SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : For some Christians, King James is the only Bible

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 Next Page )
PosterThread
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2094
Whittier CA USA

 Re: Causing Unnecesarry Confusion and Division Within the Body

While I would agree that some translations should definitely be rejected(New World, and the Message for example), dividing over the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others is something I am convinced grieves the Holy Spirit. It causes non-believers to stumble seeing some true believers divide over such an issue. It causes a casting of doubt on the Word of God. It also causes new believers to be unnecessarily confused. Instead we should try to explain to them how God has indeed preserved His Word despite the minor variations in some words or points.


_________________
Oracio

 2011/3/27 17:48Profile









 Dearest Chris!

Quote:
I hope this helps.



God bless you brother. i've been on this computer reading about.......i don't know what to call it all....but i never knew the polity of the "church" was so disjointed, and ugly.

i'm talking POST 315 AD, from what i read prior, i always thought that Constantine was a son of satan, and that the roman institution was most defintely anti-Jewish, that whore in rome has whipped up more men to kill more Jews than hitler dreamed of, crusades, inquisitions, etc.

but now i've been reading and it sounds all so SICK, and of the flesh, these machinations of man:

Quote:
Constantine is believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais—and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned. However, there is no evidence that his son and ultimate successor, Constantius II, who was an Arian Christian, was exiled.



okay, so he's exiling people and burning books, but this is a human king and suddenly HE DECIDES he's head of the "church"?

WHAT IS THAT?????

then constantine, new chief honcho decides he's been too much of a meanie:

Quote:
Although he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius' rehabilitation.



but in the 'true' spirit of love they went after the guy that got Arius exiled:

Quote:
At the First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius; after this, Constantine had Athanasius banished, since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius, however, died on the way to this event in Constantinople. This was the same day Arius' own bishop prayed that if his heresy was to be propagated, the Lord take him in death that night- or better, Arius. Some scholars also suggest that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[13] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.




i didnt know what a "catechumen" is until five minutes ago, in fact all this "religion" is making me sick, it's got NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!....and everything to what with is foul and unclean about the dark hearted nature of man, with his pride and ego.

a "catechumen:

Quote:
In ecclesiology, a catechumen (pronounced /ˌkætəˈkjuːmən/; from Latin catechumenus, Greek κατηχούμενος, instructed - from κατά (kata), “‘down’” + ἠχή (ēkhē), “‘sound’”) is one receiving instruction from a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism. The title and practice is most often used by Orthodox Christians and by Roman Catholics.




so constantine wasnt even water baptized, can you believe that? here this guy is playing around with the Things of God, banishing folk, etc....and he isnt even water baptized.

Now, you tell me, we didnt start locking down Canon, that is New Testament Scripture UNTIL IT WAS IN ROMAN HANDS?


meaning, those councils, that all met, to reason, what Gospels, Epistles Revelations, are in any translation of Bible, were only started after rome started its institution, called a "church"?

so i'm to assume, it was under the aegis of that roman institution, that Canon came to be decided?

that just tears me up, ya'll can argue KJV this and that all you want, something much more Important is at stake.

 2011/3/27 18:20









 Re: Dearest Chris!

Natan,

That is not correct what Chris is saying about the RCC giving us our canon and KJV Bible.

With all due respect, that is the problem today. Many do not even know where we got our Bible from.

If you would like me to post the two paths for the KJV and various other Bibles, I would be glad to.

 2011/3/27 18:52









 Re:

Oracio,

With all due respect to you, too. The variations are major not minor. I would be happy to post major variations for you if you would like.

 2011/3/27 18:54









 Re:

Guys/Gals,

Update:

Satan won't take away and change God's Word in a major way, all at once. Remember the garden? Only a small change, but yet significant. With each succeeding new version the Word is changed ever increasingly more and more. It's like the frog in the water. A little at a time. Satan may be dumb but he's not stupid.

Why can't anyone admit, that God's Word would be a major target for Satan to counterfeit, corrupt, malign and distort through "enlightened" scholars?

Why does Satan get a pass on this particular supposed counterfeit?

Does Satan leave God's Word alone for some special reason that I am not aware of. Think!!

"BEWARE OF THE SCRIBES"
Luke 20:46

 2011/3/27 18:56









 anon777

its neil, my name, Natan is my Hebrew name, i spent many years of my life in the First Part, the Old Testament, i DO know Where That came from, my question is when did Canon get decided on for the New Testament, because if its after 315 AD, then it WAS in the clutches of the roman institution, was it not?

if somebody else wants your paths to the KJV and various other Bibles, thats fine, i dont really care. i'm wondering when NT Canon was locked down.

 2011/3/27 19:21









 Re: For some Christians, King James is the only Bible


Hi Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

I think it's a stretch to attribute to Constantine, a head of state, changes to scripture in association with the addition of the word 'Holy', to 'Roman Empire'.

The need 'earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' was in the church before Constantine became a Christian. He didn't have a theological background. To what end would he have taken any interest in tinkering with scripture? More likely the churchmen of the day are at fault than Constantine - unless you have some evidence?

Regarding the Alexandrian texts, are you saying that the form in which they appear now, is MORE reliable on the basis of their AGE? How do you KNOW those copies are not altered from the original?


How do Westcott and Hort have a bearing on the discussion?

Chris, no doubt God speaks to you through the NIV and the other versions you use sporadically, but how do you know you are not missing something, by not reading the KJV until you know it as well as you know the NIV, and can properly compare them?

You don't seem to understand that many KJV readers do not reject the minority text translations because we don't like the spoken language of today in which they are written, but because the Holy Spirit is revolted by the way the choice of modern language alters what God is saying. Of course you, as an academic, put great store by what you read, but the Holy Spirit puts great store by what God has said, and upon what God is trying to speak about HIMSELF through His word.

Somewhere earlier in the thread you said something (which I can't find again,) which seemed to mean that you, personally, do not object to another believer's personal choice of Bible version to read most. (If you can find your quote, that would be helpful.)

We will know you have genuinely laid down you anti-KJV agenda, when you stop entering threads about the KJV, insisting that we all do lengthy personal research into textual origins. This may be a necessity for those whom GOD charges with that task, but at what point does a man of God become trustworthy to you? Do you trust him because it's clear He hears from God, and God speaks to you through him? Or do you lay God's word to you aside, until you've found out if the speaker has measured up to the standards of academic excellence which you espouse?

Quote:
I think that you misunderstand: Many of us do NOT see "contradictions between Jesus Christ and His Word" even though we read and study with certain versions and translations other than the KJV.

Some of us have prayerfully studied this topic with strong academic scrutiny and purity of motivation (and without any preconceived bias). Thus, I feel no need to challenge any of your statements. However, I would urge anyone who tries to impart something into the discussion to make completely certain that their assertions are factual, correct and devoid of bias or any preconceived conclusions.

Chris, the only difference between your preconceptions and mine, or a777's, or Oracio's, or JiG's, are that yours are yours, and ours are ours. The only way any of us become free of preconceptions, is by the renewing of our minds through the Holy Spirit. And He's not done yet.

 2011/3/27 19:34









 Re: For some Christians, King James is the only Bible


Hi Neil,

This is not a direct answer to your question, but it is a part of it.

Erasmus was a reformer. He didn't want to have to leave the Catholic church, but if you read his writings carefully - especially early after he'd gathered the best manuscripts he could find, and translated them, you'll see that he put scripture above the authority of the Catholic Church. In a few very inspired words, he separated himself from the scriptures, and while holding them as the highest authority, remained willing to submit himself temporally to Catholicism such as it was in his day. (Very unsafe for Protestants.) You see the same kind of navel-gazing in Montaigne's essays. He was a Catholic who had scriptures engraved all over the ceiling of one of his rooms, but dared not fall out with Rome, because a bloody counter-reformation was in spate nearby his estate.

A useful study is to find the Pope by Pope alterations to doctrine which began to be added to the tenets of Catholic faith. Early on, it was not so, although there were always people who wanted to do Christianity their way, and not according to scripture. This would be a huge study, but my point is, that the alterations which may have been made by the time the canon was gathered together prayerfully, were to uphold the Trinity, because Arius was attempting to dilute the deity of Christ and His equality with the Father.
We actually have no idea whether Jesus ever said 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost', Matthew 28:19.

 2011/3/27 19:47
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi anonymous777,

Quote:

That is not correct what Chris is saying about the RCC giving us our canon and KJV Bible.


Friend, I did not say that. It is difficult to have a conversation when you keep implying things that I did not say.

I simply stated that some historians have raised the possibility to explain just why the Byzantine text type may have become widespread -- even though the manuscripts used were dated between 250-950 years later (compared with the Alexandrian text types.

I didn't imply that I necessarily believe that the widespread availability of the Byzantine text type during that period by which Erasmus singlehandedly created the Textus Receptus (in 1516) was due to the funding of Constantine to produce it. Rather, I simply pointed out that there are some scholars who believe this and that they base their view upon certain historic affirmations.

By the way, I think that it is important to avoid trying to read between the lines or guessing the motives of the individuals that you disagree with. It is not helpful to the discussion.


_________________
Christopher

 2011/3/27 20:11Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2094
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

anonymous777 wrote

Quote:
With all due respect to you, too. The variations are major not minor. I would be happy to post major variations for you if you would like.



Before I accept that offer and we move on from my last points, could you please post a response regarding the two verses I pointed out in my last reply? Could you please say why you believe the differences there are of such significance that you would pronounce the NIV as a work of satan?

On another note, many KJV only proponents are very legalistic and cultish when it comes to this issue of division over translations.

To me it seems like boarder-line, if not idolatry to hold to a belief in any kind of divine inspiration of any particular English translation of the Bible, whether KJV or other.

When we speak of the infallibility and innerrancy of Scripture it is in reference to the original writings of the prophets and apostles, not those who later gathered the copies of the originals and/or translated those copies.

To believe that any one particular scholar/translator or set of translators were more divinely inspired than the others is placing too much confidence in men.

I can understand standing for and defending essential Christian doctrine because it is clearly revealed in all the manuscripts from what I can see in the various translations being mentioned here. All of them clearly teach the the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement, the new birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc. They all agree on those essentials.


_________________
Oracio

 2011/3/27 20:14Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy