Thanks Carol! ā Jim by your comment you obviously donāt understand the view I have. Its not that I believe that there are some godly men out to deceive us itās that I personally donāt trust fully what they are basing their studies on. I believe they may very well be deceived themselves and that what they are studying might not be trust worthy. The sources of some of the MATERIALS they study is of the question not all who are interpreting it! Of course everyone with a little research can see Westcott and Hort arenāt ones I would want to placement my trust in!
Maybe you should look at it from another view and watch the documentaries suggested below. Especially:
Tares Among the Wheat
If one thing has questionable origins why not just go for the one that has trustworthy origins that godly men gave their lives to give to the people and that God has been using to build His Kingdom for hundreds of years?
Trust me I use to watch things on why the NASB was āthe bestā bible so I have looked at it from both sides.
Christopher000 wrote: Hey Kev, thanks for mentioning Amazon Prime...will take a look.
How great it must be to have a wife who's a born again Christian, and to be on the same page, and with the same interests and goals.
Yes it definitely is Chris!
Proverbs 19:14 (KJV)
14 House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.
God sent her into my life to lead me to Him and sent me into her life so she could actually hear and understand the Gospel(she didnāt get that in her old church setting) and I donāt believe she was born again till recently. She at first was opposed to the Gospel but now she is pretty much just like me in her understanding and has now a close relationship with God. Itās cool how God works these things out. God is teaching you things in your relationship Chris and Iām sorry to hear your wife is not interested in the things of the Lord.
My wife traded in her old NLT for the KJV after doing study and looking into these things as well, she is a firm believer in the KJV.
Yeah they are very well done documentaries, being on Amazon shows the quality and are things every Christian should research for themselves. Being on Amazon Prime for free makes it easy to watch with a smart tv.
Thanks there Lurker. Like you said these things should be investigated as a Christian. I will be watching those other documentaries you listed. I really enjoyed the first two and so did my wife. Really makes you think once youāve done a little investigating. I will stick with the KJV that I know I can trust, who people risked their lives to get to the people and which God has been faithfully using for hundreds of years to call out His people and is a lamp to our feet.
I should add that:
Lamp in the Dark
Tares Among the Wheat
Are both also found for free on Amazon Prime streaming video for anyone with Amazon Prime membership.
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: here is a list the RCC site provides of Recommended Bible versions - ā¢ Douay-Rheims Bible ā¢ Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition ā¢ New American Bible Revised Edition -New Revised Standard Version ā¢ New Jerusalem Bible ā¢ The Bible in Its Traditions ā¢ Christian Community Bible ā¢ NET Bible (By Dan Wallace with the Apocryphal books) ā¢ English Standard Version ā¢ NIV ā¢ Common English Bible But you wonāt find the King James Bible on this list. .... See āA Lamp in the Dark - the Untold History of the Bibleā video that is now on You tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Osuctvq4QU Tyndale, once a Catholic but he got converted and became a Reformer.
Good comment IE and good movie suggestion. I have watched that movie and Itās very good for anyone who wants to watch a documentary about the Bible and itās history. I believe the answer to why the RCC accepts these ānew biblesā is found in the second documentary entitled:
Tares Among the Wheat
Iām sure it can be found on youtube by entering in the title in the search. Definitely something every Christian should watch and ponder and raise some questions.
B. McCausland wrote: Sorry, Kev, no, it was not intentional; it was overlooked, my apologies, my fault, though often the same tendencies have been conspicuous in both of you. Trust this apology suffices.
Connor. You know that everything that White says relies on the assumption that the two most heavily edited, suposidly oldest and from questionable sources are the most accurate. I have a hard time trusting the sources of these manuscripts when like a 100 years earlier the groups conected with them were burning people for giving the Bible to the people.
About 2 Peter 1:1(KJV)
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
If you let scripture interpret scripture it is easy to understand who Jesus Christ is. View that verse in light of this verse
Isaiah 43:11 (KJV)
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOR.
I think the Isaiah 43:11 rule is much more convincing than a translation rule that was made around 2000 years after the language.
I think telling people they have no word of God to turn to in English only translations is a pretty sad position. How is that gonna make people feel? Who do they now have to turn to for answers? God talks to His people through His word. I was a NASB guy and from my own personal studies found the KJV to be much more accurate. I would suggest at least cross referencing W/KJVinstudy
Check my link of what the manuscripts have. More agree with the KJV then the NASB. I donāt think that was a good example at all Connor. Doesnāt that say something for the accuracy of the KJV, thatās the best āmistakeā you can point out? I will check into the next verse you listed tomorrow.
So it sounds like you believe IE that some of the verses to be the word of God in some new translations but there are also some dangerous bad interpretations in such versions as the NIV. I would agree with you and thatās why I believe that the NIV the Message and such should be totally shuned. I am of the opinion that why use other versions when you have the KJV or modern updated KJ21 but I am not one to call all modern versions names as I believe God is calling His people out through these versions thus it has to be the word of God in some of these passages maybe just explain why you like the KJV over others Versions and I think you would be more effective for your cause, thatās my opinion.
Connor you never gave me that verse that shows a significant verse in the KJV that leads to false doctrine.
Iām sure if there was a major error you would of been able to point it out. Think on that. Isnāt it wonderful you can read the Bible in English and be able to depend on it for doctrine etc... knowing it is dependable. I read the Bible as the authoritative word of God in my life when I read the Bible.
penned wrote: 1.lifting up one translation as the word is heresy. 2.any teacher that does not know Greek deeply and thoroughly should be discounted in the same way as anyone who has not ever spoken Spanish should not be authority on Spanish. Its one thing for a pastor to not have done the study and to teach from the bible in their own langauge... its a whole other one For a pastor to have never done backgrounds and language study (which by the way all the translators have always done) -- and then to claim authority over those who have spent a lifetime diligently doing so.
1. Do you have the word of God you can read? Does God speak to you through His word, or is that only for people who speak Greek and Hebrew? 2. The Pharisees and Scribes spoke the language and had absolutely no understanding! It is the Spirit that gives understanding and God speaks to His people in our own language through His word. He has arranged it to be that way. Just because someone can read or interpret the language means nothing as the the Bible is spiritually discerned.
And yes there is a place for all these positions and the Lord uses all them to perform His will.
Hey Connor I believe that there is the actual word of God in many translations as by definition the word of God is the incorruptible seed that God uses to call out His people. In case you didnāt notice I said the word of God can be found in some newer translations in my first comment as I believe some people are being born again by the reading of such translations. I myself believe I was pricked to the heart and convicted out of preaching and reading from a NASB bible. I however know from experience that the KJV is more accurate and is what I turn to as the word of God in all matters. Your Hebrews example was nothing that HAD to have some legalistic reading. So then that example was not a verse that one has to conceive some false doctrine from as I donāt when reading that. What is the other verse you said shows some heresy? If you donāt have an English Bible you can turn to, to read the word of God that is not right and the other extreme is āKJOnlyismā where only the KJV is the word of God. ā I really dislike some versions like the Message bible and some others like that and I believe the NIV to be highly inaccurate so much so it should not be relied on and some versions have blasphemous verses.
Connor7 wrote: 1.Hebrews 12:14 you could misinterpret that verse to teach works salvation, 2.the KJV is simply that, a translation. Sixth, I gotta go.
1. I view that holiness without which no man will see the Lord is that holiness that is by the imputed righteousness of Christ as all we have by the law is filthy rags. I know how some interpret that verse but view it in light of this verse:
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and HIS RIGTHEOUSNESS; and all these things shall be added unto you.
We are to seek after HIS RIGTHEOUSNESS which is by faith which is the holiness without which no man will see the Lord.
2. When you call any version just a translation then it sure at least sounds like you are putting down the word of God Connor. I hope you can see that. Maybe this is why some are upset because they feel there is no word of God for anyone in the English language. Your examples of how we can get false doctrine from the KJ Bible was not valid and Iām sure that is one of the best examples you can give.
Do you have an english version you can turn to as absolutely authoritative for you?
I didnāt say you affirm those trans.
You have a good day Connor. ā Come on Tim play nice with your southern brothers.
23 BEING BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.
The word of God is the incorruptible seed which someone is born again by. I think it would be silly to say some are not born again through new translation reading and preaching so by definition there is the word of God in them. To say they are sewage is not right. To say some VERSES that have false doctrine in them are sewage is fair to say. The word of God is also said to be a light to our feet. If you donāt think there is any light from other versions is not right.
I am a KJV only user as I believe that the KJV is my final authority because there is no part in it which I believe I can get false doctrine from, can I say that about other newer versions? No. But I believe that the word of God is the power of God unto salvation and any version that God uses to call out His people by definition is the word of God. ā Connor do you believe the newer versions to be a final authority or can you get false doctrine from reading them? Can you show where you can get false doctrine from the KJV? ā Tim Frank is definitely a Bible believing Christian. Your making us who only use the KJV look bad
Dr. Tim wrote: Ladybug, the things I said to you were vicious and cruel, and I sincerely apologize for them. The reason I never answer your questions about doctrine is because we have doctrinal differences that will not be resolved until we are both in heaven and the Lord teaches both of us perfect knowledge. You won't convince me and I won't convince you to change beliefs, so it's pointless to argue with each other.
very cool Dr. Tim that shows a lot of strength! You are setting an excellent example!
John UK wrote: Kev, that is actually a lie. It comes by way of an exaggeration, designed to make me out to be always calling people devils. So it is effectively yet another misrepresentation.
I donāt see how you can get from my response that I lied?
I see you think you are innocent in all this by lack of wanting to claim any part in all this. I see you have a problem in recognizing YOUR own part and not wanting to admit when you are wrong (not only in this situation). That is not a good thing. Hopefully you do a little soul searching as your comment was to point the finger somewhere else and not take any consideration of what I said.
John UK wrote: Kev, it is admirable what you are seeking to achieve, and I am willing to be a part of that. Sounds good to me, brother. So let's start with what I've been called: 1. Unregenerate 2. Catholic mystic endorser (just like A W Pink and C H Spurgeon) 3. Ecumenist 4. Decisional regeneralist 5. Crusade evangelist supporter 6. One who says a simple nod is good enough for salvation 7. Unrepentant 8. An excommunicated person 9. Charismatic 10. Universalist 11. Roman Catholic troll
Ok John to be fair it is not fair to call you:
3. Ecumenist (though you have defended some who are) 4. Dec.. 6. One who says a simple nod is good enough for salvation
9. Charismatic 10. Universalist 11. Roman Catholic troll
I donāt feel those titles fit you to be honest. Some of the other ones I erased you can ask about individually if youād like. If I called you those things I donāt feel they are an accurate thing to call you and I MYSELF would clear the air and apologize if you did the same for things you may have called me (if I was the other party). I already apologized to you already and I have no problem in doing it again.
What about YOUR PART, calling people devils etc..? Any thing you feel YOU feel you should say?