SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?

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 Next Page )
PosterThread
murdog
Member



Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario

 Re:

Krispy

I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and THE WORD OF GOD LIVES IN YOU,
and you have overcome the evil one.

Murray


_________________
Murray Beninger

 2006/3/22 11:49Profile









 Re:Grammar done for you.

Quote:

MeAgain wrote:
[url=http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/267512435?item_no=7237X&netp_id=241634&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW]Zodhiates Word Study Bible PLUS[/url]

Not bad deal for $29.99 + S&H . Has grammar abbreviated with Strong's numbers over every word and special larger Dictionary on most words, besides usual Strong's Dictionary, plus some tidbits.



This is not for KingJimmy :-D .

My husband has his degree in the Greek, so I know you're not allowed to use these cheat books, but just the GNT. :-P

But for the rest who want to get a head of you -- ha ha --- these books or software version already have the grammar done above each word.

Ohhh, that's a sin. ;-)

Really, KingJimmy isn't kidding about how long it takes to exegete a verse. So Spiros Zodhiates did it for us. :-D

This is the one I have. I didn't get the more expense one. This one's fine.

God Bless you all.

 2006/3/22 12:08
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

If it isnt omitted in the text, then there will be an (*) beside the passage leading you to a footnote that claims that it either shouldnt be there, or the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" omit it.



I did some background search on Acts 8:37 in question, and it appears the earliest known Greek manuscript with this verse in it comes from the 7th century (the Western text at that!), and appears in some other foreign translations, and then few manuscripts that are damaged.

Even with the manuscripts that have 8:37 in it, there is no agreement on the exact wording amongst them, with several variations. The earliest manuscripts (3rd century) do not have the verse. Some of the early church fathers when quoting this passage, don't mention this verse, but some who do quote it do mention it (Chrysostom and Ambrose omit, Irenaeus includes one variation).

It seems somebody added this verse later on. And one cannot simply say this is an issue of Alexandrian vs. TR. For even within the Alexandrian family of texts (9th century) this verse appears. Kinda interesting to see that 3-8th century Alexandrian Texts do not have this verse, but starting in the 9th century one does! In fact, most of the Greek manuscripts supporting this additional reading are late Alexandrian texts!

The conspiracy theories must stop.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/22 12:34Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:


My husband has his degree in the Greek



Scary!

Quote:

so I know you're not allowed to use these cheat books, but just the GNT.



Well, the seminary I attend is actually encouraging us to use the "cheat" stuff after we actually learn the language. There is a program out there called Bibleworks 7, which is the ultimate Bible searching software. It costs about $300, but it basically does your homework for you. All you have to do is mouse over a word and it will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about it. It will even diagram sentences for you to show you how the Greek is working.

Personally, I plan to keep doing it the old fashioned way. I am not about to flush two semesters of Greek down the drain. I personally felt sad for two of my professors at my undergraduate school, who both learned Greek during their seminary days, but have since forgotten most of what they learned.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/22 12:43Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:
beenblake... God has a much higher value on His word than you do. I really question your understanding of scripture. Seems pretty reckless to me. Some really godly men from the past take issue with what you just posted.



Krispy, perhaps you might want to be a little more careful when boldly writing such things. Such statements can sometimes lead to resentment and misunderstanding. If someone was to write this same statement directed toward you or your position on this issue, it might not come across without some degree of hurt feelings. Everyone that knows you realizes that you mean well in your posts. However, there are alot of newer members of the SI community that do not know you well enough to take this statement "with a grain of salt."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that beenblake has been trying to state that there is a difference between the [i]Bible[/i] and the [i]Word of God[/i]. A "Bible" is simply a collection of written, printed and translated portions of Scripture. However, the "Word of God" is eternal and perfect -- because Jesus is the Word. Beenblake's position, among others on this thread, has been that [u]translations[/u] of the Word of God (including the KJV) are sometimes riddled with flaws even while the Word of God is always perfect. A scribed translation can be burned or destroyed -- but the Word of God is living, active and eternal.
Quote:
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

(Note that this is drastically changed in the modern versions... wonder why? It's no coincidence...)

The reason that this is different in modern versions, as has been stated many times, is that versions like the NIV are taken from completely different source material. Academic and spiritual honesty prevented the translators from copying other translated versions. Since in many cases, the source material that was used while translating the KJV no longer exists, the translators today use other sources (some even older than what was available for the KJV). Such cross examination is helpful in pointing out the differences in source. However, such verse-by-verse comparisons are not helpful in determining accuracy when the translations in question are derived from completely different sources.

For instance, the passage about "Easter" (Acts 12:1-4) can be cross examined between the KJV and the NIV to note the differences in translation between seperate sources. However, that same passage can also be compared between the KJV and say, the [i]Reina-Valera Antigua[/i] in order to determine single-source accuracy since they are both derived from the same source (the Textus Receptus) -- while noting that the Reina-Valera is actually older. The KJV translates the word "[i]Easter[/i]" while the Reina-Valera translates it "[i]Pascua[/i]" (spanish for "Passover").

As far as the errors that were contained in the 1611 KJV and were corrected in the subsequent revisions over 150+ years following its publication, not all were simple grammar or type errors. There were some that included actual omissions, additions, and completely changed words. Even some of the misspellings completely change the meaning of certain passages. For instance, take Psalm 69:12...
Quote:
[b]1611 KJV[/b]
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good."

[b]Current KJV[/b]
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."

There are many more examples where the KJV translators simply [i]got it wrong[/i]. A simple Google search, cross-examined with a hardcopy of a 1611 KJV and a current KJV, will demonstrate this. There are literally hundreds of such translation revisions between the original 1611 KJV and the later revisions, until the common KJV was completed in 1850. Let us not forget that the 1611 KJV also included the Apocrypha. What does this prove? It completely [u]destroys[/u] any claim that the King James Version is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. It also proves that the translators were indeed [i]human[/i], and prone to all of the flaws that the rest of us are.

Is the KJV the best translation? It very well might be! I use it as my primary version of the Bible. I consider it a faithful translation taken from the Textus Receptus. However, I consider the NIV the best translation taken from other sources. I do not "spit" on either version (or consider [u]all[/u] of the newer versions the work of [u]heretics[/u] or the result of a [u]conspiracy[/u]). There are notable advantages of both.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/22 12:46Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I did some background search on Acts 8:37 in question, and it appears the earliest known Greek manuscript with this verse in it comes from the 7th century



If thats the case, then how did the [b]first century[/b] church fathers quote it in their own writings? Thats an ancient witness. They quoted it from somewhere, and attributed it to Paul. It didnt just show up in the 7th century, it had to exist for it to be quoted in the 1st century. (This is documented in Dean Burgeon's book)

Krispy

 2006/3/22 12:59









 Re:

Quote:
If someone was to write this same statement directed toward you or your position on this issue, it might not come across without some degree of hurt feelings.



I've been blasted on this forum rather harshly... I dont think I have been harsh here. I said what I said to Blake in honesty, and behind the scenes we have been chatting via PM about personal stuff all morning. I dont think he was offended.

Quote:
The reason that this is different in modern versions, as has been stated many times, is that versions like the NIV are taken from completely different source material.



Thats been my whole point.

Quote:
Since in many cases, the source material that was used while translating the KJV no longer exists, the translators today use other sources (some even older than what was available for the KJV).



A) the source material used to translate the KJV is still very much available.

B) it is a fallicy to believe that "older is better". That means nothing. And there is no proof that those manuscripts used to translate modern versions are actually older. All you have to go on is the word of the Roman Catholic Church. I personally will not go to the RCC for any "truth" on the matter.

Quote:
However, such verse-by-verse comparisons are not helpful when the translations in question are derived from completely different sources



It does demonstrate quite well that the Reformation Bibles, Tyndale, KJV etc were translated from completely different and opposing sources than the modern versions. Therefore [b]they are NOT the same.[/b]

Quote:
1611 KJV
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good."

Current KJV
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."



If I am not mistaken, that was an error made by the printer, not the translators. Unless you have proof otherwise, I would look for a better example.

Quote:
There are many more examples where the KJV translators simply got it wrong.



Where?

Quote:
Let us not forget that the 1611 KJV also included the Apocrypha.



And it was seperate from the rest of the text? Why? Because it was not considered inspired, and not considered to be part of the Cannon of Scripture. C'mon man, read history.

Quote:
It completely destroys any claim that the King James Version is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. It also proves that the translators were indeed human, and prone to all of the flaws that the rest of us are.



When did I claim they were otherwise?

Quote:
I consider the NIV the best translation taken from other sources.



Yea, it is faithful to those other sources. Corrupted sources, beginning with a man named Origen. Read about him and tell me he was a faithful man of God.

Krispy

 2006/3/22 13:10









 Re:

Just curious... has anyone listened to any of the sermons in that 20 part series on the KJV that I linked to the thread the other day?

Krispy

 2006/3/22 13:23
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: ISV

I'm interupting the flow here (of lots of great reading!) with a question that might best fit here among those who may be able to answer, though it's a bit off topic.

What is your impression of the [url=http://www.isv.org/index.htm]International Standard Version[/url] I've enjoyed reading the site, the various responses to questions that people raised. However, I am not scholarly enough to assess... other than have some personal thoughts about the logo.

I see that the ISV is on E-sword. I wonder if it will be the up and coming common modern translation.

.... now back to the topic....
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/3/22 13:46Profile









 Re:

Someone on this thread asserted that Ignatius (first century church leader who was martyred around 116 AD, and knew some of the Apostles) was a heretic.

Ignatius' writings are an Ancient Witness to the validity of the KJV. Many passages missing from modern versions because of a supposed "lack of evidence" were being quoted by Ignatius in the first century.

Anyway, whoever it was who called him a heretic, you need to look a little further. Here is a brief article about him. If his view of the authority of the Overseer is his main error... I would hardly call him a heretic. He was a champion for the Lord against the poison of the Gnostics.

It's still "bearing false witness" if we speak untruths agaisnt a brother who has been dead for 1,990 years.

[i]Authorship and Date
Ignatius was an overseer in the city of Antiochos, in Syria around the turn of the century (I/II CE). If the letters ascribed to him are authentic, then Ignatius was emprisoned for his beliefs and taken to Rome, where he was martyred. During the journey, Ignatius wrote several letters, with the letter to the assembly at Smyrna seeming the most interesting. The letter is often dated to the first quarter of the second century (c.112), and Ignatius is presumed to have died c.116.


Ignatius and Docetism
Ignatius' chief opponents at the time of the writing of this letter were the Docetists, who claimed that Jesus could not both have been God and suffered as a human being. Ignatius believed that Jesus was both human and God, and here he finds himself defending not Jesus' divinity but his humanity. The Docetists accepted Jesus as God, but their beliefs took them to the conclusion that he merely appeared human while on earth. In fact, he was a ghost or apparition, or so they believed. Ignatius wrote to assure his readers that Jesus was indeed human: that he ate, drank, suffered, and died, just as humans do, and that when he was raised from his dead, his resurrection was a bodily one.


The Assembly during Ignatius' Time
Ignatius also provides us with a snapshot of a changing Christianity. First of all, gentiles were starting to dominate Christianity, and it was very easy for them to envision a Jesus who was both human and deity. Human gods dominated the Greco-Roman religious scene. Jesus was beginning to be worshipped as God, and different schools of thought were developing as to exactly what kind of God-human he was.

Another matter was the structure of the assembly-at-large. Whereas before the fall of Jerusalem there had been no structure per se, and the envoys took great pains to ensure that what responsibilities there were did not become positions, in the post-temple period, the positional idea was becoming firmly entrenched (see also the letter of Clement of Rome to the Korinthians). Ignatius urges his readers to do nothing without the Overseer's approval. He equates the honor due such uninspired people as their Overseer, Servants, and older people with the honor they might give the envoys and prophets. We see an institution forming which places less importance on what prophets there might be and more importance on elected officials. These people appear to have wrested control from the assembly as a whole. Ignatius goes so far as to say that anyone who does anything without the Overseer's knowledge is serving Satan![/i]

Krispy

 2006/3/22 13:52





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