Jump to content

Jaydog1976

Senior Member
  • Posts

    626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

360 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I never referred or implied that the third text that is needed is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit helps us understand scripture regardless if it is the KJV or other versions. However I do agree that if we come up to something in scripture we do not understand that we ask the Lord for wisdom so that we can understand what He is trying to say to us through the passage that we are reading.
  2. That was my point. We have 2 main Greek texts that are used. I understand that there are fragments of greek texts that are used to make the 2 main ones. What I was driving at is that there isn't a 3rd main text that supports one or the other. It is hard to compare 2 texts without having a tie breaker. Otherwise it is a serious waste of time to say one is better than the other without knowing what we are comparing them against.
  3. So here is the rub. The choice of Bible versions is not a textual one but on of preference. You choose the KJV because you prefer it over other versions. No one can really know if the KJV is perfect because it is a translation which did have Anglican and other influences in it. What I find interesting is that the KJV was revised several times. Why? Because no translation is perfect and evolves as language and word usage evolves. Do I think the KJV is a good version: Yes I do. However I don't not hold it to be perfect. It has it's issues to. Now to answer this argument. As I said before, these versions were translated from 2 completely different texts. You cannot make the argument that the NIV omits stuff. You are basing your argument on the fact the the KJV is perfect and is the absolute translation to compare other with. My question is this : How do you know the Textus Receptus doesn't have additions or subtractions in itself? You won't know because you don't have the original authors to talk to about it. So this argument about additions and subtractions from the NIV or any other version is moot because they are translated from two completely different Greek texts. Ultimately, and most KJV only supporters will deny this, your chose of Bible version is based upon preference. And this preference lead you to using the KJV as your choice of Bible version. I prefer the NIV and NASB because they are easier to read and lend to reading in language that we use today. Neither is right or wrong. God uses both translations to bring people to Christ as well as to help the grow in the faith.
  4. When I eat a hamburger I don't think about food poisoning. I enjoy my burger with all the fixes. Then if I get food poisoning later then so be it. I am still going to enjoy my burger.
  5. There is a major issue with this statement. Remember that there are two different Greek manuscripts. The NIV comes from the Westcott and Hort text and the KJV comes from the Textus Receptus. The issue is that one cannot say that the NIV has errors because you can't compare just between two manuscripts. How can one, without a shadow of a doubt, say that one greek text is more correct than the other without actually going to the original writers and seeing what they wrote. The only way that one can be sure one is more correct than the other is to find a 3rd greek manuscript that leans more towards one than the other. But one does not exists. The NIV is not actually a translation. It is a transliteration (Transliteration gives the word from a different language in letters that you can understand so as to be able to pronounce it). What this whole KJV only discussion comes down to is preference. However the KJV only group will deny that it is actually a preference. I was saved using the NIV I use the NIV in church and will defend my faith using the NIV. The KJV is a good translation just not the only good one out there. If we want to get really nit-picky I think the NASB is way better than the NIV and the KJV. I have thus my response.
  6. Classic KJV only verse selection to somehow prove that the KJV is absolutely perfect. This verse has nothing to do with a translation. With KJV onlyism the translation is the focal point. Most KJV only supporters use the translation to interpret the Greek instead of actually translating the Greek and then seeing if the KJV matches the correct translation. The whole view is completely backwards.
  7. Another thing to point out is that we only have 2 Greek manuscripts. We need to find a third that would corroborate one or the other. This would actually cause the argument to end but of course there is no third manuscript. As mentioned before a translation is a translation and none are perfect.
  8. I can't tell if this was a serious response or a facetious response.
  9. Haha I guess so. Still doesn't beat the sugar high that requires an extra dose of insulin. But I digress.
  10. As long as the Jello doesn't have cat food in it (remember Christmas Vacation?) hehe
  11. The answer to the OP original post question is a resounding: YES! How else are we going to get the expensive chocolate candy that we steal from our kids candy collection. I can't afford it otherwise.
  12. It's is cold. enough said LOL
  13. For me the discussion on the gap theory would be a futile discussion. The reason being is that I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. When God says he created in 6 days and rested on the 7th I believe they are literal days. God does not use metaphors, word pictures or anything to give any reason why it would not be literal days. I find it interesting that many times Christian's try to find some spiritual meaning in something God says when in reality they should just read God's Word at face value. God is a literal God and when he does speak in word pictures and such there is no question that He is.
×
×
  • Create New...