what Bible do you read

[Iryssa]

Iryssa, in previous threads on the subject there were links to web-sites supporting both sides of this issue. In all cases, the people claimed to be an "authority" on the subject. I have books and videos by people who are authorities on the subject stating the KJV to be the only true Bible. I would imagine those like Pointer have books by those who are authorities saying just the opposite. At some point it comes down to where someone wishes to place their trust. I believe the claims of Gail Riplinger and Les Garrett who both oppose new versions.

Now here is yet a new Pandora's box to be opened. A fight over which "authorities" are the most credible. This nonsence could go on forever. All you can do is listen to both sides and decide who you want to believe.

I don't think it's nonsense, though. There are ways to find out if someone is truly an authority on the subject (and frankly, if you really want to know, take the search outside of the world wide web...people can fake anything online. Newspapers and documents found downtown, however, are harder to plant).

Absolutely, it does come down to where someone wants to place their trust, I'm not arguing with you there. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though...so long as you do checks on who this person really is and have good reason to put your trust in them. There are hundreds of scholars and so-called scholars out there, and they often contradict eachother...once you've weeded out the obvious bunglers (i.e. weed out the ones whose only credentials are online articles posted on amateur sites and the like...not that I'm saying any of your sources are like that; I haven't even followed the links because I seriously don't care THAT much), it gets a little harder to tell who does the best research and who is more qualified...but it's well worth the time and effort of research if it means THAT much to you.

All I'm saying is that people who present themselves as an authority on a subject need to give their audience reason to accept their claim of authority. That was my full purpose in posting. I was also encouraging you guys to keep going (with the logical part of it...no mud-slinging or personal insults), because I'm finding this thread interesting, even if I do refuse to get directly involved in the KJV vs. other translations debate (for now...)

[Christian]

All I'm saying is that people who present themselves as an authority on a subject need to give their audience reason to accept their claim of authority. That was my full purpose in posting. I was also encouraging you guys to keep going (with the logical part of it...no mud-slinging or personal insults), because I'm finding this thread interesting, even if I do refuse to get directly involved in the KJV vs. other translations debate (for now...)

Oh....Christian infighting, where will it ever end. Iryssa, to my knowledge this is a public forum, open to all, to discuss their "views" and "opinions" on all subjects pertaining to Christianity. I was not under the impression the our pedigree was to be questioned for opening our mouths, and I don't feel it a pre-requisite in communicating in this arena. I don't feel that anyone has claimed their "authority" on the matter, just simply expressed their opinion as passionately and fully as they are allowed here. Spurring on this debate just so that you can be an "outside observer" and not present your facts is ludicrous to me.

As Butero stated so well, given your "requirements", it would then come down to a "my authority is better than your authority" issue which is an endless, futile, fruitless argument.

pointer should have split the topic long ago as he keeps hijacking this one and drawing it away from the OP's original question. Which was....

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

[Iryssa]

All I'm saying is that people who present themselves as an authority on a subject need to give their audience reason to accept their claim of authority. That was my full purpose in posting. I was also encouraging you guys to keep going (with the logical part of it...no mud-slinging or personal insults), because I'm finding this thread interesting, even if I do refuse to get directly involved in the KJV vs. other translations debate (for now...)

Oh....Christian infighting, where will it ever end. Iryssa, to my knowledge this is a public forum, open to all, to discuss their "views" and "opinions" on all subjects pertaining to Christianity. I was not under the impression the our pedigree was to be questioned for opening our mouths, and I don't feel it a pre-requisite in communicating in this arena. I don't feel that anyone has claimed their "authority" on the matter, just simply expressed their opinion as passionately and fully as they are allowed here. Spurring on this debate just so that you can be an "outside observer" and not present your facts is ludicrous to me.

As Butero stated so well, given your "requirements", it would then come down to a "my authority is better than your authority" issue which is an endless, futile, fruitless argument.

pointer should have split the topic long ago as he keeps hijacking this one and drawing it away from the OP's original question. Which was....

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

Yes, it is all well and good to simply throw things out there when you're presenting them as OPINIONS, but when you're presenting it as hard-and-fast facts and treating it as though it'll make or break your salvation, yes, I ask for evidence, or I discount it. I DO feel that people have been claiming authority on the issue (even if it's not their own). If you don't want to present the evidence, then, by all means, don't give it! But then don't expect me to take things as fact. No, a discussion of credentials is not fruitless, and it is not a childish "my authority is better than yours" argument. It can be made into one, but I hardly think laying out credentials SHOULD be made into one. Lay out the credentials, then everyone decides for themselves. That's fine with me.

I did not, as you say, spurr this debate to avoid setting out my own facts. I'll do that in my own good time (and if you really want some out of me, search for some other conversation on this same issue. I've posted in a few, and I'm sure there'll be plenty there to give you an idea of my current position on the subject). In the meantime, I'll continue posting. To my knowledge, this is a public forum. Right?

[Guest LadyC]

my pastor once said something that struck me with how obvious it was. God's promise was to preserve His word. in it's origional language. He didn't promise to preserve any translation, be it KJV or anything else. but it is necessary for us to utilize a translated version because we don't know greek and hebrew.

most standard versions are translated from the original texts, i believe that even though many here do not. i'm not talking about the paraphrases, i'm not talking about the obvious ones that change God to a she, and i'm not referring to the ones that clearly have a political agenda and remove parts that don't fit that agenda.

but i believe that most versions, be it the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, ASV, are translated directly from the original texts. i've read documentation in the past that stated such, (this was before the days of me owning a computer, so i don't know where to find them online) and i have no reason to believe otherwise. (please don't post a bunch of links about the NIV perversities and such... i'm not interested in reading anyone's personal bias. if anyone has links to actual documentation that indicates they were written from previously translated texts, i'll be happy to take a look.)

anyway, my point here is that no english version is perfect. some specific words may more closely resemble the original meaning/context of the word in greek/hebrew than others, because the earliest english translations probably didn't have as many socially constructed definitions to fit a given word as the latest edition of miriam-webster's dictionary.

and further, my point is that we can ALWAYS count on God to know exactly what He meant, and if we're studying scripture with an open-ness to the Holy Spirit for understanding, then we're not going to be missing the boat on anything that is relevant to our salvation. and if we are seeking God when we study scripture, then we're drawing closer to Him, regardless of what version, or even of what paraphrase. and drawing closer to God is of vital importance... so to criticize someone for drawing closer just because we disagree on how they should be drawing closer is not our place to judge, is it?

if someone is truly seeking God, He's going to make sure He will be found.

[pointer]

I must say, I agree with Pointer here.

If you're going to present yourself as an authority on a subject, you need to give your audience some sort of credentials to lend credence to your claim of authority. This is much more difficult on the internet than it is in person.

Personally, I am very interested in seeing whatever evidence you all have to give regarding the claimed superiority of the KJV.

Iryssa, in previous threads on the subject there were links to web-sites supporting both sides of this issue. In all cases, the people claimed to be an "authority" on the subject. I have books and videos by people who are authorities on the subject stating the KJV to be the only true Bible. I would imagine those like Pointer have books by those who are authorities saying just the opposite.

Perhaps others do, but I don't get my opinions second hand, in fact I have no use for opinions when it comes to God's Word. To me, God's Word and His salvation are too important for mere opinion. I rely on straight facts that I can verify myself, and I have not seen a single word in Greek in this thread, despite the claims made in #101 and #109. There are other forums in which it is very common for disputes to be settled by recourse to Greek and Hebrew. Why is that so rare here? If Riplinger et al. are convinced that the KJV is the closest representation of the original languages, why can they not prove it? Or if they can, why do their followers not do so?

[jmwhalen]

"God's promise was to preserve His word. in it's origional language"

_______________________________________________________________

Nowhere in the Holy Bible does Scripture refer to the doctrine of preservation as applying to "the originals"-it is always a reference to copies. Repeating: nowhere in "the Bible" does it say anything about its inspiration being limited to "original autographs" or "original languages"-nada. The Holy Bible says nothing about its inspiration being limited to "original languages"(Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Nor will you find a reference to "original languages" anywhere else in the Holy Bible. Yet "scholars" and brain-washed non-scholars alike continue to assume/teach/assert that the Holy Bible's inspiration is somehow limited to "the original languages".

Again,"Scripture" is always referred to as copies(check it out-acts 17:11),and not to some theoretical "original language"(which does not exist, despite this "scholarly rhetoric"), or "original autographs". Indeed, the doctrine of preservation would be "mute" if we had "the originals", which we do not. No one alive has seen "the originals"-they do not exist. The "originals" never existed together in a collated 66 book form, and they and crumpled into dust thousands of years ago. And even if we had "the originals", no one would be able to determine if, in fact, they were "the originals".

Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts:

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19( the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error-see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

"And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 8:32

"Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!" Job 19:23

"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." Proverbs 25:1

Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals" were burned(Jer. 36:23). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jer. 36:28,32)! How much value does God put on the originals?

"Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll(emphasis mine), which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." Jer. 36:28 =a copy of "the original"

Repeating:

Jeremiah 36(concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written).

In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi.

According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed. Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!

So much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals" 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life"(Deut. 17:19). This tells us how God "did do things"-COPIES.

Implicit in this "originals only"view is the belief that the LORD God did not bother to preserve his words in pure form, though some say that the "originals" can be reconstructed by so-called "scholarship"(hence, 200+ "new and improved versions" over the last 100 years or so). Perhaps it does not occur to those who support this view that without the "original autographs" to which to compare them, there is no way to know whether or not the "originals" have been restored=no standard! TILT!.

The doctrine of the divine preservation of the scriptures applies to more than the "original" manuscripts/autographs. Inspiration applies to the copies of the scriptures.

As another example(among many), in Daniel 10:20-21, Gabriel is giving information to Daniel that will prepare him for the upcoming events of chapters 11 and 12, respectively. Verse 21 says "the scripture of truth"-these are copies of the Law and Prophets. Hence, Gabriel calls copies of the Bible "the scripture of truth", and Daniel is to understand them as such.

And no "scholar" could ever make this statement, for they believe that only the autographs is "the scripture of truth." This contradicts testimony after testimony of the Bible itself.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not read out of "the originals" in Luke 4, Timothy did not have "the originals, for "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures...(2 Timothy 3:15=no originals), and yet they are referred to as "the holy scriptures", and "....a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch...read Esaias the prophet...(Acts 8:27,28) certainly was not reading from "the originals."

What ever happened to the "uncorruptible....word of God, which liveth and abideth forever..."(1 Peter 1:23) if it only refers to the originals, which no longer exist(rhetorical question)? The answer: scholarship!!!=unbelief in God's promise to preserve his without error in a book we call the Holy Bible. Such an impotent God! He can create the universe, warm a mother's heart from the smile of her "little one", save a no good, rotten scoundrel such as we all once were, raise the dead......................., but just cannot see to it that His word is preserved without error!

In Christ and with Christ,

John M. Whalen

[pointer]

So when people claim, as they have done, that the KJV is the best translation of the original languages, it is reasonable, and imv, only proper to investigate the claim. If there is resistance to such investigation, no doubt people will draw their own conclusions.

pointer,

Your argument is fundamentally flawed, non-scriptural and blasphemous to say the least. To actually assume that God is not strong enough to get His word out to whomever he chooses?

Would you be good enough to address what I have written rather than straw men? God can turn any man into straw in the blink of an eye, but that is not His method- yet. His ways are not human ways, and humans should not suppose that they know better than He.

Now if the KJV is the 'Word of God' as many claim, what was God doing for over 1500 years before it was published? What was God doing when there was no Bible in English or other vernacular languages at all, and few understood it in the only language in which it was available? Did you know that one of the causes of the Reformation was that the supposedly educated 'priests' did not even know Latin?

Jesus came to a country placed where three continents joined, with good communication routes to them all; to a world that, through Alexander, had a common language used by ordinary folk in all those continents. He created a church that was familiar with both Hebrew and Greek koine.

What are we to learn from this? Where is that church now? God gave men free will. Men hated the truth, so Jews and their Hebrew tongue were persecuted and excluded from normal society, and koine was forgotten for a very long time, so that people did not even know that it existed until modern times. Latin, the language of no country, of no common folk, was chosen as 'the language of God'. By Satan, I have no doubt.

So, mankind, look on what you have done, and weep. Know that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

[Guest LadyC]

jm, perhaps you're unaware of the translations out there which totally corrupt the scriptures. God's promise was to preserve His Word. He has done that. however, not every translation out there is God's word, but man's butchering of His word. it happens. it has happened. what you seem to be implying, and maybe i'm wrong, is that scripture can not be desecrated because God promised to preserve it.

well, scripture CAN be desecrated, and STILL be preserved. the desecration has occurred through some translations.

anyway, that's all well beyond the point that i was trying to make, and i thank you for derailing my point.

if a person is SEEKING God, the he will find God. it doesn't matter if that person is looking in the NIV or the KJV, or even the Living Bible paraphrase.

[jmwhalen]

jm, perhaps you're unaware of the translations out there which totally corrupt the scriptures. God's promise was to preserve His Word. He has done that. however, not every translation out there is God's word, but man's butchering of His word. it happens. it has happened. what you seem to be implying, and maybe i'm wrong, is that scripture can not be desecrated because God promised to preserve it.

well, scripture CAN be desecrated, and STILL be preserved. the desecration has occurred through some translations.

anyway, that's all well beyond the point that i was trying to make, and i thank you for derailing my point.

if a person is SEEKING God, the he will find God. it doesn't matter if that person is looking in the NIV or the KJV, or even the Living Bible paraphrase.

________

I agree that Satan has worked OT in corrupting the word of God. Re-read my post/posts-I did not address the issue of corruption in this post(but I did in others). This issue/"argument" you proposed was:

"my pastor once said something that struck me with how obvious it was. God's promise was to preserve His word. in it's origional language. "

I merely point out that this is unscriptural. And even if it were, you have to conclude(Logic 1) that, based on your argument(not mine)since "the originals" no longer exist, we do not have an inspired "the Holy Bible today!

" what you seem to be implying, and maybe i'm wrong, is that scripture can not be desecrated because God promised to preserve it."

"Ye do error..." I am on record repeatedly as stating that I accept/believe that the KJB is the inspired, preserved word of God(by defintion, the word of God has no errors, or it is not the word of God) for English speaking people. I am also on record as stating that all other "versions" are corrupt.

I would ask that you first know/become familiar with another's argument before you make assertions. Please read my posts on this issue on Worthy prior to making such invalid assertions.

"God's promise was to preserve His Word...scripture CAN....STILL be preserved.....God promised to preserve it."

You mention "his word", "scripture", "it", and state God promised to preserve "his word", "scripture", "it", without identifying "his word", "scripture", "it"(correct me if I am wrong). Well, the originals do not exist, so "his word", "scripture", "it", cannot be referring to "the originals." Just exactly what is this "his word", "scripture", "it", that God promised to preserve "from this generation forever"? I have already identified God's inspired, infallible(without error)preserved word that I can hold up, press to my heart, and say with conviction: This is the word of God-it is without error, I believe it, I submit to it, and I do not correct it. It corrects me.

What is "the Holy Bible"(without error, by definition) that I can confidently "get my hands on", according to you? It seems to me that saying God has preserved His word, and yet not identifying it, or referring to some non-existent "the originals", does nothing to further an understanding of your argument, or this issue.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Christian]

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?