Authority of Scripture

[EricH]

OK Saints. Please stop the personal attacks. If you can't discuss this in a civil way, we will be forced to close it. - The mod team

[EricH]

Saints,

Referring to people as ignorant etc is not discussing with kindness. We are talking about the authority God's word has on our llives. That word has a lot to say about how we treat others. Paul said this:

The Lord's slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance to know the truth.

(2Timothy 2:24-25 HCSB)

If in discussing scriptures authority we cannot obey it in the way we discuss this, we are in trouble. This is the second strike. One more and I will close the thread.

[HitmanR2]

How in the World can that be true? God isn't the author of confusion. You'll not find Him sewing confusion and doubt among His people. He teaches us EXACT SAME message across the board. If the doctrines don't match up then someone is EITHER a lying or in greivous error,and it's that simple.

A point oft overlooked in these matters. The gospels where written by 4 DIFFERENT men, in some cases all 4 men saw and recorded the same thing, in some cases one recorded it one way with emphasis on particular events, while another recorded it differently. YET, all accounts are recorded in the Bible, even though they may be different.

(1) Matthew-While all of the gospels record events throughout Jesus' life, Matthew uses much of his writing to show us that Jesus was the prophesied messiah, using many more quotes from the Old Testament for emphasis.

(2) Mark-Stressed the facts more than the actions. Mark's account of Jesus' life is the most detailed even though it is the shortes of all the gospels. Mark tells the stories of Jesus' ministries with emphasis on the miracles.

(3) Luke-Wanted to make clear that Jesus' loved "all kinds of people" He often identified the people by name that Jesus met and spoke to. He wrote of the poor and the wretched people that Jesus touched their lives. He presented Jesus as a real person who came to seek and to save that which was lost.

(4) John-John himself reports of five miracles not reported in any of the other gospels. John's outline of the life of Jesus is very different from that of the others, John stressed Jesus' relationships with others. John gives us his visual gift of seeing and knowing that Jesus is God, yet also recording his humanity in that he was tired and hungry.

So with all of these differences, how can anyone learn anything from these varying accounts of one man's life. Because when you pick up this book, and start get into it, it is not the differences that come to the forefront, but the HARMONY of these men's accounts. The varying degrees of emotions, focusing on the man, the God, the Saviour.

John was not wrong for his account that added 5 miracles that were not recorded in any other gospel, while leaving out 2 that were recorded in the other three gospels.

We have so much that we could learn from each other, if we could just focus on what we have in common. I am not a defender of the gospel (truth), rather I am a student of it.

[UncleAbee]

It sounds like we are asking the question which translation is authoratative and which are not. That's a hard question to answer. I really don't think the differences between most of them are significant at all. What all these interpretations show is that men didn't translate everything correctly. We make errors. The errors and alterations are mostly insignificant. You all should read up on Textual Criticism that attempts to answer these questions. God's word for Christians is found in a book that men have translated over time. The Holy Spirit is perfect but the translators are not. When thr HS gave it to Paul he likely penned it perfectly. But, when the next guy copied Paul's letter he may have made a mistake or two. The NIV leaves the eunuch's confession (Acts 8) out of the scripture. This is because the earlier copies of the scriptures don't have it but the later copies do. We don't have the original scripture. We have copies of the copies of the copies....etc. The earlier copies don't include it. The later ones do. This does not rule out confession though. It is found in many other places in the scriptures. We all grew up on a certain translation and got used to it.

I don't know how to answer which translation is the right translation. I don't think anyone really can. If you think about Christianity though, it is really simple to teach but harder to practice. Jesus never asked any of his disciples to write anything down. There's really only a few things you need to know to practice Christianity. I think having a book sometimes divides us more than it unites us.

The translations I like are the NIV and the NASB. It makes things plainer to me than the KJV.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Sam, and Ronnie, Why do you insist in ignoring my post I have posted at least 4 times in this series of threads? Here it is yet again, I would love a real reply.

I think the KJV is just fine as a Bible, but not one that I choose to read. It is also not one that is easy to comprehend for the every day American. This is getting even harder and harder as each generation is losing understanding many even more common words let alone the Thees and Thous.

In my other thread, Which as I even pointed out, that if you believe that the only accurate texts are the ones used to produce the KJV, then I would be happy to have a version of the Bible that used the same texts, but in more modern language, one that the teens in my youth group would be able to read and understand.

A brief history of my Bible and me. I started off with an NIV growing up. As a child and young adult this was easy for me to grasp, and understand the most important basics of Gods word. Later in life I attempted to follow the KJV and I was able to, but with much headaches and trouble figuring out old English terms. I have lately settled into the NKJV I like its ease of reading and its retention of poetic style and flow.

I keep seeing in these posts and others that the NIV leaves out things that the KJV does not. This bugs me, to no end as I have a habit of seeing both sides of any equation or argument. Could it not be argued that since the KJV used newer texts that were copies of older texts, that it perhaps, added to the Bible, to as some people accuse the NIV of? Thereby putting a slant to its meaning? Perhaps that it is in reality that the KJV is the inaccurate one and not the other way around. Maybe I watch way to much CSI, but one thing is this. You form the theory around the facts. You do not twist the facts to fit your theory. Here are the facts I'll let you make your decision. By the way I am not saying that the KJV is inaccurate or not. I have seen one thing though I have seen people seeking HIM decide against it by trying to interpret the old English and give up as the English in the book can be very confusing and God is not the author of confusion.

Fact: All translations, are exactly that. Translations of ancient texts, not the actual texts themselves. If you want to be the most accurate you need to go read those texts in the original language

Fact: These ancient texts are actually copies of ancient texts, as far as I know, there are no original letters left written by Paul. We have no books written by the actual hand of Moses, Isaiah, Or the others. Yes they were copied down word for word intensely and with as much integrity as possible. But copies none the less.

Fact: Humans are not infallible.The sad truth is this. Every copy, and every translation = a human behind it therefore it gets filtered through them no matter how hard they try not to.

Fact: The ancients texts delete and add things. They themselves are different. I have seen in notations things like "This text adds this, this text omits that"

Fact: The KJV is a translation of "newer" ancient texts that are copies of copies of copies. This means by definition the ancient texts that were used were not as accurate as the older ones. Its like a copy of a copy of a key. Each time you copy a door key not from the original one you lose something. Eventually a copy of a copy of a copy of a key will not work anymore.

Fact: Punctuation changes things. Some of the the main differences may simply be in punctuation. Punctuation can change the whole meaning of a paragraph or even a sentence.

Fact: Language changes. Many, many words do not mean the same thing as written as they do now. For instance the word gay. It now means homosexual man. It used to mean happy.

Fact: There are other translations in other languages. Norway has its Norwegian translation, there is a Spanish translation, Gaelic, French, German etc.

Fact: There are people in countries where having any form of the Bible is illegal and as long as they can read it, even one page is food for them in a starving church.

Here is my thoughts as summation. Just because the KJV is an older translation, does not mean it is more accurate. Just because the NIV or the NKJV is a newer translation does not mean it is more, or less accurate. Man is the translator there will be differences. I am not saying at all that we should disregard the KJV as old and unreliable, However I am defending the NIV as most of the arguments against this and other translations ring hollow to me. Like the one stating that since you have to pay for a NIV that its not the word of God. Please, really? I have paid for and seen for sale Authorized Versions. Are we not to pay for the work or material's cost? The Bible does say that the laborer is worthy of his wages. The NIV has a copyright on the book that's very open, but that is paying for the cost of translation etc. The KJV has old words, their meanings are no longer relevant. This changes the meaning of the book to those who do not know the meaning of the words used. Also the omissions or additions are listed in my Bible. So because one translation uses one word from one text, and not the same word from a different text is it any more or less accurate then the text it was translated from?

I am not not anti-KJV I am anti KJV only crowd. This is because I have seen a lack of good fruit. From what I have seen the differences between the translations are minor. If these knock you off your christian walk then you have other bigger issues at hand. I actually have seen the opposite on this one. I have seen more people who are KJV only people lose sight of what is really important, being the cross and salvation and leading souls to the Lord. Like I said, I had one who said that if you did not read the KJV when you came to know the Lord you are not really saved!? Is this profitable? Do you have to learn English if you speak another language and live in another country to be truly saved or have true religion? Of course not but yet this is what has often been put forth.

I feel that you should pick the one that you understand best for daily reading. For when you do major study I use many translations to try to understand what the Lord is really trying to say. I also know that when Jesus quoted scripture to Satin in the wilderness he did not say "The King James Said" or "The New International Version Said" he said "It is written". I will say that none of the modern translations are 100% accurate. We will know all the truth in heaven. Now there are obvious translations that have been messed with and tweaked so they do lead people down the wrong paths. Be wise in what translations you do use. Read it, look to see if its a simple different translation from the text or a direct misleading of the truth. For instance the Mormon Bible has been purposely edited to prove there cult. The direct misleading is obvious when you read through it.

-Isaiah-

[EricH]

My post was not addressed to anyone in particular. I just used an example. Lets all keep it above board.

EricH,

Please read my post: I have been verbably assulted with lies. I have posted scripture with sources, referencies and given quoted text and made fun of and told that what I'm saying is a lie when it's even some else's words.

When some use ridicule and lies to assult; it makes it difficult. When there are some that take delight to say God's word is not inspired it is a prompt to defend the Bible and gospel of Jesus.

It appears that some will post and try to take away and create distance so as to keep your post burried in past pages while they mock the scriptures.

Surely this is not the purpose of this forum. Again, please read my post closely and throughly. I will ask the moderators to do the same. I have given honest answers with documented works and all the references only to have some ridicule every Christian as well as me for a few hundred years it seems given the drama.

God's word in inspired and His word is infallible and persereved or else God lied. He did not lie. He loves us and has kept His promise.

[Fez]

Oh I have had enough of this.

Sorry Sam, but you are not being coherent.

We need to part ways for a while.

Be blessed....

[nebula]

We all know (hopefully) of the LXX. It was a Greek text of the first five books of the Bible. It was from a Greek King that wanted the Hebrew scripture in his country written in Greek as the huge majority only knew Greek. He hired 72 Jewish tribesmen; 6 from each tribe. [note LXX = 70 see Moses for the number] These men went there and in 72 days compiled for him the Hebrew scripture in Greek. However, it was a very very poor unscholarly work. When it made it back to Jerusalem, it was recieved as a joke it was so poor. It was rejected by Jewish Priest, Jewish scholars and by the Jewish population. What would one expect in such a short time with non-scholars.

BTW: this informaton is easily available for all or one. I will make the references available but need to cover some ground.

Only a few fragments remained due to its widely unacceptance and its non-use. Obviously if one published a book and no one accepts it you are not going to make more copies.

Mostly what exist of it today are some that have attempted to fill in the missing blanks with what they though it possibly may have said. No one of any credibility or scholarship will accept it and virtually all textual critics and manuscript scholars comment that it is a non-authorative work and very poor in translation and do not convey the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek.

So why did not the Lord preserve His word to be translated properly into the Greek?

[nebula]

My friends, God said He would keep His words, without error, forever (Psalm 12:6-7; 119:89,140; Matthew 5:17; 24:35). If He did not do this, then the whole Bible is a lie. Glory to God; it is true, it is inspired, it is infallible. God did not lie. He does have the power to keep His word!

So why did He let other translations run around loose if they were less than perfect?

[hayahtowb]

Saints,

Referring to people as ignorant etc is not discussing with kindness. We are talking about the authority God's word has on our llives. That word has a lot to say about how we treat others. Paul said this:

The Lord's slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance to know the truth.

(2Timothy 2:24-25 HCSB)

If in discussing scriptures authority we cannot obey it in the way we discuss this, we are in trouble. This is the second strike. One more and I will close the thread.

Looks like it's time?