SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Charisma House Announces 'Most Modern Version' of KJV

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 )
PosterThread









 Re: Charisma House Announces 'Most Modern Version' of KJV

Quote:
Then, the Lord spoke to this dying Tarahumara man. He said, “I am the Lord God that created all things. If I heal you, will you serve me?”

This Tarahumara man said, “Yes.”



Praise God for this testimony. How utterly wonderful and true!

 2013/2/11 15:35
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote ///I think that you misunderstand the nature of the debate over that particular passage. As I explained, the argument about the text is not an “either/or” argument. The debate over the inclusion of this passage in John is older than the King James Version itself. I mentioned at least three pool of thoughts in my post: 1.) The passage is original to John and falls in perfect sequence with this particular rendering; 2.) It is not original to John and its origin cannot be verified; and,///

Probably in your sincerity, and I do not at all doubt your sincerity, you scratch your head at how I could interpet and respond to your post as I do.
Because that is exactly what I feel when I read your responces's to my post.
I ask myself How could he not get the jest of what I am saying and totaly misinterpret and give an absoulte rabbit trail of a response.

Your 3 rational pool of thoughts,totaly deny the point that I am trying to make, and that is the Spirtual reality of the text, in which there are only 2 choices.

You totaly missed the jest of my entire point. Almost Everything that you presented (and very well done I might add) is opinioned by learned men it is debated by learned men their conclusions no matter how scholarly are nothing more than theories, and they have never and never will come to absolute agreement. So bringing up 'Papias of Heiropolis' or 'Apostolic Constitutions' makes no difference to me.

It much reminds me of Debating the excistance of God with an athiest they always want to go to the fossile record and fossile dating and radiometric age dating and talk about all of the information that points to the earth being 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old, and talk all about the opinioned facts of evolutionary biology, and deem any one whom disagrees with them as just ignorant of the facts.

And than they will Ask why are you so certain that Christianity is the right religion why not Islam or Buddism or some ancient pagan religion that is much older than Christianity and on and on.

The reason I believe in God, and The Reason I believe The Christian God, and The reason I Believe that God has sovereignly inspired every jot and tittle exactly the way He wants for the english speaking people in the KJV, for our generation is because of the inward certainty that is with me. That inward certainty is the substance and the evidence not some radiometric age dating or some fragment from the Apostolic Constitutions

on another note though the story about Tarahumara man. (Wounderful!!)



 2013/2/11 16:54Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi proudpapa,

Quote:

Probably in your sincerity, and I do not at all doubt your sincerity, you scratch your head at how I could interpet and respond to your post as I do.
Because that is exactly what I feel when I read your responces's to my post.
I ask myself How could he not get the jest of what I am saying and totaly misinterpret and give an absoulte rabbit trail of a response.




Well, I am not responding to your intent but the specific words that you typed. Hence, that was the purpose of first quoting your statement and then providing a response -- so that the context of my response is clear. What specific gist is it that you think that I am "missing" or "misinterpreting" to the point that you assume that I am giving an "absolute rabbit trail" response?

Quote:


Your 3 rational pool of thoughts,totaly deny the point that I am trying to make, and that is the Spirtual reality of the text, in which there are only 2 choices.

You totaly missed the jest of my entire point. Almost Everything that you presented (and very well done I might add) is opinioned by learned men it is debated by learned men their conclusions no matter how scholarly are nothing more than theories, and they have never and never will come to absolute agreement. So bringing up 'Papias of Heiropolis' or 'Apostolic Constitutions' makes no difference to me.




That is PRECISELY why I mentioned those things. Yes, there is a debate among scholars over the authenticity, and/or authorship and/or sequential placement of the passage that you brought up. I simply pointed out that this debate goes back many, many centuries -- and even predates the translation of the KJV itself. I mention this whereas to dispel any thought that questions over that passage was not a "modern" phenomenon that was delegated to translators of modern versions of the Bible. Translators who used the Byzantine text-type also had questions over that particular passage (which is why I offered the rebuttal to your introduction of that passage into this conversation).

I also wanted to point out that the translators of the NIV did what they could to honestly and openly explain the debate -- that the oldest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include the passage in John 7:53-8:11. I don't fault those translators for mentioning this as a margin note or footnote.

Is the passage authentic? I have already explained that I don't know with absolute certainty. However, that doesn't mean that the context is not worth acknowledging. There is no passage in the Bible that specifically state "Jesus love you," but I understand that those words are a timely and accurate descriptions of His love for us. I cherish the written "Logos." I came to Christ on the day that the words of Matthew 11:28-30 both inspired and tugged at me. However, I am transformed by the eternal "Rhema."

Quote:

It much reminds me of Debating the excistance of God with an athiest they always want to go to the fossile record and fossile dating and radiometric age dating and talk about all of the information that points to the earth being 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old, and talk all about the opinioned facts of evolutionary biology, and deem any one whom disagrees with them as just ignorant of the facts.

And than they will Ask why are you so certain that Christianity is the right religion why not Islam or Buddism or some ancient pagan religion that is much older than Christianity and on and on.



Brother, you are not speaking with an atheist, Buddhist or Islamist. You are speaking with believers in Jesus Christ. They may (or may not) have a different opinion about certain matters pertaining to which Bible sources or translations are superior to others. However, it helps in these discussions not to dismiss believers -- who are pursuing the same unprejudiced truth of the matter as you are -- with some consideration of them as "closed-minded, "blind" or even "the enemy." Thankfully, that hasn't happened in this thread. However, many of the many Bible version debates on SermonIndex often turn out that way.

Quote:

The reason I believe in God, and The Reason I believe The Christian God, and The reason I Believe that God has sovereignly inspired every jot and tittle exactly the way He wants for the english speaking people in the KJV, for our generation is because of the inward certainty that is with me. That inward certainty is the substance and the evidence not some radiometric age dating or some fragment from the Apostolic Constitutions



I don't believe in God BECAUSE of the KJV. I am a Christian because I believe in, long to know and have given myself to Jesus Christ our Lord.

I do admire and embrace the King James Version, but I believe what the translators of the KJV said about their finished work. It is not -- and never was intended to be considered -- perfect. There are some mistakes and errors in the translation process and there may be some passages in which the wording could have been somewhat more accurate. "Easter" in Acts 12 is an obvious error. There were revisions (mostly minor or grammar-based) in the text over 150 years. There are some areas where the numbers were wrong. There are some areas in which the numbers between one book and another contradict one another.

On a personal level, I use the KJV, NASB and NIV almost exclusively. I often read the Word of God while cross-reference each of them for a different perspective or simply to see how the various translators worded something. For the most part, I feel that they are in agreement on every essential matter. Even in the areas that they might (or seem to) disagree, the essential doctrines are still there.

In regard to Bible translation, I do not trust my own intuition on specific textual perfection -- no matter how spiritual or inspired I might feel it to be. I strongly embrace the KJV as a faithful translation from the sets of source materials used in its creation. I feel the same way about versions like the NASB and NIV. I have gained much from studying all three of these versions...and many others here on SermonIndex and elsewhere have stated the same.

If there is any "rabbit trails," I often wonder if it is by looking at Bible versions and translations with suspicion or discussing it with an attempt to not recognize the great things that have come from other scholarly versions. I hope that this makes some sense. There are many people in this nation and other lands who don't have a written version of the Word of God. How tragic! In the United States, we are flooded with Scripture...and yet we spend so much time debating over whether one (or more) are "perfect" and if that disqualifies the other versions that we don't prefer.

We have never lived at a more blessed time in human history in which we have been given so much in terms of knowledge of the written Word. I wonder: Have we shown a return for the investment of those who have come before us?

The Lord bless you.


_________________
Christopher

 2013/2/11 19:41Profile
a-servant
Member



Joined: 2008/5/3
Posts: 435


 Re:

some wisdom... exactly 100 years ago:

The Pulpit Commentary (1913)
Isaiah by H.D.M. Spence

"The title daystar is truly Christ's but will be confiscated by the antichrist of whom Babylon is a type and mystical Babylon is a forerunner. And Satan will assume it, who is the spirit that energizes the heathen world power Babylon, that now energizes the apostate church and shall at last energize the secular antichrist. . .and his champion the false prophet."

2 Peter 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Revelation 22:16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

---

So H.D.M. Spence said there will be a switch in "Christ persona" in mystical Babylon, an that before the time of antichrist's rule.

Ist there any evidence that would support that claim?

NIV Isaiah 14:12, 15

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn. . .but you are brought down to the grave.


NASB Isaiah 14:12, 15

How you have fallen from heaven O star of the morning, son of the dawn. . .you will be thrust down to Sheol.



The above two examples want to make the reader believe that the moring star is the same that also said "I will be like the most High" in Isaiah 14:13

Isa 14:13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

That's quite an identity switch where the real Jesus Christ is portrayed to be the 'fallen one'. Who can even say things like that? The same spirit that will later do the same:

Rev 13:6  And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

 2013/2/12 0:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy