doulon

This is a good question! All the fuss is because we are talking about God's words. As Ovedya explained in one of his earlier posts the Bible is of utmost importance to the Christian because of the many things it reveals and teaches us. The only problem with Ovedya's statements is that he doesn't even believe he has the actual words of God (see his post below) so his post means absolutely nothing. Though he enjoys quoting 'scripture'(?) he confesses that he doesn't 'actually' have 'the scriptures'. This is a most precarious quandary he has put himself in. IOWs, he quotes the Bible rather authortatively but announces that he doesn't actually have a Bible (Bible representing the actual words of God). In his earlier post he informs us that the words of God are "spirit and are life" and that "the Scriptures are the testimony of Jesus Christ". He then adds that "the Scriptures are many things, but essentially they amount to one essential and most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man through the prophets and apostles, and more importantly in the Son, by the Son, and through the Son as the Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 17:5). If you do not have this revelation of the Scriptures then you are lacking in the necessary vision that God has given the church through His Son. Through the resurrected Christ the Scriptures have been opened up to us (Luke 24:27, 32, 45; Matt 7:7)." All this he claims the 'scriptures' are but then tells us that we don't actually have "the scriptures". Doug, just look below at his statment; viz. "The bottom line, I believe, is you have no way of being 100% sure that any translation, whether taken from this manuscript or that manuscript, is completely accurate. " Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in Ovedya's statements? He claims 'the scriptures' are all those things above then says that we can't be 100% "sure that any translation......is completely accurate". My contention is that if this is the case then how can he be "100% sure" that those things he belives 'the scriptures' teach (see above) are "completely accurate". For all he knows he is believing in a myth....a fairy tale and nothing more! If we can't be "100% sure" that our Bible is "completely accurate" then we are "of all men most miserable." We have nothing to base our Christian life upon if we can't trust our Bible. I maintain just the exact opposite of what Ovedya believes----I believe our Authorized King James Bible is 100% accurate. I believe God promised to preserve His words and I believe He has done exactly that---nothing has been lost. I believe the Bible teaches those things Ovedya mentioned; however, I actually believe we have the exact words of God to know for sure that what our Bible is teaching is divinely inspired and divinely preserved. You asked, "why all the fuss"? Well, the fuss is whether we can trust our Bibles or not. The fuss is whether we truly have what God said or what some scribes imagined God said. The fuss is whether we can be "100% sure" about what our Bible teaches or whether we will have to 'guess' what is "completely accurate" and what is a myth. This is what the fuss is all about. Doug, Ovedya makes the following statement in his post below, "This issue is not important enough for me to consider being divided with the saints in the light over." This is why I say he is in a precarious quandary. He doesn't think this issue is important and in an earlier post he said that this issue was "ridiculous, petty, and pointless". Isn't this confusing coming from a person that claims to believe that the Bible is the "most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man..." I must ask, if the 'scriptures' are God's speaking to man wouldn't it stand to reason that that would be an "important" issue to the Christian and certainly one to make a fuss about? I personally find nothing divisive about this issue. Some throw this out I believe as a smoke screen. I'm surely not seeking to divide but rather to encourage the saints to believe their Bible and believe that God has been faithful to keep His promises. I scarcely see how this can be considered dividing the saints. I find those that claim we can't trust our Bible and that "accuracy" of our scriptures is of no importance the ones seeking to divide the saints. This kind of "reasoning" only serves to cast doubt upon the words of God and destroys the faith of the saints in their Bibles. Well, this is what all the fuss is about! Thanks for asking! This is another good question Doug. I believe we can see Jesus in any version but it may not be the same Jesus. For instance, the Jesus of the NASV is seen to be a liar (cf. John 7:8)---according to this version Jesus claims He is not going to the feast but in fact goes! The Jesus of the ESV is in danger of the judgment (cf. Matt. 5:22)---according to this version anyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment---well, Jesus was clearly "angry" on several occasions (cf. Mark 3:5; John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12-13). The Jesus of the NIV was not equal with God (cf. Phil. 2:6)---here is how it reads, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,". The Jesus of the NLT left us powerless and fastless (cf. Matt. 17:21; Mark 9:29)---Matt. 17:21 is omitted and Mark 9:29 only gives half the formula of how to gain spiritual victory. Practically none of the modern versions testify that Jesus was "God manifest in the flesh" in 1 Tim. 3:16. Most alter this to "He appeared in a body" or something like "He who was revealed in the flesh". We've all appeared and/or have been revealed in the flesh! What kind of Jesus is this? I could go on but I imagine you get the point. Jesus can in fact been seen in any version but it won't be the same Jesus you might be imagining. I'll close with a question, if all we need is to "see Jesus" would you approve of using the New World Translation? Jesus can be very clearly "seen" in this version. Thanks for your questions! I hope I was able to answer them for you. Maybe this post won't get deleted! doulon

Hi Ronald et al! I'm glad to see this thread come back to life. I did find your statement (and that of some others) interesting. I was wondering----did you know that when Constantin von Tischendorf 'discovered' the ancient codex Sinaiticus it was in a "wide basket", to use Tischendorf's own words, and was soon to be "committed to the flames" as many other such manuscripts had already been by these monks?? I just found your comments and the near fate of Aleph kind of ironic. There Aleph was sitting in a basket moments away from being burnt when Tischendorf 'rescues' it from the flames. It would later team up with Vaticanus and become the two most adored mss. by modern 'scholars'. These two mss. are practically worshipped by 'scholars' and are, for all practical purposes, the basis for all modern versions. What a difference of opinion these monks had than current 'scholars'. They were moments away from burning Sinaiticus (as a worthless ms.) and modern 'scholars' worship them! Just some food for thought! doulon

Hi Mark! I hope to address a few of your comments. I'll start with the one above. I've learned by discussing this issue over the years that it is very easy for individuals to level criticisms against the AV. In fact, it almost seems to be the 'in' thing to do these days; i.e. to accuse the AV of 'messing' up. Something else I've learned is that it is an entirely different issue all together to PROVE that the AV has "messed up BAD". I've seen lots of accusations against our Authorized Version but I've never seen one error proved with concrete evidence. Your claim, likewise, falls into this category. You claim that our AV "messed up BAD" but you fall way short of proving your point. To cry error is one thing----to actually prove it is another. The AV has certainly not "messed up BAD" and I'll be glad to prove it. I have found that it is very common among supporter of the modern versions (mvs), when confronted with the absurd reading of Dan. 3:25, to say that Nebuchadnezzar had no concept of God and that he was a pagan idol worshipper. Thus, they conclude that he could not have said, "the Son of God" in order to ease their conscience of the blasphemous reading found in the MVs. But where is the EVIDENCE for their theory? I shall set forth the evidence for the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact have a good concept of God and even knew of the Son of God (Messiah) then you are invited to refute it with the evidence that supports your statement. I shall endeavor to be as brief as I can. 1) As you know Nebuchadnezzar ordered that they should bring "certain of the children of Israel" that they might teach them the "learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans". Of course among this group of young men were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Unto whom they quickly changed their names to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Why would they change their names? As you may know names were very important in Biblical days and carried great meaning, much unlike today. So a quick study of their names may be to our advantage here. The name Daniel means "God is Judge", Hananiah means "Gift of the Lord", Mishael means "Who is what God is", and Azariah means "Whom Jehovah helps". Some rather powerful statements made by their names don't you think? Now we can see why they wanted to change their names. So again we see that just by their very names Nebuchadnezzar would have had a good "concept" of God, so much so that he changed their names. But we're not finished yet! 2) In chapter 2 we find that Nebuchadnezzar has dreamed a dream and there is none to tell him his dream and the interpretation of it. However, just before he kills all the wise men "was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision" (Dan. 2:19). Daniel is then brought in before the king to make known his dream. Daniel starts by saying that none of the wise men could make known the kings dream, GET THIS NOW, "But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days." (Dan. 2:28) As mentioned before Daniel is always quick to give God all the credit. This I am sure they did on many other matters that the king inquired of them. Daniel continues in verse 37, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory." Here Daniel makes it clear that it is the "God of heaven" that has given Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom not one of his false gods. Again, giving Nebuchadnezzar a definite "concept" of who God is. And if this isn't enough there's more. 3) This is the part I find really interesting. Remember the image was "broken to pieces" by a stone "cut out without hands". So what exactly is this "stone". Daniel makes it clear to Nebuchadnezzar what, or who, this stone was. Daniel states, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed:...and it shall stand for ever." (Dan. 2:44) He continues, "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter" (Dan. 2:45). WOW! Imagine that, Nebuchadnezzar was given a clear picture of the Messiah (the Son of God) and His Kingdom. So it is becoming more evident that Nebuchadnezzar in fact had a good concept of God and even knew about Messiah's Kingdom. To further illustrate this point we shall refer to Nebuchadnezzar's own words. He says, "Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret." (Dan. 2:47) In light of all these facts it is highly probable, yea certain, that when Nebuchadnezzar saw a fourth Man in the furnace he indeed recognized Him as "the Son of God" and not "a son of the gods" as the MVs so falsely read (which I remind you is exactly the way the NWT reads). Especially since Daniel and his 3 friends had bore such a good witness to him. Now, let's take it a step further. Perhaps a look at what Nebuchadnezzar had to say after the 3 men came out of the fire may help us. If we look at verse 26 we see Nebuchadnezzar say, "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego ye servants of the MOST HIGH GOD". This he said of his own accord without the assistance from anyone. He goes on to say, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" (V.28) Here again without any testimony from the 3 men he recognizes that it is GOD that has saved the men alive. Now here is what I really want you to see. He further states, "who hath sent HIS ANGEL, and delivered his servants that trusted in him". (V.28)(caps mine) This is very revealing as to who Nebuchadnezzar thought the fourth Man in the fire was. After all don't you think if he actually said "a son of the gods", as the modern versions read, that he would have said something like "one of the gods has sent his son...". But we know that he didn't, he plainly says that GOD HATH SENT HIS ANGEL. Again, no one has told him what has happened. He came to these conclusions on his own. So, I would submit, that if he recognized the Man as an Angel of God he would have said "the Son of God". In light of all this it is much more highly likely that he would have said "the Son of God" than he would have "a son of the gods". I'm the one that posted the quotes from the ECWs. However, you might wish to hold your 'thank-you's' as those quotes severely hurt your position. You see, these men wrote long before there were any English translations or any translations for that matter. These men were reading from the Hebrew and commenting on what they read. In the Hebrew they read "the Son of God". Which brings me to a point raised by another poster here. Someone mentioned that the Hebrew reads "a son of the gods" but this individual doesn't know what they are talking about. The Hebrew in Dan. 3:25 reads "lbar-Elaheen". It is certainly meant to be rendered as "Son of God." In the first place, the "lbar" is a masculine SINGULAR absolute, and "Elaheen" is a dual form, which is almost always translated as a SINGULAR throughout the Bible. If that's not convincing enough for you, the so-called Septuagint (LXX) also translated it as the AV, i.e., "uiw Theou" - SINGULAR - "Son of God." Being the expert scholars that they were the KJ translators knew this and rightly translated "lbar-Elaheen" as "Son of God". As I said, the ECWs were merely reading from the Hebrew and accurately translated it as "Son of God". I have much more information on this great verse but this will suffice for now. doulon

Hi ovedya! Thanks for replying to my comments. I hope to address a few of the new points you raised and answer any questions you asked of me. If I miss anything just let me know.

Believe me, brother, I know what you mean about 'weird'. I have a Bible website and I also moderate a Yahoo debate club----I've seen some really 'weird' ideas from "Christians". Honestly, I find this type of board kind of hard to keep up with what is going on. The ezboards are fairly easy to follow discussions and the Yahoo clubs are the easiest. I like the fact that they allow you to receive the messages via email. This is very easy for me; I can receive them and respond quickly. But I digress! Thanks for your understanding! doulon

Care to explain? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, I'd be glad to. "But I've been around these boards a few years now" 'These boards'=internet discussion/debate boards. I've been on many ezboards and such. "I'm new to this board" 'This board'=this particular board. I'm new here. One look at how many posts I've made will prove this to be true. I just found this board in the last week or so. I suppose I could've been a little more clear. I apologize for any confusion my words may have caused. doulon

Hi Ovedya! I appreciate what you stated but I do have a few comments and perhaps questions. What you've written certainly sounds religious and no doubt impressed many on this board. I would've been among your biggest fans had I gotten the impression that you actually believed what you had written. I'm not sure if you just don't think about these things or you just wanted to sound very pious to the other members. Whatever the case, perhaps I can spur you on to further consideration and study of this most important issue. I found it rather telling when you spent the first part of your post (seemingly) authoritatively quoting "scripture" to make your points. To the average reader it would seem that you actually believe these "scriptures" and hold them in high esteem. But I've been around these boards a few years now and I can tell when one is merely paying lipservice to the "holy writ". This I say because of your statement,

Is it really too much to ask that you answer a simple question? It would seem that you don't want to (or can't) answer Brandplucked's question. It would be far better to answer his question than to attack his intelligence. If you still refuse to answer then perhaps one of the others that stated how they like your comment could answer for you; that is, of course, if they even understood what you were saying. One can make an assumption as to what you meant but I imagine if Brandplucked did this you would no doubt rail upon him for 'putting words in your mouth' that you didn't mean. As I said, what is so difficult about answering his question? doulon