Maestroh Posted May 26, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/18/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 26, 2006 Cephas, I don't mind discussing this with you. I just think everything has been said that can be said. Regardless of that, the scriptures in Romans are dealing with the question of whether or not God was through with Israel since they at that time rejected Jesus. It has nothing to do with whether or not he had given them a bill of divorcement at an earlier time because of their idolatries. Even when someone divorces, there is opportunity for reconciliation provided the other party hasn't married someone else in the mean time. That really doesn't prove anything. I still stand with the text in the KJV. By the way, I know this thread is not about legalism but since you brought it up, there is no such thing found in scripture. No, Jesus did not attack the Pharisees for legalism. They were guilty of a wide variety of sins such as hypocrisy, unbelief, changing God's laws where they had no effect by traditions, etc., but they were never rebuked for teaching the law. That was their job. In case you forgot, this was before the cross so everyone was under the entirety of the law at the time. It makes no logical sense Jesus would come against them doing their job. Matthew 23:1-3 1 THEN spake Jesus to the multitude, and his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses; seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. In other words, they didn't live what they preached. They were not rebuked for being "legalists." This is a false teaching that has been allowed to be taught with little challenge to it in the church world today. The best case anyone can try to make for this false teaching is to point to the church at Galatia, but the laws in question didn't deal with standards of holiness. They dealt with whether or not we had to keep laws pertaining to Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations to be saved, such as faith plus circumcision, plus abstaining from unclean foods, etc. They had nothing to do with laws like not to steal, bear false witness, honour Father and Mother, etc. This lawless doctrine of the modern church tickles the ears, but it is blatantly false. In addition, I fail to see what it has to do with anything in a discussion of which Bible version is most reliable. I am not claiming anyone is sinning reading any book period, let alone a translation of the Bible I don't believe to be accurate. Since that is the case, and this is not a matter of law, what does "legalism" have to do with anything in the first place? For starters, I am not heated, and I don't think that anyone can say that I have been. I don't think anyone has been at least since my intial post - so I take the casual discussion approach. Butero, nobody is criticizing you (from what I see) for your use of the KJV. I don't think I've seen you criticize anyone for using something beside the KJV. Yet the problem I have with your position is NOT the position - it is the perceived illogic of how you arrived at the conclusion that I find to be rather troubling. You state earlier that you are not concerned with the TR - fair enough. You take the KJV - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong - by 'faith.' Fair enough. Which KJV? You seemed to be fine with the unbiblical Apocrypha in an earlier post. So you accept the KJV with it? Or without it? And why? And if the answer is yes (as it seems to me), didn't every KJV after 1639 'take out God's Word' by removing the Apocrypha? I'm not trying to be provocative; but enlightening, yes. I concur with Ronald - Jesus didn't die for a Bible version. I'd say the fact that the Lord and his disciples quoted from more than one OT translation pretty much ends the notion that there is only one 'right' Bible version. But that's just me, I might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestroh Posted May 26, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 20 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/18/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 26, 2006 I do not have a problem with the KJV Bible. I own several. I do most of my study from it. I will have to say that kjv only is to me a problem. I was brought up in Church. I was educated in classic lit. in college. I can read and understand the KJV Bible. My problem is with new converts to Christianity. In particular, young adults. As a whole, if you tell them KJV only; they will give up on reading the Bible. They do not understand it. Sure, they could read it long enough and study it hard enough to eventually start making sense of it. For the most part, they will not read it long enough to learn to understand its style of lit. If they will not study it, it will not benefit them. I would rather take a new Christian, put an ESV or HCSB in their hands and have them read it; than to give them a KJV that will become a dust collector. HR, What you're talking about is one of my major problems with the entire issue. Until I was 18 and got saved - and even a little while after then - I didn't really know that there was more than one version of the Bible because the only thing we had was the KJV. Fine. But I got confused and completely lost trying to read it, too. In the summer of 1988, I bought a Living Bible at a yard sale. Now that was an education!! I just figured it updated the KJV language and made it easier to understand. In fact, I gained more insight in the year or so I used it than I did from several years of the KJV. Be that as it may, I think newly saved folks who don't qualify as literary intellectucals ought to read either the NIV or NASV. Personally, I like the NKJV, but even that gets confusing - esp. the first time I read 'NU omits' or NU, M omit. Maestroh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cephas Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 In other words, they didn't live what they preached. They were not rebuked for being "legalists." This is a false teaching that has been allowed to be taught with little challenge to it in the church world today. The best case anyone can try to make for this false teaching is to point to the church at Galatia, but the laws in question didn't deal with standards of holiness. They dealt with whether or not we had to keep laws pertaining to Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations to be saved, such as faith plus circumcision, plus abstaining from unclean foods, etc. They had nothing to do with laws like not to steal, bear false witness, honour Father and Mother, etc. This lawless doctrine of the modern church tickles the ears, but it is blatantly false. In addition, I fail to see what it has to do with anything in a discussion of which Bible version is most reliable. I am not claiming anyone is sinning reading any book period, let alone a translation of the Bible I don't believe to be accurate. Since that is the case, and this is not a matter of law, what does "legalism" have to do with anything in the first place? Perhaps the definition of 'legalist' is different between us, but it seems to me that Jesus did get on them often for putting rules before the intent of the law, or maybe a better way of phrasing that is they put 'the letter' of the law ahead of the intent. They were more focussed on keeping the rules, rituals and strict interpretations than they were in keeping the reason for the law. That made them 'legalists' and Jesus did indeed get on them about that. Matthew 23:23 - 24 (NASB) 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daave Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I have only recently begun reading the KJB, the last year or so. In the past years I have read for the most part, the NASB, NIV and the NLT, switching from one to the other periodically. One thing I really like about the KJB is that the translators had guts enought to specify each word that they had put there on their own to help clarify the text. That is taking the responsability seriously. No other translation does that, I have no idea what they have added for clarification, and I believe it's important what has been added should be known. I'm tired and going bed. Daave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cephas Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 In addition, what does any of this have to do with the question of the accuracy of differen't Bible versions? I still haven't figured that out? the original Legalist comment was in response to something Ronald had posted, and I was surprised to see you even address it. I never intended it to be part of this conversation. Perhaps I should have PM'd it to him instead, but as I'm new to the Boards/Threads I don't always know all my options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts