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.
1844, Tischendorf finds the (Sinaticus) manuscript, in a monastery?
Now the liberal community push this text from the philosophical schools of Alexandria, Origen, Arius, (Heretics) as if some new truth has been revealed
The church was fully aware of the corruptions from Alexandria, why do you think it was pristine in a monastery, because it wasnt used or received, the 1% minority of evidence
Now the liberal community push this text from the philosophical schools of Alexandria, Origen, Arius, (Heretics) as if some new truth has been revealed
The church was fully aware of the corruptions from Alexandria, why do you think it was pristine in a monastery, because it wasnt used or received, the 1% minority of evidence
I dont care what you photograph shows, the fact of the (NASB) is found below in the quote from Biblegateway
You can roll on the ground and kick you feet all ya want, read it again
Acts 8:37 has been "removed" from the main body of text in the (NASB), and given a footnote as I stated.
You claim the footnote covers it being in the text is false, the claim by the Lockman foundation that later Manuscripts (Added) the verse is a lie.
The Novum Testamentum Graece, And its creators, Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini) chose to (Remove It)
Biblegateway:
Acts 8:37NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[r] 38 And he ordered that the [s]chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
You can roll on the ground and kick you feet all ya want, read it again
Acts 8:37 has been "removed" from the main body of text in the (NASB), and given a footnote as I stated.
You claim the footnote covers it being in the text is false, the claim by the Lockman foundation that later Manuscripts (Added) the verse is a lie.
The Novum Testamentum Graece, And its creators, Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini) chose to (Remove It)
Biblegateway:
Acts 8:37NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[r] 38 And he ordered that the [s]chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
That's a genetic fallacy. It's ridiculous, and completely ignores the fact that Athanasius (a defender of the faith) was bishop of... let's see, where was it...
Oh yeah... ALEXANDRIA.
Oh yeah... ALEXANDRIA.
Athanasius opposed Arias and his (Heretical Teachings) who denied the Tribune God and Athanasius led the Trinitarian representation against the heretical teachings of Origen, Arius, in the first council of Nicaea
You failed the class, you must retake the course to get credit
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I’m not sure what Armenian is brother so
I’m not sure if I agree
my idea is that Jesus and the apostles are the ones who have already interpreted scripture for us in the New Testament and we should learn what they had to say and believe those things
The Old Testament has revelation that shows us it’s meaning and how it applies to all people of the world . It’s the New Testament , the revelation of the old the truth and everlasting things in Christ
I don’t believe we are meant to re interpret what the New Testament declares , but that they were given revelation to preach the gospel to all the world in the scripture. And now were
Meant to learn and believe those things they taught us who are the church that believes those thkngs
any interpretation that doesn’t agree with scripture seems to me to be off the mark
the Old Testament is this the creation
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Genesis 1:1-3 KJV
and the New Testament is this
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
John 1:1-5
the Old Testament is this
“And God saw the light, that it was good:
and God divided the light from the darkness.”
Genesis 1:4 KJV
and the new is this
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
John 1:5, 9-10, 12-13
and separating light from dark
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
John 3:19-21
Christ is the savior but to reject him means certain damnation he is separating the good the light from the darkness upon the world
“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
1 John 5:19-20
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
John 8:12 KJV
So his disciples who believe the gospel and follow him
“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:14, 16
and those who follow them who follow him , the church in the wicked world become the children of the light the children of the good the children of God
“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
John 12:36 KJV
“Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”
1 Thessalonians 5:5 KJV
the Old Testament God who created everything in the beginning has now spoken the gospel into hearts of faith to create us in righteousness through recognizing and believing in the light of the gospel
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
2 Corinthians 4:6 KJV
my bumbling point is the New Testament is the correct interpretation of the Old Testament it’s meant to be that way both witness of the gospel
I’m not sure if I agree
my idea is that Jesus and the apostles are the ones who have already interpreted scripture for us in the New Testament and we should learn what they had to say and believe those things
The Old Testament has revelation that shows us it’s meaning and how it applies to all people of the world . It’s the New Testament , the revelation of the old the truth and everlasting things in Christ
I don’t believe we are meant to re interpret what the New Testament declares , but that they were given revelation to preach the gospel to all the world in the scripture. And now were
Meant to learn and believe those things they taught us who are the church that believes those thkngs
any interpretation that doesn’t agree with scripture seems to me to be off the mark
the Old Testament is this the creation
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
Genesis 1:1-3 KJV
and the New Testament is this
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
John 1:1-5
the Old Testament is this
“And God saw the light, that it was good:
and God divided the light from the darkness.”
Genesis 1:4 KJV
and the new is this
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
John 1:5, 9-10, 12-13
and separating light from dark
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
John 3:19-21
Christ is the savior but to reject him means certain damnation he is separating the good the light from the darkness upon the world
“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
1 John 5:19-20
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
John 8:12 KJV
So his disciples who believe the gospel and follow him
“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:14, 16
and those who follow them who follow him , the church in the wicked world become the children of the light the children of the good the children of God
“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
John 12:36 KJV
“Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”
1 Thessalonians 5:5 KJV
the Old Testament God who created everything in the beginning has now spoken the gospel into hearts of faith to create us in righteousness through recognizing and believing in the light of the gospel
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
2 Corinthians 4:6 KJV
my bumbling point is the New Testament is the correct interpretation of the Old Testament it’s meant to be that way both witness of the gospel
-
2
- Show all
Is there any truth or reasoning with CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Fake News, False Narrative, Liberal News Outlets?
Dino Your A Liberal, I Dont Expect Any Different From You Regarding Concerns For Biblical Truth
Unanswered Direct Question Again:
Should Practicing Homosexuals Be Allowed Membership In Any Church Denomination?
My Conservative Direct Answer Is "No" What's Your Answer?
Dino Your A Liberal, I Dont Expect Any Different From You Regarding Concerns For Biblical Truth
Unanswered Direct Question Again:
Should Practicing Homosexuals Be Allowed Membership In Any Church Denomination?
My Conservative Direct Answer Is "No" What's Your Answer?
-
1
- Show all
E
yeah visual evidence does not prove a thing?
Acts 8:34–37 (NASB): The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?”
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
The above taken from logos
Acts 8:34–37 (NASB): The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?”
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
The above taken from logos
-
2
-
1
- Show all
E
Bellemira, thanks so much for your helpful input. I pray this new version will be less confusing,
An Encouragement, And Blessing to you!:
Part 1:
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter to
determine Which version of the Bible Is The Correct Word Of God!
I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an account To Him,
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace, To Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?
Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {2Co 5:11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is The Best English Bible to read/study:
(1) Q: Is It not God’s Pure And Preserved Word!?:
”The Words Of The LORD Are Pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified
Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep Them, O LORD, Thou Shalt Preserve Them from this
generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)
Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?
NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.
NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,...
Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for All generations”?
They both claim pure/flawless words, but, then they both Omit Some Of:
“Preserve Them from this generation for ever” and Change words TO the noted
Different words above. How is that The Purity Of God's Preserved Word?
Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand The Purity
of These Words, considering these newer versions have Changed Them?
How, then, do we study And agree, As God Exhorts us?
{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find Many of These Changes {And, Also
omissions}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves about the Purity
of God’s Words, and which version is best, for them, correct?}
(2) I personally have decided on Both The Purity And The Preservation Of
{NOT "kjv Only"}, But: All The underlying {Received Text} manuscripts/
All foreign translations from them, and The Authorized KJV in English,
for the following reasons:
Q2: Is The Following The Reason why the newer versions Cannot claim:
God’s Promise To “Preserve His Pure Word for ALL generations”?
Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880, would not that be a
Lack Of Preservation, due to the fact that the underlying {older/better? Alexandrian}
manuscripts had to be Re-discovered/translated, Skipping the generations since 1611?
Can that be God’s Purpose For His Pure/Preserved Word?
(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is Above All Else! Is It not?:
"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Holy Name for Thy Loving-
Kindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast MAGNIFIED Thy Word Above All Thy Name!"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )
imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want one of the good
deeds done in my body, to be Bad, by my claiming that corrupt/Changed/Missing
words {translated from older/hidden{UNpreserved} manuscripts into newer
easier-to-read/understand versions, are to be:
God's Pure Word, Which Is “Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”
would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:
IF it is true that Many {2,886?} Of God’s PURE Words are missing from
newer versions, then, IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They
are missing}, how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:
“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word That Proceedeth Out
Of The Mouth Of God!” (Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?
Just wondering: How can God's children of light be in agreement when
each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all, By A Faithful God:
"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:
"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of Peace!..."
(Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:
”...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!” (Titus 2:1
cp "Same mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?
Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?
continued in Part 2: Addendum...
An Encouragement, And Blessing to you!:
Part 1:
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter to
determine Which version of the Bible Is The Correct Word Of God!
I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an account To Him,
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace, To Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?
Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {2Co 5:11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is The Best English Bible to read/study:
(1) Q: Is It not God’s Pure And Preserved Word!?:
”The Words Of The LORD Are Pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified
Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep Them, O LORD, Thou Shalt Preserve Them from this
generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)
Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?
NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.
NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,...
Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for All generations”?
They both claim pure/flawless words, but, then they both Omit Some Of:
“Preserve Them from this generation for ever” and Change words TO the noted
Different words above. How is that The Purity Of God's Preserved Word?
Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand The Purity
of These Words, considering these newer versions have Changed Them?
How, then, do we study And agree, As God Exhorts us?
{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find Many of These Changes {And, Also
omissions}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves about the Purity
of God’s Words, and which version is best, for them, correct?}
(2) I personally have decided on Both The Purity And The Preservation Of
{NOT "kjv Only"}, But: All The underlying {Received Text} manuscripts/
All foreign translations from them, and The Authorized KJV in English,
for the following reasons:
Q2: Is The Following The Reason why the newer versions Cannot claim:
God’s Promise To “Preserve His Pure Word for ALL generations”?
Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880, would not that be a
Lack Of Preservation, due to the fact that the underlying {older/better? Alexandrian}
manuscripts had to be Re-discovered/translated, Skipping the generations since 1611?
Can that be God’s Purpose For His Pure/Preserved Word?
(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is Above All Else! Is It not?:
"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Holy Name for Thy Loving-
Kindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast MAGNIFIED Thy Word Above All Thy Name!"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )
imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want one of the good
deeds done in my body, to be Bad, by my claiming that corrupt/Changed/Missing
words {translated from older/hidden{UNpreserved} manuscripts into newer
easier-to-read/understand versions, are to be:
God's Pure Word, Which Is “Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”
would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:
IF it is true that Many {2,886?} Of God’s PURE Words are missing from
newer versions, then, IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They
are missing}, how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:
“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word That Proceedeth Out
Of The Mouth Of God!” (Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?
Just wondering: How can God's children of light be in agreement when
each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all, By A Faithful God:
"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:
"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of Peace!..."
(Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:
”...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!” (Titus 2:1
cp "Same mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?
Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?
continued in Part 2: Addendum...
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Presidente, my Precious friend, sorry to here about your eye strain. Hope
these unformatted/shorter versions will be helpful. God Bless:
Part 2 Addendum:
Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word,
but isn’t that Why God Commands us to study? ie:
“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)
Once I studied & found the meaning, I have never had any problem since.
Amen?
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully studying, like to know When
God Is Addressing one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More
than one person {plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference
in His Pure Words, correct?
Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering you/your
Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of which God Is
“Not the author of" (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct, Precious friend(s)?
Conclusion:
Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also His
Command "NOT to Add, Nor To Take Away {#} From His PURE Words!”?
(Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)
So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is A Very Serious And Important decision
Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will Cause a corrupt faith,”
correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:
“...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(Romans 10:17 KJB!)
Be Blessed!
{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not surprise us,
that Satan's Subtile Confusion very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:
"For we are not as Many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as of sincerity,
but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST." (2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)
"Prove all things; hold fast to That Which Is GOOD!" (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJB!)
Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will {#2 below...}, Much Better?
these unformatted/shorter versions will be helpful. God Bless:
Part 2 Addendum:
Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word,
but isn’t that Why God Commands us to study? ie:
“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)
Once I studied & found the meaning, I have never had any problem since.
Amen?
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully studying, like to know When
God Is Addressing one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More
than one person {plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference
in His Pure Words, correct?
Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering you/your
Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of which God Is
“Not the author of" (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct, Precious friend(s)?
Conclusion:
Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also His
Command "NOT to Add, Nor To Take Away {#} From His PURE Words!”?
(Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)
So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is A Very Serious And Important decision
Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will Cause a corrupt faith,”
correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:
“...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(Romans 10:17 KJB!)
Be Blessed!
{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not surprise us,
that Satan's Subtile Confusion very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:
"For we are not as Many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as of sincerity,
but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST." (2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)
"Prove all things; hold fast to That Which Is GOOD!" (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJB!)
Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will {#2 below...}, Much Better?
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The prophets and apostles wrote in Hebrew and Greek, and a bit of Aramaic. They did not write in archaic English. The KJV is a translation. The NIV is a translation. The ESV is a translation. Some translations are better than others, but these are all translations.
There is absolutely no reason to believe in KJV onlyism.
Jude teaches the saints to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. KJV onlyism was not a part of that faith. The apostles did not teach or believe it. It is not one of the true doctrines of the Christian faith.
I actually like the rythm and cadence of the KJV, and have memorized quite a bit out of it. Having plural, singular distinctions in the second person that are similar to the Greek text is an advantage of the KJV. The disadvantage is that it is written in a dialect, a kind of pseudodialect, that people do not speak today, not as native speakers. We do not speak Early Modern English unless we are reading something old. Many people are are unfamiliar with the fact that 'thee' was a singular, and misuse 'eth' if they are trying to sound old fashioned. The KJV uses some odd defunct idioms and is translated poorly in places.
Equating 'pure words' with one of many, many translations of the Bible into English does not make sense and that is an example of eisegesis.
That is a translation of what Paul wrote. The English of the KJV did not exist when Paul wrote that. He wrote in Greek and it was translated that way into English, though many manuscripts would translate as 'word of Christ.'
There is absolutely no reason to believe in KJV onlyism.
Jude teaches the saints to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. KJV onlyism was not a part of that faith. The apostles did not teach or believe it. It is not one of the true doctrines of the Christian faith.
I actually like the rythm and cadence of the KJV, and have memorized quite a bit out of it. Having plural, singular distinctions in the second person that are similar to the Greek text is an advantage of the KJV. The disadvantage is that it is written in a dialect, a kind of pseudodialect, that people do not speak today, not as native speakers. We do not speak Early Modern English unless we are reading something old. Many people are are unfamiliar with the fact that 'thee' was a singular, and misuse 'eth' if they are trying to sound old fashioned. The KJV uses some odd defunct idioms and is translated poorly in places.
Equating 'pure words' with one of many, many translations of the Bible into English does not make sense and that is an example of eisegesis.
That is a translation of what Paul wrote. The English of the KJV did not exist when Paul wrote that. He wrote in Greek and it was translated that way into English, though many manuscripts would translate as 'word of Christ.'
-
1
-
1
- Show all
In a truncated version of one of Nee's books, I read his ideas about church structure and ministry roles. While there might be a detail here or there I might not see quite the same, he pretty much followed the text of scripture.
Nee believed in plural elders. I am not sure if he makes the exact point, but he may have equated elders of the church with bishops. The scripture does, for example in the words of Paul in Acts 20:28. Nee believed in a plurality of elders in the local church, men raised up from within the local church. This was the same thing I also saw in scripture, so I appreciated that point. One thing I disagreed with him is the idea of the elders being the first converts in a new church.
Nee also believed that the Spirit could work through the church to send out apostles like in Acts 13. Since, in Ephesians 4, 'apostles' were given after the ascension, Nee drew a distinction between apostles before and after the ascension, seeing Paul and Barnabas as prototypical of post-ascension apostles. Nee also believed in the ministry of prophets and teachers in the local church.
The book I had was the shortened version of concerning our mission put out by Living Streams. I think Witness Lee went off in a little different direction, at least in his understanding of apostleship. He had this idea about a generation having an apostle, which was a different concept from the idea of the church planter sent from the Lord that Nee taught in what I read.
According to some Living Streams literature, Watchman Nee also called the clergy role of Protestantism 'Nicolaitanism.' That idea came in through the Plymouth brethren, and as far as I can tell originated with the Christodelphians if not before. The idea is based on a folk etymology type argument that since 'Nicolaitanism' literally has to do with conquering the people, and the word contains a morepheme from which 'laity' is derived (though it did not mean 'laity' as opposed to clergy at that time) that it refers to dominating the laity. But there is a church tradition that it refers to a group of libertines named after Nicholas.
But my impression of Watchman Nee's writings contradicts your assertions. I think you overstate your case.
Nee believed in plural elders. I am not sure if he makes the exact point, but he may have equated elders of the church with bishops. The scripture does, for example in the words of Paul in Acts 20:28. Nee believed in a plurality of elders in the local church, men raised up from within the local church. This was the same thing I also saw in scripture, so I appreciated that point. One thing I disagreed with him is the idea of the elders being the first converts in a new church.
Nee also believed that the Spirit could work through the church to send out apostles like in Acts 13. Since, in Ephesians 4, 'apostles' were given after the ascension, Nee drew a distinction between apostles before and after the ascension, seeing Paul and Barnabas as prototypical of post-ascension apostles. Nee also believed in the ministry of prophets and teachers in the local church.
The book I had was the shortened version of concerning our mission put out by Living Streams. I think Witness Lee went off in a little different direction, at least in his understanding of apostleship. He had this idea about a generation having an apostle, which was a different concept from the idea of the church planter sent from the Lord that Nee taught in what I read.
According to some Living Streams literature, Watchman Nee also called the clergy role of Protestantism 'Nicolaitanism.' That idea came in through the Plymouth brethren, and as far as I can tell originated with the Christodelphians if not before. The idea is based on a folk etymology type argument that since 'Nicolaitanism' literally has to do with conquering the people, and the word contains a morepheme from which 'laity' is derived (though it did not mean 'laity' as opposed to clergy at that time) that it refers to dominating the laity. But there is a church tradition that it refers to a group of libertines named after Nicholas.
But my impression of Watchman Nee's writings contradicts your assertions. I think you overstate your case.
-
1
- Show all
I talked about Gordon Fee because he has excellent books, which I have read that don't have a hint of AofG theology in them. A Pamphlet he wrote against the Word Faith he mentions he is Pentecostal, and does not agree with the Word Faith and "claiming" miracles and demanding healing. He did an excellent job of refuting the health and wealth gospel.
My Greek prof was Bill Mounce, who wrote the best first year books on learning Greek. He was also on many translations committees, with Gordon Fee! They are good friends, but Mounce is Wesleyan, having started in the Southern Baptists.
As for me, I am Baptist. I used to only read denominational material, so I could be assured the theology was right. Seminary showed me it was ok to read books written by people from other denominations. But we also learned hermeneutics, and how to discern good theology from bad. I don't need any kind of blinders on me. Instead, God has given me tools to figure the truth for myself. Am I perfect? Of course not! But I allow the Holy Spirit to direct me, and I have found that serving the living God is a delight and joy!
My Greek prof was Bill Mounce, who wrote the best first year books on learning Greek. He was also on many translations committees, with Gordon Fee! They are good friends, but Mounce is Wesleyan, having started in the Southern Baptists.
As for me, I am Baptist. I used to only read denominational material, so I could be assured the theology was right. Seminary showed me it was ok to read books written by people from other denominations. But we also learned hermeneutics, and how to discern good theology from bad. I don't need any kind of blinders on me. Instead, God has given me tools to figure the truth for myself. Am I perfect? Of course not! But I allow the Holy Spirit to direct me, and I have found that serving the living God is a delight and joy!
-
1
- Show all
What you fail to understand, is that Dino is a Canadian. (So am I, for that matter). Our society and government are quite different than America. We use the British Parliamentary system, and Canadians are more educated. We are taught to get along, not take our guns and shoot those we do not like. There is no right to carry arms, or for that matter, we are denied some freedoms of speech that Americans have. There are many things I like better in Canada than the US, but I am informed enough to realize that America has some features I regret not having, including the electoral college. On the other hand, our medical system is so much better than the American. Everyone in Canada is insured for free. No one does without. Prescriptions are also made so that people who are too sick to work, can be supplemented to get even very expensive medications. (I am one. My biologic costs $2200 a month, but my copay is $0. However, the same drug in the US will cost between $10,000 and $65,000, depending upon what drug it is. A Rituxan infusion in Canada costs $2000 for each of two infusions every 6 months. My copay in Alberta was $25 each for the 2 infusions. In the US, I had 2 friends on this drug. The one in California paid $55,000 for both infusions, and the one in Chicago paid $65,000 for it. And don't go on about how it is R&D costs, as Canadian companies to a lot of R&D.
In Canada, Dino and I, are considered to be Conservative. If you want to know what a Canadian Liberal is like these days, google Justin Trudeau, and his lies, scams and utter stupidity. He has driven Canada so deeply into debt, it may be almost impossible to get out of. He has stolen from the Canadian taxpayer for his friends and family, and then manipulated the political system in some sneaky way, every time he was discovered to be breaching the trust of Canadians.
In other words, insulting someone in Canada by saying they are a liberal, is one of the worst things you could say about someone. It is an insult of the worst degree. I am radically right wing in Canada, but when I took a course from my American theological school about politics, I found myself running into cultural barriers with the other students, which they considered to be Christian, when in fact, they were totally cultural. The second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. No other country in the world has that. Millions of Christians in the world today, live without guns ever entering into their lives. But Americans make this cultural issue into a religious one, which it is not.
Besides, these petty insults should not be happening at all in this forum. You can rant all you want about which Bible version is best, but when your best post is an attack on one individual, I would challenge your thinking that you are in anyway displaying the fruits of the Spirit. You know: love, joy, peace, patience etc in Gal. 5:22-23. I'm pretty sick of facile name calling, because you do not have a leg to stand on. I will give you your right to your own opinion on this issue, which is not based on facts at all. But when your only defence is throwing out personal insults, you have crossed the line!
In Canada, Dino and I, are considered to be Conservative. If you want to know what a Canadian Liberal is like these days, google Justin Trudeau, and his lies, scams and utter stupidity. He has driven Canada so deeply into debt, it may be almost impossible to get out of. He has stolen from the Canadian taxpayer for his friends and family, and then manipulated the political system in some sneaky way, every time he was discovered to be breaching the trust of Canadians.
In other words, insulting someone in Canada by saying they are a liberal, is one of the worst things you could say about someone. It is an insult of the worst degree. I am radically right wing in Canada, but when I took a course from my American theological school about politics, I found myself running into cultural barriers with the other students, which they considered to be Christian, when in fact, they were totally cultural. The second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. No other country in the world has that. Millions of Christians in the world today, live without guns ever entering into their lives. But Americans make this cultural issue into a religious one, which it is not.
Besides, these petty insults should not be happening at all in this forum. You can rant all you want about which Bible version is best, but when your best post is an attack on one individual, I would challenge your thinking that you are in anyway displaying the fruits of the Spirit. You know: love, joy, peace, patience etc in Gal. 5:22-23. I'm pretty sick of facile name calling, because you do not have a leg to stand on. I will give you your right to your own opinion on this issue, which is not based on facts at all. But when your only defence is throwing out personal insults, you have crossed the line!
-
1
- Show all