the New Testament does not rest on factual data which can be objectively verified, but rather upon a prevailing consensus of critical thought. IT WILL BE THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION TO SHOW THAT CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL TEXTS ARE, IN FACT, THE FRUIT OF A RATIONALISTIC APPROACH TO NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. ... Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.
The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts” (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, pp. 27-35
What this means in plain English is that not a single modern bible translation (version) is acceptable to Bible-believing Christians.
-
2
- Show all
Of course not!! Where did you ask me this? It is not even that the OT condemns homosexuality, but that it is also repeated several times in the NT.
I think the Bible is point blank obvious that homosexuality is a terrible sin! But I do feel the church has been too negative, rather than condemning the sinners, rather than the sin. Mind you these days, sin and sinner are the same. Homosexuality will keep you out of heaven, but then, many other sins will. Providing that you never repent of your sin and turn to God. We are not condemned by our sins. We are condemned by not believing in Christ, and then not obeying God.
But as far as leadership roles, my denomination believes practising homosexuals should not even be allowed membership. We have a man in our church whose mannerisms seem to be gay! But he repented of his sin, walked away from the life style, and was married to a wonderful woman for 30 years. Strangely, although he is a church member, he has never been in the elder board.
I hope this clears things up for you.
-
1
- Show all
The only reason to be confused is if your faith is weak.
Each example as always, has an explanation about variance in manuscripts. Which you have failed to read or acknowledge.
If your whole faith in the Bible wavers because you don't find absolute perfection in ancient manuscripts reading the KJV won't change that.
Each example as always, has an explanation about variance in manuscripts. Which you have failed to read or acknowledge.
If your whole faith in the Bible wavers because you don't find absolute perfection in ancient manuscripts reading the KJV won't change that.
-
1
- Show all
I would add this Westcott and Hort were high Anglican churchmen, that is they leaned to Roman Catholicism, they quite openly despised the evangelical wing of the Anglican church and they openly despised the KJV and they went about their work of revision with focussed passion ... but they knew they were treading on thin ice.
They knew the reverence with which the KJV was held [and rightly so] they knew they could not stray too far, what they did was in the old fashioned English way [I'm English I know what I'm talking] balancing words, weakening sentences and statements. They seem to be saying a certain thing until you look a little closer.
I'll gi' you an example
Hebrews 1. 3. KJV
Who [Christ] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person ....
The RSV, ARV
He [Christ] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature ....
They seem to say the same thing, but being, BEING the brightness of God's glory is not the same as reflecting God's glory.
Christ glory in the KJV is His own glory and has the sense of radiating that glory, the glory of God. In the RSV Christ merely reflects Gods glory.
Being the express image of God also means something different to bearing the imprint or stamp of God's Person.
The express image of God means He is the visibility of the invisible God.
All you fine linguists and scholars out there .... you have to be English like ME to understand how you can say things while seeming to say the opposite.
Westcott and Hort were highly paid churchmen with massive reputation, if some of what they believed or what they did not believe were known they would have been shot down in flames. They believed in spiritualism and actually started what they called the Ghostly club. They were also firm advocates of Darwin and his evolutionary theory.
They thought the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ was Barbaric.
They knew the reverence with which the KJV was held [and rightly so] they knew they could not stray too far, what they did was in the old fashioned English way [I'm English I know what I'm talking] balancing words, weakening sentences and statements. They seem to be saying a certain thing until you look a little closer.
I'll gi' you an example
Hebrews 1. 3. KJV
Who [Christ] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person ....
The RSV, ARV
He [Christ] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature ....
They seem to say the same thing, but being, BEING the brightness of God's glory is not the same as reflecting God's glory.
Christ glory in the KJV is His own glory and has the sense of radiating that glory, the glory of God. In the RSV Christ merely reflects Gods glory.
Being the express image of God also means something different to bearing the imprint or stamp of God's Person.
The express image of God means He is the visibility of the invisible God.
All you fine linguists and scholars out there .... you have to be English like ME to understand how you can say things while seeming to say the opposite.
Westcott and Hort were highly paid churchmen with massive reputation, if some of what they believed or what they did not believe were known they would have been shot down in flames. They believed in spiritualism and actually started what they called the Ghostly club. They were also firm advocates of Darwin and his evolutionary theory.
They thought the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ was Barbaric.
-
1
- Show all