I 'admire' your brave attacks on the KJV, but answer why you don't move to the ESV? Also why a jesuit was connected with the UBS nestle aland text below. I never hear you making any valid critiques of these modern versions. Do you agree with Packer on Mother Teresa (earlier post), thought not. Why would I trust him as general editor of the ESV? Nice to hear a reasoned response for a change
"In 1964 Cardinal Martini, at that time Professor of New TestamentTextual Studies at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, became amember of the editorial committee for the UBS Greek New Testament.Even when he was in charge of the archdiocese of Milan…he found thetime to attend the long session of the committee in August 1981…atwhich the final form of the fourth revised edition of the Greek NewTestament was established..."[URL=http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/QR562.pdf]]]Here[/URL]
[URL=http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a120.pdf]]]ESV review[/URL]
The NASB is not as good as the ESV is it, see John Piper on why the ESV should be the stndard version for the church and why he abandoned the NASB.
Not if some evangelicals are seeking a ONE BIBLE VERSION AUTHORITY should NASB users be moving from that version? Or are they NASB only
The ESV represents a new level of excellence in Bible translations—"Dr. R. Albert Mohler,
Then again J I Packer is General Editor of the ESV and he has just revised one of his books
[URL=http://www.takeheed.net/Take_Heed_2010/Current_Concerns/Jan_2010/Packer_and_Mother_Teresa.htm]]]Trusting Revisionists[/URL]
So should I follow Packer then Sproul and Piper and Mohler as my authority on which tie to chose, as it seems to be all about personal preference? Rather than accuracy.
Strange that the NIV went out of fashion as a bad translation, even stranger it was ever in fashion
Who do you trust?
May God continue to bless you and your family with good health and prosperity as you study His Word to grow together spirtually to those you are teaching!
If the word changes so many times even in the contex like Luke 21:36 - kjv - to escape - the other versions to go trough and 1 John 5:7 - the trinity of God removed , Rev 22:19 - book of life versus a tree - my name is written in the book of life see also Rev 20:15 not on a tree - this is new age
If we change the word of God we also implies that He can change his mind about our salvation and is not trustworthy which is not the case.Judement will be done on the word of Jesus Christ and not on man's word.
It is important to stick to the original text
Those translations that come from the Hebrew and Greek...will depend on how faithful and literal to the manuscripts they are. Even older translations has departed from the manuscripts in their "dynamic equivalence." So it is fallacious to say "If it is modern...it is unreliable." or the inverse "If it is older it is more reliable."
Unless you want this discussion shut down, please refrain from anymore ad hominem attacks.
that is the thorn of a rose, having to take rebuke from those whom you perceive 'less than' yourself!it is easy to accept rebuke from those whom befriend. the wise judge it, weigh it, search it out and accept it as truth if it applies, from whomever happens to bring it.
A good sure sign of pride involves always using 'I,I,I' and asserting your position in a smug, unkind attitude. Bear the cloak of humility and you will not need speak to defend your humility.
Only by pride cometh contention!
it is easy to accept rebuke from those whom befriend. the wise judge it, weigh it, search it out and accept it as truth if it applies, from whomever happens to bring it.
And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, ***An instructor*** of the foolish, ***a teacher*** of babes, which hast the ***form of knowledge and of the truth*** in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? ***For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles*** through you, as it is written" (Rom.2:19-24).
I will strongly consider what you said on your previous posts. I would not put those things beyond me. I tell you what why won't you keep me in check. Every time you think I am merely giving a jab, you be the one to point it out.
God Bless
...I hurt their feelings. Well I guess I did. But the real question they must answer is if it is true. I guess it is much easier for them to prove that they indeed are offended than it is to prove that my allegations are false.
So in my fight for truth, there are some that when they cannot withstand my argument they resort to deceitful means to detract the reader. I see it my duty to not only expose their error, but expose them for who they really are.
For me this is not hard to do. All I have to do is encourage them to talk. And what is in their heart will inevitably come out.
If this is prideful? Than I would say I am guilty.
What say you?
The body of your arguments are very well done. You are well read and intelligent. What concerns me is that many of your valid arguments get over shadowed by your jokes and jabs. The poking fun at others gets more attention than your profound statements. I think that if you did not make general "Calvinist" statements, making light of every Calvinist. Then all your hard work, would stand on it's own. I think it would be more edifying.
I will look into your concerns about the NKJV. It may take some time. I will seek first The Kingdom of God, for he has not left me as an orphan.
Peace be with you through Christ Jesus!
... will naturally believe it to be true. Or he will see validity in his argument when it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. And thus, in my opinion, lead them astray.
This is different from those who enjoy exposing character flaws for the joy of it. Take for example Walt's previous comments towards me. Was there any other purpose in his comments other than the joy of defaming me? Did he use any examples (quotes or something) to prove such an outrageous accusation as his? Did he even spend any time dealing with the question at hand or the objections I made? I would answer all the above questions with a resounding "No!"
I am fighting for truth. This means that I must expose errors. Which means that I must be negative at times. This does not mean that I am trying to be mean. It does mean that I must be fair. And if I provide sufficient evidence for my negative comments, I would think that my analysis would be a fair one.
In my fight for truth, I see myself protecting the mind of the reader. That's why I must point out the deceit employed by others. As you know, they do not like this. They get vehemently mad. But oddly, they do not attempt to prove me wrong, instead they attack my character under the notion that I...
Does it not necesitate that in a forum like this error be exposed?
And for the record, I have said nice things about Walt before, though he is unable to perceive any good in me, yet even this it seems he despises.
Let me share with you what I believe. I do not believe that I should be so hasty to judge. I have not attacked anyone personally. But in a debate, it is necessary to point out their flaws in their argument. Is this pride? And when a consistent pattern of behavior will not stop I feel that I should point this out. Is this pride? Now I do not do as others do who make a railing accusation and walk away without demonstrating how exactly I fit that description. I try to show a consistent pattern of behavior by cutting and posting some of their comments. I think this is fair.
And if you read my posts, I do not do so for the joy of finding fault. Usually I am obliged to do so, because it detracts from the argument at hand. There are some that enjoy making strawmen arguments, smokescreens arguments, ad hominem attacks without proof, defamation of character. If they do so consistently I think that in a setting like this it is appropriate to point it out. Otherwise, the reader who does not have the time to read all the posts..
I do value your opinion concerning me. Now tell me how do you perceive pride in me in my approach in these matters.
Am I suppose to refrain from all negativism?
Am I to wink at the carnality of some?
Am I not to reveal deceit when it has been a constant pattern?
I do not doubt that pride has and will creep in at times. But there is time lapse between what I think and what I write down that gives me a moment of introspection. I wonder if my pride is perceived as such because I refuse to be wrong. But if this is the case, should I just simply admit that I am wrong to make people perceive that I am humble?
You must admit, that the objections I present are very hard to answer at the least. Is it prideful to insist for an honest answer?
(Bear with me for I am thinking out loud.)
Take for example the comments made by Walt. Sure the Bible teaches me to love my enemies and to bless them that curse me, but does this mean that I should let him say whatever he wants without exposing his error. At least, one can say of me, that I choose not to respond in kind. I have never done as Walt and others do to me (Do not worry I am not crying over it) but should I be silent and allow the lies to ring out as truth?
....
If you believe like Walt, you may want to withdraw from me. I do not know how this is possible in an environment like this but nevertheless I am sure Walt will find a way.
And yes if you believe like Walt, you may want to ignore me unless you find an opportune time to try to defame me or stain my character.
"If ministers or Christians promote error, division, conflict and are simply ignorant of the Scriptures, I believe the Lord requires church discipline. Perhaps the discipline is to avoid them or rebuke them. Perhaps it is time to require them to withhdraw from the ministry for a time to learn the truth of Scripture."
Well folks, as you can notice Walt is back. Apparently his trip must not had been too prosperous.
It must be so convenient to make railing accusations and not have to prove anything.
They are the first people to cry for any little thing under the guise "You hurt my feelings."
I think Walt forgets' that this is a public forum not a church council. I am sure he would love to have another another Synod of Dort, but that religion has died out.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
