Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 As for the multiple editions...about about the KJV and it's editions? It goes so far as to removing the entire Apocrypha. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The original KJV Bible contained the Apocrypha but only as history and it was even labelled as such in a separate section. It was never considered Holy Writ by the Puritans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I prefer the NASB. Frankly KJV-Onlyism is both idolatrous and heretical. It attempts to limit God to one translation once & even, in its most extreme forms believes that the English of the KJV can 'correct' the original autographs and that other Christians who accept other translations are somehow less than them. Hi kiwimac, first of all, King James Onlyism is not idolatrous nor is it heretical. I do not worship my King James Bible. I have no altars and candles dedicated to it in my home. I write in it, I spill coffee on it, and I toss it in the back of my car when I go to a Bible study. Your accusation is false. It likewise is not heretical. This is so ironic. The Christian who actually believes the Book and that God has in fact preserved His words of truth, and that there is an inerrant Bible is now considered by people like you who do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant words of God, to be "heretical", while those who believe "only the originals WERE inspired" are considered to be "orthodox". If only the originals WERE inspired and inerrant, then this leaves you with no inerrant Bible and God apparently has lied to us all by promising that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. Where in any bible does it ever teach that "only the originals were inspired and inerrant"? You did not get this false theory out of any bible I know of, so where did it come from? Please answer the basic question for us so we will know what your position is, OK? Do you believe The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God? If so, then which multiple-choice, contradictory and textually diverse version out there is it? Thanks, Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2005 I prefer the NASB. Frankly KJV-Onlyism is both idolatrous and heretical. It attempts to limit God to one translation once & even, in its most extreme forms believes that the English of the KJV can 'correct' the original autographs and that other Christians who accept other translations are somehow less than them. Hi kiwimac, first of all, King James Onlyism is not idolatrous nor is it heretical. I do not worship my King James Bible. I have no altars and candles dedicated to it in my home. I write in it, I spill coffee on it, and I toss it in the back of my car when I go to a Bible study. Your accusation is false. It likewise is not heretical. This is so ironic. The Christian who actually believes the Book and that God has in fact preserved His words of truth, and that there is an inerrant Bible is now considered by people like you who do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant words of God, to be "heretical", while those who believe "only the originals WERE inspired" are considered to be "orthodox". If only the originals WERE inspired and inerrant, then this leaves you with no inerrant Bible and God apparently has lied to us all by promising that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. Where in any bible does it ever teach that "only the originals were inspired and inerrant"? You did not get this false theory out of any bible I know of, so where did it come from? Please answer the basic question for us so we will know what your position is, OK? Do you believe The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God? If so, then which multiple-choice, contradictory and textually diverse version out there is it? Thanks, Will K Just for the record folks. The classical doctrine of inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility applies to the original autographs. You do not need to feel backed into a corner to believe that you do not hold to inerrancy if you are not willing to identify a current version that matches up word for word to the originals. Love in Christ Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I personally love the NASB. I also love King James. I really dont see the beef, there are many who have gotten saved out of the NASB, including myself. QUOTE(NITE OWL @ Aug 22 2005, 09:36 PM) When I look at other bibles ( I read King James and NKJ ) I turn to John 3:16. That passage tells me how much that version is watered down. Most of them are, in one way or another. Whats are you getting at about John 3:16? I think I know because I have seen it debated before, especially by my former Pastor, but would like to hear your say on it. Hi JesusisGod2, the question is not whether a person can get saved using the nasb, or the niv, or the nkjv, or any version out there in any language. I know God can and does save His people using any version no matter how poorly translated or regardless of how much is missing. The nasb omits at least 3000 words from the New Testament, and adds about 250 others, and the nasb rejects the Hebrew readings many times and teaches several false doctrines, but the gospel of salvation is still in it and God can bring His people to faith in Christ using it. But this does not make the nasb the true and inerrant words of God - it simply is not. The central issue is the inerrancy of the Bible. Does an inerrant and providentially preserved Holy Bible exist on this earth? Most pastors and more and more Christians are coming to the position that The Scriptures are NOT inerrant. The recent polls show this and I have run into many Christians who are at least honest enough to admit what they really believe about this issue. They openly admit that they do not believe there exists an inerrant Bible in any language. What do you believe about this vital matter? You say you love both the nasb and the KJB, yet do you believe either of them is the inerrant, pure and complete words of God? They both cannot be at the same time, since they differ so radically in hundreds of verses in both meaning and texts. If you read through the first post in this thread, you should have clearly seen that the various nasbs do not even agree with each other! What do you think? Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusisGod2 Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,065 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1958 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I personally love the NASB. I also love King James. I really dont see the beef, there are many who have gotten saved out of the NASB, including myself. QUOTE(NITE OWL @ Aug 22 2005, 09:36 PM) When I look at other bibles ( I read King James and NKJ ) I turn to John 3:16. That passage tells me how much that version is watered down. Most of them are, in one way or another. Whats are you getting at about John 3:16? I think I know because I have seen it debated before, especially by my former Pastor, but would like to hear your say on it. Hi JesusisGod2, the question is not whether a person can get saved using the nasb, or the niv, or the nkjv, or any version out there in any language. I know God can and does save His people using any version no matter how poorly translated or regardless of how much is missing. The nasb omits at least 3000 words from the New Testament, and adds about 250 others, and the nasb rejects the Hebrew readings many times and teaches several false doctrines, but the gospel of salvation is still in it and God can bring His people to faith in Christ using it. But this does not make the nasb the true and inerrant words of God - it simply is not. The central issue is the inerrancy of the Bible. Does an inerrant and providentially preserved Holy Bible exist on this earth? Most pastors and more and more Christians are coming to the position that The Scriptures are NOT inerrant. The recent polls show this and I have run into many Christians who are at least honest enough to admit what they really believe about this issue. They openly admit that they do not believe there exists an inerrant Bible in any language. What do you believe about this vital matter? You say you love both the nasb and the KJB, yet do you believe either of them is the inerrant, pure and complete words of God? They both cannot be at the same time, since they differ so radically in hundreds of verses in both meaning and texts. If you read through the first post in this thread, you should have clearly seen that the various nasbs do not even agree with each other! What do you think? Will K Well I dont think one above the other as I do not follow the letter of the law but the Spirit of God, Whom shall guide me into all truth and direct my steps. Isaiah 30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. I have no idea which version to be inerrant, but I do trust in God, Whom will keep me until He calls me home, no matter which version of scripture I choose to read. I believe both to be good versions but actually prefer the NASB as far as for understanding and do not see either as means for seperation of the brotherhood, for God has called us to peace and both are interpretations from Greek and Hebrew written into English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusisGod2 Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,065 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1958 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I believe the NASB is the majority favorite of Biblical Unitarians. What is a biblical unitarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I believe the NASB is the majority favorite of Biblical Unitarians. What is a biblical unitarian? Maybe it's the group of present day Christians who want to unite all believers into the belief that "only the originals" were inerrant, and that today there is no such thing as an inerrant, complete and 100% true Bible on this earth. Looks like they are having great success too. You see, the nasb people believe God can be deceived (see Psalm 78:36 nasb) and so God must not have really meant all those things He supposedly said about preserving His words in a Book here on this earth. God was just plain wrong about all that stuff. He tried to pull it off, but fallible man dropped the ball and so God was mistaken in what He thought might happen. Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I believe the NASB is the majority favorite of Biblical Unitarians. What is a biblical unitarian? not to be confused with unitarian universalists, they Beleive God is the Father only. the son is just a messenger. http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/ growing heresy, especially in the south. Hi Mark, I looked at the site and read a few things, and I would have to disagree that the nasb people generally are anti-Trinitarians and believe the Son of God was not God. Most Christians I know who still use the nasb do believe in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ was and is God. The site there is just another off the wall group trying to promote their aberrant theology. It is not a version issue. However, that being said in defense of most Christians who use the nasb, the nasb does omit several clear references to the full deity and Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare the King James Bible with the nasb in the following: 1 Timothy 3:16; Luke Luke 23:42; John 3:13; Revelation 1:8; 1 John 5:7; Romans 14:10-12. And then you have the totally messed up John 1:18, which some people think makes a stronger case for the deity of Christ in the nasb, esv, niv, when it fact it turns the Trinity on its head. If you care to get into this verse more, I will be glad to. There are deity verses in all versions, but they are lessened in many modern ones. For instance, the NIV tells us that Christ had "origens" in Micah 5:2, but the nasb, nkjv, KJB do not say this, nor teach it. The NIV likewise tells us that there was a day when God was not the Father of the Son in Acts 13:33, and both Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 read in the niv the same as the Jehovah witness version, which uses both these texts as proof texts that the Son of God had a beginning and is not the everlasting God. By the way, the verse "GOD was manifest in the flesh" KJB, has been changed to mean nothing in both the nasb and the niv, and the JW version reads the same as these two modern versions, plus they all three also omit the clearest verse on the unity of the Trinity found in 1 John 5:7. I is my firm belief that the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, etc. are all very inferiour bible versions, and definitely not the inerrant words of God, but I cannot argue that the majority of those Christians who use these versions deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ. This simply is not true. The central question is the belief in an inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible. I and many other Christians believe one exists and it is called the King James Holy Bible. More and more Christians today no longer believe any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God, and their faith will necessarily be weakened if not destroyed altogether. It is all part of the predicted falling away from the faith . Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Journey Posted October 25, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 582 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/19/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1970 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Good morning!! What a great lesson on blindness the whole KJV debate has become. Those who want to believe the KJV is inerrant will close their eyes and ears and accept even the most rediculous and foolish statements as facts. Having been involved in these debates for over two decades it really saddens me. I mean the KJV is not inerrant. Does no one see this as ironic? The KJV still has errors. In 1611 it was full of errors and required multiple revisions. The KJV is just a translation made by fallible men. Men. Men just like you and me. God did not pen the Old English of the KJV. Fallible men using the best texts available to then translated the Greek and Hebrew into English. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted October 25, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2005 These KJV only discussion always tend to degenerate into a series of accusations and inuendos. Please limit your discussion to facts that are pertinant to the issue at hand. Even if a particular cult were to be using a particular version, that does not prove anything. There are cults that use every version in existance. If you truly believe that you have God's truth, just present the facts and let God's Spirit convict people of the truth. There is no need to ask leading accusatory questions, or to present arguments that are not pertinant to proving the question at hand. No matter which version one uses, there are commands in that version for how we should treat people. If we believe that the bible we are using is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God, perhaps we should spend more time finding out what it has to say about how we treat people (even those whom we thing are misguided) and act accordingly. At the end of the day, if we are not obedient to the word, it does not matter much if we believe it is inerrant. Either way, we are not obeying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts