| Poster | Thread | ReceivedText
Member
Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA
| | Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones | | To read the book, click on this link: [url=http://www.bbconfire.com]Bible Believers Church[/url]
It is posted on this site for reading. It will strengthen your view of the authority of Scripture and help give back to the church our sole standard for what we believe and do. |
|  2005/4/22 14:31 | Profile |
| | Re: Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones | | Dude...I love your name. It's a little more spiritual than mine too!
:-P
Krispy |
| | 2005/4/22 15:02 | | taco
Member
Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211
| | Re: Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones | | "which versaion is the bible?"
Obviously no version is "THE bible" in the absolute sense of the word. All of them are translations of the bible. Perhaps the question should be "which version is the best translation of the bible?".
|
| | 2005/4/22 15:55 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones | | Quote:
Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones
Ask a silly question and you'll most likely get a silly answer.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/4/22 16:29 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Obviously no version is "THE bible" in the absolute sense of the word. All of them are translations of the bible.
It's not obvious to everyone... it kinda depends on your take on the doctrine of preservation.
Krispy |
| | 2005/4/22 16:39 | | taco
Member
Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211
| | Re: | | Quote:
it kinda depends on your take on the doctrine of preservation.
I don't think so. If by preservation you mean that God has preserved accurate greek manuscripts for us then the qustion is - "which text is the true bible". If, on the other hand, you mean that God has preserved a particular english translation of the bible, then it is surely obvious that no english translation was preserved from the time scripture was first written.
You may say, of course, that God preserved certain manuscripts and subsequently saw to it that, for example, the KJV was a perfect translation of these texts.
Which do you mean by preservation?
|
| | 2005/4/23 4:51 | Profile | ReceivedText
Member
Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA
| | Re: Preservation | | This is what we mean by preservation:
"Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, [b]thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."[/b]
What we mean is that God has promised to preserve His words in EVERY generation. So if we have them purely today, where are they? Almost any so called "Bible scholar" today will tell you that many passages are in doubt and shouldn't be included in the text. The NIV has taken many scriptures out of the Bible. But because people today are not Bible readers, consumers, they haven't given much of a fight. The ones that do, get marginalized by the rest.
Other scriptures have been outright changed. The truth of the matter is that if you have a corrupt textual underpinning, you will have a corrupt vernacular translation. You just get the corruption in another language. To see scriptures that have been changed, just look at Phil. 2:6 where the NIV says that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God. Or look at 1 Tim. 3:16 where the NIV, NASB omits that "God" was manifest in the flesh. We are left in doubt as to the deity of Christ. It says, "He who." Who is that? An angel? Of course this is what Thayer of Thayer's Lexicon would have believed. He vehemently denied the deity of Christ. Why? He had this "new" text. (Its not new, it was created over a thousand years ago in Alexandria)
But I challenge you all to read at least the first chapter of the book. Here's the link again:
[url=http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/whichversion/table.asp]http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/whichversion/table.asp[/url]
Maybe some of you would like to check out an introductory article on this issue. Here is the link for that:
[url=http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/drdavidbrown/greatuncials.asp]http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/drdavidbrown/greatuncials.asp[/url]
Get ready for some serious info. God bless all who seek His truth and love His Word.
TR |
| | 2005/4/23 16:24 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
The truth of the matter is that if you have a corrupt textual underpinning, you will have a corrupt vernacular translation.
These discussion have been discussed at length in the past on this site by very learned men. Do these topics in a forum as this where many have little understanding of the depth of the issues can only be sifted by the attack on translations of the bible that you may feel are inferior based on your personal preference of manuscripts profit us? This is a forum dedicated to REVIVAL- not discussion of topics that undermine peoples faith and introduce great controversy. This is the enemies business and the time has come to put legs on our prayers and see a stop to all this.
I have yet one word for such behavior- [b]REPENT![/b] Cease and desist from expressing your faith by introducing controversy.
[i]5. If a minister means to promote a revival, he should be very careful not to introduce controversy. He will grieve away the Spirit of God. In this way probably more revivals are put down, than in any other. Look back upon the history of the church from the beginning, and you will see that ministers are generally responsible for grieving away the Spirit and causing declensions by controversy. It is the ministers who bring forward controversial subjects for discussion, and by and by they get very zealous on the subject, and then get the church into a controversial spirit, and so the Spirit of God is grieved away.
If I had time to go over the history of the church from the days of the Apostles, I could show that all the controversies that have taken place, and all the great declensions in religion, too, were chargeable upon ministers. I believe the ministers of the present day are responsible for the present state of the church, and it will be seen to be true at the judgment. Who does not know that ministers have been crying out "Heresy," and "New Measures," and talking about the "Evils of Revivals," until they have got the church all in confusion? Look at the poor Presbyterian church, and see ministers getting up their Act and Testimony, and keeping up a continual war! O God, have mercy on ministers. They talk about their days of fasting and prayer, but are these the men to call on others to fast and pray? They ought to fast and pray themselves. It is time that ministers should assemble together, and fast and pray over the evil of controversy, for they have caused it. The church itself never would get into a controversial spirit unless led into it by ministers. The body of the church are always averse to controversy, and will keep out of it, only as they are dragged into it by ministers. When Christians are revived they are not inclined to meddle with controversy, either to read or hear it. But they may be told of such and such "damnable heresies," that are afloat, till they get their feelings enlisted in controversy, and then farewell to the revival. If a minister, in preaching, finds it necessary to discuss particular points, about which Christians differ in opinion, let him BY ALL MEANS avoid a controversial spirit and manner of doing it.[footnote-This was said with pain in 1833-34][/i] (CHARLES G. FINNEY)
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/4/23 18:13 | Profile | ReceivedText
Member
Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA
| | Re: RobertW | | RobertW,
Why are you so bent on shutting me down?
Quote:
This is a forum dedicated to REVIVAL- not discussion of topics that undermine peoples faith and introduce great controversy.
Amen. But is contending for a pure Bible controversy? I think not. At least not among saints.
How can you have revival without the Bible? If a man doesn't know he has a pure Bible, how can he preach with conviction? I think not having a pure Bible hinders revival. Do you deny this? Can we have revival without a Bible??? Maybe you want fluff, but I want fire!
I have done nothing to attack you. Please give me the same common courtesy. It is you who are causing dissention. I want peace. No one is forcing you to read what I post. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty simple.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16 |
| | 2005/4/23 21:39 | Profile | taco
Member
Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211
| | Re: | | Quote:
What we mean is that God has promised to preserve His words in EVERY generation. So if we have them purely today, where are they?
Did the Kings translators have a pure translation in their day? |
| | 2005/4/23 21:48 | Profile |
|
