tradition vs scripture

[creativemechanic]

Catholics ( in some cases justifiably) hold a lot of flak for their holding on to manmade traditions often putting them on par or above the actual word of God. But I've found people of other denominations do this on other- thatnkfully non salvation related incidences. Whats frustrating is how people will cling to belief even tho contrary evidence is shown.

1)the KJV debate. I was raised thinking that the KJV with its 400 year old language is the only version of the bible to use. However rresearch lead me to see that while the KJV is excellent, there are recorded instances when other bibles give better explanations, plus some words have changed meaning since the 1700s so the KJV can give u slightly misleading or confusing messages.

For this reason some pastors who use KJV primarily will actually refer to the other versions with better explanations when the need arises.

But try telling that to people who have beenconditioned to be KJV only. I told a relative abt that and even gave examples (love of money is the root of all evil) . person started talking as if I'm some sorta heretic with  radical ideas.

2 I got a similar response when I pointed out that many instruments that we were brought up to think were inappropriate for service-guitar tambourine etc were actually permitted and encouraged in the bible.

Just amazing

[gamnot]

In the midst of cultural Christianity or Christiandom is Christianity; In the midst of cultural Christians is convictional Christians. It can be difficult at times in distinguishing one from the other. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by gamnot

[Behold]

4 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

Catholics ( in some cases justifiably) hold a lot of flak for their holding on to manmade traditions often putting them on par or above the actual word of God. But I've found people of other denominations do this on other- thatnkfully non salvation related incidences. Whats frustrating is how people will cling to belief even tho contrary evidence is shown.

1)the KJV debate. I was raised thinking that the KJV with its 400 year old language is the only version of the bible to use. However rresearch lead me to see that while the KJV is excellent, there are recorded instances when other bibles give better explanations, plus some words have changed meaning since the 1700s so the KJV can give u slightly misleading or confusing messages.

For this reason some pastors who use KJV primarily will actually refer to the other versions with better explanations when the need arises.

But try telling that to people who have beenconditioned to be KJV only. I told a relative abt that and even gave examples (love of money is the root of all evil) . person started talking as if I'm some sorta heretic with  radical ideas.

2 I got a similar response when I pointed out that many instruments that we were brought up to think were inappropriate for service-guitar tambourine etc were actually permitted and encouraged in the bible.

Just amazing

The reason you have 360 "New Bible Versions" and are told its because #360 is "clearer and easier to understand", just like they told you about #4, and #45, And #276, is to make money off the gullible.

 

 

[Ezra]

4 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

Catholics ( in some cases justifiably) hold a lot of flak for their holding on to manmade traditions often putting them on par or above the actual word of God.

That is not as serious as holding to another Gospel which makes water baptism necessary for salvation. Paul said that if anyone -- even an angel -- were to bring another Gospel, let him be accursed. 

4 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

For this reason some pastors who use KJV primarily will actually refer to the other versions with better explanations when the need arises.

If any translation help to clarify Scripture then that is OK, providing the underlying text has not been altered.  For example you could not use any modern version to expound on Acts 8:37, which is not even there (although it is genuine Scripture). The problem arises when the modern versions are touted as being superior to the KJV.  

[gamnot]

As far as getting into the meaning of scripture. I think that using "The Comparative Study Bible" is a good idea. "A Parallel Bible presenting: New International Version - New American Bible - Amplified Bible - King James version."  

[Behold]

1 hour ago, gamnot said:

As far as getting into the meaning of scripture. I think that using "The Comparative Study Bible" is a good idea. "A Parallel Bible presenting: New International Version - New American Bible - Amplified Bible - King James version."  

OF those you listed, the NIV is the dud.

Here is something to think about....

Next Sunday morn, you Minister is reading from the KJV......1st Tim 3:16, and he's trying to teach the doctrine of "Jesus is God".....So, he reads, "GOD was manifested in the flesh".

But you are sitting there with your NIV, and your verse says...."He, was manifested".....so, HE WHO?.....well, you'll say...."God", and then i'll say, that is because your Pastor's bible told you this and your's didnt, because your NIV changed the verse, destroyed the context, and hid the DOCTRINE..!!

You neighbor is sitting there with a Douay-Rheims Bible, and hers has substituted "which" for "God".......= even WORSE !!.

So, now do you begin to see what happens when you have 300 bibles and none of them are saying the same thing regarding very important DOCTRINAL VERSES?

And WHO would want this DOCTRINAL CONFUSION that is caused by slight omissions of words or word changes found everywhere in "new" bibles?..?

His name is.........Satan.

Satan wants 3000 bibles and none of them match so that there is nothing but confusion on forums, in churches, and among denominations....

Right...

[Ezra]

27 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Textus Receptus or Alexandrian/Sinaiaticus/Majority etc.

This is one time when *traditional* is superior to contemporary.  The Textus Receptus (TR or Received Text) is the Traditional Text of the New Testament, which also happens to be the Byzantine Text, or the Majority Text.  And that is the key.  If 5,000 manuscripts support the Receive Text and 5 manuscripts are at serious variance, then it should be obvious as to which is superior and which is spurious.

On the other hand the Alexandrian Text is also the Minority Text (called the Critical Text because it was created by textual critics who rejected the TR). It was corrupted by the Gnostics and discarded by Christians. But the amazing fraud which has never been fully recognized is that rationalistic scholars elevated the corrupt above the pure, and thus all modern versions reflect this text which has thousands of variations from the true text, and about 1,500 changes with doctrinal significance.  As noted above 1 Timothy 3:16 was changed to deny the Deity of Christ -- that Jesus is God.

[ayin jade]

12 minutes ago, Ezra said:

thus all modern versions reflect this text 

Not true. Some modern versions use the same source texts as the kjv. 

[Guest Teditis]

49 minutes ago, Behold said:

But you are sitting there with your NIV, and your verse says...."He, was manifested".....so, HE WHO?.....well, you'll say...."God", and then i'll say, that is because your Pastor's bible told you this and your's didnt, because your NIV changed the verse, destroyed the context, and hid the DOCTRINE..!!

I use the ESV (as well as the KJV) and it uses the pronoun "He" as well... but since the entire context of the surrounding verses is speaking

about God very specifically, I know that the "He" in the verse is speaking about God... I don't need any other material to tell me this.

Basic reading comprehension makes it so... j/s.

[Behold]

25 minutes ago, Teditis said:

I use the ESV (as well as the KJV) and it uses the pronoun "He" as well... but since the entire context of the surrounding verses is speaking

about God very specifically, I know that the "He" in the verse is speaking about God... I don't need any other material to tell me this.

Basic reading comprehension makes it so... j/s.

If you want to prove that God is manifested in the flesh, then you have to have scriptures that verify Jesus as "God."...You have to have this word.

Ive no doubt that you comprehend the difference between the word "he" and the word "GOD".

For example, ...If it said "he" on your mailbox, ... or "he" on your driver's license..

If you signed your name, "he"....

You would know who you are , but I wouldn't know who you are.., and your letter would sit in the post office till the end of time and your Driver's license would be INVALID because it does not have the RIGHT WORDS ON IT.

So, the Main Doctrines of the Bible are created by specific WORDS, and when you remove them, you have ither hidden or destroyed the doctrine.

So ask yourself...."why would a bible want to do that"?.....and then you'll be led to a reality that you have not considered, and that is....its because the men who created certain versions dont believe some basic doctrines and so they removed them according to THEIR THEOLOGY by taking out specific words that cause the doctrines to become ither hidden or lost, or, they'll add certain words to try to change the greek to line up with THEIR theology.

Think of it like this.....If you translated a bible, and someone who is a Hyper Calvinist translated a bible, (im assuming  you are not)  do you think the doctrine of Faith is going to be explained the same way?

= NOPE.

You have to understand that if the verse says...."jesus" or "he" or "the one", or "the mystery", or "which".., then none of these words explain and define  the DIETY of Jesus, unless the word GOD is used.

Listen,.... is Jesus the Word?.......Did God create using Words?....... So, isnt Preaching the WORD how someone hears with faith?.....And are we to study the WORD?......so, God is all about the Word and that is why Satan tries to mess with it..........Remember in the garden.....Satan said to EVE....."hath God SAID"??? >SAID<........So, the devil has been trying to confuse this way since the beginning by confusing the word or denying the word or omitting the word, and that is what happens also with many Bibles.......and that is not a joke.

You and I understand the deity of Christ because we have understood this, based on the word GOD, and having been taught the "deity of Christ".......but if you were only saved for 15 mins, and i showed you a verse that said "he was manifested in the flesh", and i said who is that.???.......You will not know its GOD, but you might guess that its Jesus, and that is because the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is GONE once you remove "GOD" from that verse.

But if the verse says GOD, then this has created a totally specific doctrine and understanding regarding the Deity of Christ that is missing and hidden if  the word GOD is not there to define Christ's deity.

Regarding God,  WORDS matter greatly, as its only by specific words that we understand a doctrine that teaches the Deity of Christ, and if a bible omits them, then this bible has a BIG problem.