hopper Posted October 2, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 424 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 57 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/09/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2005 (edited) Edited April 17, 2008 by hopper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Deacon, it is obvious that you personally do not believe that any Bible is the inerrant words of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 (edited) I will next post a little study I did on one specific verse in the various versions and how changing the translation just slightly, gives us two opposite meanings. Only one of them can be true. It has to do with Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain". I would appreciate your explaining to us which one contains the inerrant truth. Will K Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain King James Holy Bible: "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." The meaning of the King James Bible is NOT that the scriptures themselves had been altered by the scribes, but rather that the Scriptures did not profit the people because they were not listening to them nor obeying them. It was not the Scriptures which had been changed or altered, but the people who thought themselves wise even in their rejection of God's word. Consider the context of verses eight and nine. "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?" Agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB that the Scriptures had not been altered, but rather written in vain for a disobedient people, are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Jewish translations of the New Jewish Publication Society, and the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Publishing Company, New York), the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not 1960), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible. The 1999 Spanish version called Las Sagradas Escrituras also agrees with the King James Bible reading: Edited October 2, 2005 by brandplucked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted October 2, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Well i guess you're not as smart as you like to think you are then, eh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really didn't think it was that hard to figure out. Are you brandplucked's lawyer? Or maybe you are his debate coach. I tried to answer it as plain as I could. It appears as though others get it. Perhaps you should study it again and write a thesis on it. Why don't we move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 3, 2005 There is a difference between the inerrant truth of the bible and the inerrant gramatics of the bible. The inerrant truth is a fact, that is seen in the manuscripts and certain translations. THe inerrant gramatics simply does not exist, when looking at manuscripts and translation errors, the Bible is "imperfect" in a grammatical sense, but perfect in the truthful sense. This, ironically enough, lends more validity to the Bible then anything else...showing that even though imperfect men made errors in translating and copying, the truth remained the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAV Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1955 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yes they are different, but which one is more correct? Let's use Proverbs 11:16 as an example. The KJV uses the adjective "strong" for the Hebrew word "ariyts", which Strong's defines as "tyrannical" or "violent". NKJV, ASV, NLT, and Amplified all use the adjective "violent" while NIV uses "ruthless". Which one do you think is more accurate? Taking it in context with the verses that follow, it is clear to me the the newer versions are more accurate. This verse is talking about ruthless men taking riches, not Godly strong men being rewarded with riches. ******* Now that IS stretching things a bit. All you offered was opinions.This is not a game of "I PREFER" There can only be one Holy Bible.For the English speaking peoples it is the AV. You don't go running to an unbeliever to verify your stand.Such as Strong.He introduces Pagan defenitions to Biblical verses and words. The Bible itself will interpret itself. If you compare scripture with scripture,you can find much more than just a man's definition in the scriptures,but you can find God's definition in the scriptures. If you go to Genesis you will see the first mention of "strong",namely "stronger". Here stronger has to do with a Godly man AND his deceitfulness.So God says it can cover both the good and the Bad.Now that is much more accurate than the Strong's concordance. Plus tyranical may include someone that is strong,but a strong man does not NEED to be tyranical. A strong man does not need to be violent to retain riches.He can just go to the bank and be a strong citizen and save his money and invest it. The modern versions have gone overboard here and have all but deleted the real truth of the verse;for it is not the other verses that determine the meaning,but the very verses that determines the meaning.Take a look at THE verse. It is showing the contrast between the ways of a woman and the ways of a man. The best is the combination of the two.The woman gains strength by the man,and the man is tempered with grace from the woman. Each atribute is good in its own way,but a combination is the perfectness of temperment.right? It is imparative that man challenges himself to cultivate grace,tenderness and all that is charming.This is not done with mimicry,but with the aid of the Saviour,the word and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.This takes purposeful study and honesty,including a lifestyle of repentance. On the flip side,how uncool it would be to see a woman vying for power and not living a life of a gracious vesel of honour. J.Parker once said; "It is not good for the man to be alone,for he is without grace;it is not good for the woman to be alone,for she is without strength;when men and women stand to one another in the right christian relation they will complete one another,and together constitute the Devine idea of humanity." PeterAV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAV Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1955 Share Posted October 3, 2005 The NKJV is a terrific translation of the Bible and is much improved over the KJV. The differences" in the NKJV vs. the KJV are merited by the original languages and improve the understanding of the text. ******* Is this fact or just your opinion? The facts bear it out that the NKJV is not as accurate as many make it out to be. To start with they DO have the Satanic LOGO on the cover,namely the disguised 666. I have found that the NKJV translators lied to the publick,saying that they followed just the Textus Receptus just like the AV did. But when you check out the key verses for the corrupted versions,you will find lots of agreement with the NKJV.They literally used the TR,but then inserted corrupted Alexandrian readings itno the text. The NKJV crew were put up on charges by the securities commission,and I do believe that there was the sum of $400,000.mentioned. Since when did they improve the understanding of the text in 2 Corinthians 2:17? Why hide the fact that they corrupted the words?Very revealing if you ask me. Fealing a little guilty there are we? Sure the NKJV is a terific translation,if you go for corruption,but not quite as much as the NIV or the NASB,etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAV Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1955 Share Posted October 3, 2005 ....I really didn't think it was that hard to figure out. Are you brandplucked's lawyer? Or maybe you are his debate coach. I tried to answer it as plain as I could. It appears as though others get it. Perhaps you should study it again and write a thesis on it. Why don't we move on. ******* ?Does this mean that you have no Bible?Just opinions? There is only one Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yomotalking Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 I have no conviction to use the AV. Unless the Lord lays it upon my heart, I shall use the Translations I have now. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAV Posted October 3, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1955 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I have no conviction to use the AV. Unless the Lord lays it upon my heart, I shall use the Translations I have now. Thanks! O but he has,and you are tuning him out,because of your own opinions.You are the final authority,not God's word.This is what Satan sucked EVE into doing. You can be your own aithority and arbitrate against the very words of God,and add and take away and deminnish them. Never stand in judgement against the very words of God but allow God's Holy words to have that function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts