# What Bible?



## FireHunter174 (Jan 15, 2011)

Ya'll might have already discussed this this in another thread, but here it goes.

I was raised using the KJV and in a Baptist church.  I, now attend a non-denominational church.  That being said, I am wondering what Bible to purchase and study.

I am looking for the most accurate English translation from the original texts as possible.  The KJV might be the best, I just wanted to make sure.  I don't require easy reading, so old English would not be a problem.  I would rather be challenged and have to study or cross-reference than have it in modern lingo.

I have looked around a little.  The Wycliffe Bible sounded interesting.  Of course, it was translated from the Latin Vulgate in the 14th century, about 300 years before the KJV.  And the KJV has been updated several times since its original translation.  I just don't want a translation of a translation of a translation.......etc.

So, any suggestions would be appreciated.

Also, do any of you have any thoughts on or own the Apocrypha?  I don't know much about these books or who wrote them.  I am wondering if these should be a part of my studying as well.

Thanks


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 15, 2011)

FireHunter174 said:


> Ya'll might have already discussed this this in another thread, but here it goes.
> 
> I was raised using the KJV and in a Baptist church.  I, now attend a non-denominational church.  That being said, I am wondering what Bible to purchase and study.
> 
> ...


The Apocrypha were in the original KJV Bible when it was first published.  That creates a whole new thread and debate though.

I have several versions of Bibles including a KJV.  It may be best to have a couple versions and compare items as they can vary slightly. The New American Bible is a good one that I like.

If you want to get an older version, go get a Douay-Rheims Bible


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 15, 2011)

The Wycliffe Bible, like you said was translated from the Vulgate, but it was translated into Middle English which to most is a foreign language - if you find a Wycliff that is in regular English again you are looking at a translation of a translation.  Here is an example of the verse -  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

    Latin Vulgate: Dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux
    Early Wycliffe: And God seide, Be maad liȝt; and maad is liȝt
    Later Wycliffe: And God seide, Liȝt be maad; and liȝt was maad
    King James: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

The ever popular verse of John 3:16 is rendered in the later Wycliffe version as: For God louede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.

Not a easy read even for the best educated.

I still think the KJV is the best and otherwise most accurate of all translations.  Many Fundamentalist use the NIV Bible  although it gets funky in certain verses that are near and dear to the Fundamentalist Christian - it is a easy read. 

I really don't think what Bible you use makes a whole lot of difference for everyone has two Bibles to start with - the Bible they hold in their left hand which is the printed Bible and a cyber one in their right hand which contains what the one in the left hand means.  The left handed printed Bible, no matter what type, all about says the same thing, then right handed "that's what it means" Bible can say anything they want it to.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 15, 2011)

There are no Bible tanslations from the Original Languages to English, Only transliterations.
So any Version is good minus the Jehovah Witness version.

The American Standard Bible is as good as any.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 15, 2011)

jason4445 said:


> The Wycliffe Bible, like you said was translated from the Vulgate, but it was translated into Middle English which to most is a foreign language - if you find a Wycliff that is in regular English again you are looking at a translation of a translation.  Here is an example of the verse -  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
> 
> Latin Vulgate: Dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux
> Early Wycliffe: And God seide, Be maad liȝt; and maad is liȝt
> ...



This here was a good read. The bit at the end about the two bibles is priceless... Thanks bro...


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 15, 2011)

Esv or nasb


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 15, 2011)

If you do some research looking for the most accurate modern version you'll probably see that most scholars will say the New American Standard Bible(NASB) is most accurate across the board.
I've used the NASB for many many years, but it isn't the only Bible I use.
The KJV is a good version.
The NIV isn't a bad version either but it was never intended to be a strict word for word transliteration.  That doesn't mean it can't be useful in your studies though.

Any of the above Bible's will lead you to God, if they're read, studied, and followed.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 15, 2011)

jason4445 said:


> The Wycliffe Bible, like you said was translated from the Vulgate, but it was translated into Middle English which to most is a foreign language - if you find a Wycliff that is in regular English again you are looking at a translation of a translation.  Here is an example of the verse -  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
> 
> Latin Vulgate: Dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux
> Early Wycliffe: And God seide, Be maad liȝt; and maad is liȝt
> ...



I agree with Gordo, good read.
Thanks.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 15, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> If you do some research looking for the most accurate modern version you'll probably see that most scholars will say the New American Standard Bible(NASB) is most accurate across the board.
> I've used the NASB for many many years, but it isn't the only Bible I use.
> The KJV is a good version.
> The NIV isn't a bad version either but it was never intended to be a strict word for word transliteration.  That doesn't mean it can't be useful in your studies though.
> ...



Good post,Ronnie!


----------



## gtparts (Jan 15, 2011)

Suggest you check this link to better understand the types of translation and why more than one type is beneficial to studying Scripture. Formal equivalence is very rigid in the operative methodology, but neglects the nuances that surely characterized some of the word choices found in functional equivalence translations.

The difference can be seen in the use of a single word which may be rendered as "grain", "seed", "kernel", "corn", "wheat", "barley", or perhaps one of several other similar words. As you might guess, the translator is by necessity an interpreter, frequently using what is most familiar to the current audience rather than the faithful adherence to the time and region in which the original recorded events took place. 

Here is the link with a much longer discourse on the matter of translations.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/11631126.html

Hope you find this helpful. 

BTW, many Bibles include information on the source manuscripts used, the selection of the translators, and the purpose and guidelines used in the process, usually towards the front pages. Always worth a look.


----------



## FireHunter174 (Jan 15, 2011)

I sure appreciate all the responses.

It is a lot to take in when researching the different translations and versions of the Bible.  I will definitely look into ya'll's recommendations.  Thanks again


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 15, 2011)

As far as translations, NASB is one of the best.  

As far as Bibles...I'd recommend the MacArthur Study Bible.  Has a lot of great notes in there.  Also, the Zodhiates Hebrew/Greek study Bible is a good one for looking up the actual text and studying the meaning of the original word used.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2011)

After some study on this, my personal pick would be NASB although I will keep my NIV because I am familiar with it. I can find what I am looking for simply because I have always used it. I actually searched out other copies with the same copyright so that they all match up page for page so that if I recall that what I am looking for is upper left corner, then my spare bible is exactly the same. If you are familiar with your KJ, then why change. If not, now is a good time to change. I have an interesting bible that I used for awhile. It was a parallel bible that had KJ-NIV-NLT-NASB all on the same page. Interesting study for a time. I found out that rarely did they not say the same thing.


----------



## pine nut (Jan 15, 2011)

I would reccommend Dake's Annotated Reference Bible from Dake Bible Sales, Inc. PO box 1050 Lawrenceville GA 30246
It is Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James version text.  It has four equal-sized columns on each  page- two of text and two of notes and comments, self-pronouncing text, and a complete Concordance and Cyclopedic Index
by Finis Jennings Dake
Get the large print version!  This is a very impressive work and easy to find any scripture you want.  Mr Dake's testimony is amazing.
You owe it to youself to look at it at the very least.  It will be a large bible on very thin paper and the easiest bible to use I have ever seen.   My first was given to me years ago,and I have since bought a larger print version.  My precher used to call me to find a scripture he wanted to quote but couldn't remember where it was found.  It is very easy with this bible.   I think you will be happy with it.


----------



## formula1 (Jan 17, 2011)

*Re:*

I enjoy the NASB, the New KJV, the NIV, and the ESV.  You can take anyone of these Bibles(and others too), add an open heart to the Holy Spirit, and receive all you need from your Heavenly Father.

Pick up your favorite Bible, pray over your reading, and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and change you from the inside out.  If you'll take the attitude that you want to know only what God wants for you, your studies will be rich with direction and life, even if it does cut you to the bone and challenge you immensely!

The scriptures are to lead you to an intimate relationship with Christ, like a love letter you might have written to your spouse.  Build your love for Him by hearing and doing what He says!  And just watch what He does in your life as you do!


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 17, 2011)

formula1 said:


> I enjoy the NASB, the New KJV, the NIV, and the ESV.  You can take anyone of these Bibles(and others too), add an open heart to the Holy Spirit, and receive all you need from your Heavenly Father.
> 
> Pick up your favorite Bible, pray over your reading, and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and change you from the inside out.  If you'll take the attitude that you want to know only what God wants for you, your studies will be rich with direction and life, even if it does cut you to the bone and challenge you immensely!
> 
> The scriptures are to lead you to an intimate relationship with Christ, like a love letter you might have written to your spouse.  Build your love for Him by hearing and doing what He says!  And just watch what He does in your life as you do!



That's a great reminder for all of us.

.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 17, 2011)

I use a NIV study Bible called "Life Application Study Bible," published by Zondervan. It comes in whatever version works for you,but I promise: It will enable you to understand the Bible and use what you learn in your everyday life.My wife got me one years ago - it's the most useful Christmas present I ever got,with my Leatherman tool a close second.


----------



## GOoutdoors (Jan 17, 2011)

formula1 said:


> I enjoy the NASB, the New KJV, the NIV, and the ESV.  You can take anyone of these Bibles(and others too), add an open heart to the Holy Spirit, and receive all you need from your Heavenly Father.
> 
> Pick up your favorite Bible, pray over your reading, and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you and change you from the inside out.  If you'll take the attitude that you want to know only what God wants for you, your studies will be rich with direction and life, even if it does cut you to the bone and challenge you immensely!
> 
> The scriptures are to lead you to an intimate relationship with Christ, like a love letter you might have written to your spouse.  Build your love for Him by hearing and doing what He says!  And just watch what He does in your life as you do!



Good post, thanks


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 17, 2011)

crackerdave said:


> I use a NIV study Bible called "Life Application Study Bible," published by Zondervan. It comes in whatever version works for you,but I promise: It will enable you to understand the Bible and use what you learn in your everyday life.My wife got me one years ago - it's the most useful Christmas present I ever got,with my Leatherman tool a close second.



I sure do agree with you Dave.  The "Life Application Study Bible" provides some very compelling thoughts concerning God's word.  Through the years I've given several to other people (mostly young people).


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Jan 17, 2011)

My mother left me her Bible The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible "New International Version" It is very helpful for me.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 18, 2011)

I have used the NASB the last 2 years and then switched to the ESV this past spring for a change of pace, I like them both extremely well.
Next one will be a Greek/English lexicon.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 18, 2011)

This week already I've used the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 20, 2011)

The NASB is the most literal word for word translation and the ESV is the most readable word for word translation. But I agree with F1. The main thing is to pick it up and read it...whatever the translation!


----------



## brotherslick (Jan 23, 2011)

KJV Charles Ryrie
There is a big difference between translation and iterpretation. what man does  is far from what GOD says to do


----------



## Mako22 (Jan 23, 2011)

The KJT, anything else isn't worth reading.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Jan 23, 2011)

Without opening a can of worms, may I suggest you endeavor to study the process by which the english speaking world obtained a Bible translated into our language, why it became poluted largely at the command of two kings of England who were the head of the Church of England, but did not choose to live according to Biblical precepts,resulting in the English translation of the day being perverted. The "why" behind the King James translators, as well as who, how they were divided and worked can be quite revealing. Many souls have been saved by the "foolishness of Preaching" from the King James Version.  While no English Version is a precise translation of the original manuscripts, in large part due to the complexity of our language, many have been gloriously redeemed by the blood of the spotless lamb of God procalimed in the english speaking world wondrously by the King James translators. In Bible College I was taught of a few minor errors having to only with counting numbers. The systems of counting in Bible Days and the decimal system,(based on units of 10), are much differant. In almost every case a paralell passage makes it easy to discern the correct translation.


----------



## RedlandCreekGreg (Jan 23, 2011)

I saw  "The Stock Car Edition" of the Holy Bible the other day,,,,, this one seems right up my alley


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 25, 2011)

Hello K9, recently we had quite the ugly debate over bibles, most have not responded to your post cause we don't want that to  happen again. It my be in the history but the whole thread may have been deleted.


----------



## idsman75 (Mar 29, 2011)

Every single translation includes certain theological assumptions about what the original language meant.  It's necessary.  There's no such thing as direct literal translation between any two languages.  Interpretation is necessary to a certain degree.  Sometimes examination of the original Greek and Hebrew betrays the theological leanings of the translators.  

Zondervan's Understand the Bible Reference Series can help in this arena and give context to certain words.  For example, the capitalization of certain words in English translations weren't really capitalized in the original.  It's the translator's attempt to bring across a certain message based on how he interpreted scripture theologically.  

For example, "son" versus "Son".  

Matthew 24:36 implies Jesus doesn't know when he's going to return because many translators use "Son" instead of "son".  

However, John 17:12 refers to Satan as the "son of perdition" in the NASV.  I believe Matthew 24:36 and John 17:12 are both referring to Satan.  Jesus obviously knows when he's going to return.


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 29, 2011)

I have never depended on just one translation, I have used most all of them at one time or another.

My tooten bible is the (NKJV) I also use the (NASB) a lot. 
I like the poetic flow of the (KJV). I use the one daily that seems right at the time.

Good luck and God bless


----------



## idsman75 (Mar 29, 2011)

thedeacon said:


> I have never depended on just one translation, I have used most all of them at one time or another.
> 
> My tooten bible is the (NKJV) I also use the (NASB) a lot.
> I like the poetic flow of the (KJV). I use the one daily that seems right at the time.
> ...



Have you ever read the 1599 Geneva Bible?  It's enjoyable to read.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

There are in excess of 100 omissions in the NIV alone.  A few of translators have renounced their work on the niv, and nasv and declared that incorrect greek manuscripts were used and they now say that the KJB is correct.  

1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 

The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> There are in excess of 100 omissions in the NIV alone.  A few of translators have renounced their work on the niv, and nasv and declared that incorrect greek manuscripts were used and they now say that the KJB is correct.
> 
> 1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
> 
> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.




What about the extra books in the KJV 1611?  Adding to scripture?  or is the omission of those books in later editions taking away?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

They were never added as part of the Holy Scriptures.  They were acknowledged as the apocrypha;  can be read as teachings and life stories, not directly related to prophesy, fulfillment and truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> There are in excess of 100 omissions in the NIV alone.  A few of translators have renounced their work on the niv, and nasv and declared that incorrect greek manuscripts were used and they now say that the KJB is correct.
> 
> 1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
> 
> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.


 I don't wish to debate this subject, although I am capable, because it is very devisive but I would like to point out that the use of "omissions" has a reason. If someone still feels like omissions are a good description after having known the reasons, then that is fine to hold that opinion. The reason is that we have no original manuscripts. Thus many think that the oldest ones should be the truest. After the discovery of the dead see scrolls, many are of the opinion that these are the oldest surviving manuscripts. So the translations after the publication of the Kj chose to use these new found manuscripts based on their age. That is why the KJ stands alone, only because it was translated before this find. Should these new finds be considered credible, It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves


----------



## farmasis (Mar 29, 2011)

There are not ommisions in the NIV..it has been translated from a variety of manuscripts where the KJV is largely or completely from the Textus Receptus. This accounts for the differences, and they are minor when taken into context of the books entirely.

I prefer the NKJV, but use the NASB for study a lot. I have no problem with the NIV, but rarely use it.

Whether the deuterocanonical books or 'apocrypha' are necessary for study, I do not think they add anything trustworthy to today's accepted old and new testaments. But, that is opinion.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

Read Luke 11:2-4 in each version.  Which father are they praying to?

That is a very serious omission.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> They were never added as part of the Holy Scriptures.  They were acknowledged as the apocrypha;  can be read as teachings and life stories, not directly related to prophesy, fulfillment and truth.



If they weren't part of the Bible, then why where they included in the first place.  Placing books in the middle of the Bible, leaving it that way for a bunch of years, taking them out, and then justifying them being there based on your excuse above....comical.  




1gr8bldr said:


> I don't wish to debate this subject, although I am capable, because it is very devisive but I would like to point out that the use of "omissions" has a reason. If someone still feels like omissions are a good description after having known the reasons, then that is fine to hold that opinion. The reason is that we have no original manuscripts. Thus many think that the oldest ones should be the truest. After the discovery of the dead see scrolls, many are of the opinion that these are the oldest surviving manuscripts. So the translations after the publication of the Kj chose to use these new found manuscripts based on their age. That is why the KJ stands alone, only because it was translated before this find. Should these new finds be considered credible, It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves



KJV only folks would rather bury their heads in the sand then admit to the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Kinda negated the need for the book of Mormon as well.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> If they weren't part of the Bible, then why where they included in the first place.  Placing books in the middle of the Bible, leaving it that way for a bunch of years, taking them out, and then justifying them being there based on your excuse above....comical.



Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.  It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East. 

Hope this isnt so comical for you cruiser!!!!!!!!


----------



## farmasis (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.


 
The KJV is a really good version, but not perfect and the work of man should not be considered such. Don't get me wrong, the word of God is perfect and we strive to get the best copy of that, but we do not have it yet.

Research comma Johanneum for example.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

farmasis said:


> The KJV is a really good version, but not perfect and the work of man should not be considered such. Don't get me wrong, the word of God is perfect and we strive to get the best copy of that, but we do not have it yet.
> 
> Research comma Johanneum for example.



Not doubting the comma johanneum.  We all believe by faith.  I have faith that the KJB is the perfect word.  

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

I have a problem with a woman on the NIV board of translators being lesbian.  It cannot be divinely inspired.  

I choose to stick with the book that all others are compared to.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> There are in excess of 100 omissions in the NIV alone.  A few of translators have renounced their work on the niv, and nasv and declared that incorrect greek manuscripts were used and they now say that the KJB is correct.
> 
> 1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
> 
> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.



Which one?  The original KJB had the Apocrypha in it.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Which one?  The original KJB had the Apocrypha in it.



I am not answering the same question 50 times.  Start at the top and read slowly.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 29, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Read Luke 11:2-4 in each version. Which father are they praying to?
> 
> That is a very serious omission.


 
God the Father. Who else? If clarification is needed, see verse 11 in the NIV.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 29, 2011)

Anybody caught any fish lately, How about turkeys, it's that time of year. Man I hate that UNC will not be at the NCAA chapionship.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 29, 2011)

farmasis said:


> God the Father. Who else? If clarification is needed, see verse 11 in the NIV.



Thats just it.  Clarification is made quickly in the KJB.  I dont have to read down 7-8 verses to get the context.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
> None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
> The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
> The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.  It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
> ...



So...for an OT book to be part of the Canon, it has to be referenced in the NT?  If that is the case, we've got a few too many books in there.

You'll get no argument from me about the Deuterocanonical books not being inspired scripture.  I don't believe they are.  The problem is that your "perfect" translation has them in there...then takes them out.  So, if it is perfect, which one is it?



crbrumbelow said:


> I have a problem with a woman on the NIV board of translators being lesbian.  It cannot be divinely inspired.



And King James was a much more godly man?  

You realize that all experts in Hebrew/Greek studies and linguistics are not Christians.  Just because someone isn't saved doesn't mean that their insight on something can't be correct.



crbrumbelow said:


> Thats just it.  Clarification is made quickly in the KJB.  I dont have to read down 7-8 verses to get the context.



Isn't that the definition of context?  Getting an understanding of what is around the verse to understand the verse?

I guess it shows the narrow sightedness one must hold to to believe the KJV is perfect and all others are worthless.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

You do realize that the translators werent hired and directed by King James to translate the Bible.  They went to him and asked for funds to continue their work.  Being that he was the King at the time he "authorized" it.  That is the extent of his involvement.  The lesbo was directly involved and had direct influence on translation of the NIV.
The owners of the copyright of the NIV, Zondervan, are owned by HarperCollins.  This same HarperCollins also owns the copyrights to none other than Anton LaVey's satanic bible as well as his many satanic writings.  Do you really want to support someone who wants to destroy you?  Do you think it is still divinely inspired?  It is but by the devil.  Romans clearly states that homosexuals are given up to a reprobate mind and are worthy of death.  The devils handy work.

The little symbol on the NKJV is the same symbol used in satanic, wican, and several other pagan beliefs.  They claim it is symbology for the trinity but Acts 17:29 forbids such symbology.  

As far as the other perversions.  I have not and will not study anymore on why they are wrong.  I have read enough of them to know that many of their "translated" verses are changed in meaning even if minutely.  

The apocrypha question has been answered.  Start at the top and read slowly.  

If the other perversions were so perfect why does every mega church "pastor" compare his version he is reading to the KJB.  Because the KJB is the perfect authorized English Bible.  

End of discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> You do realize that the translators werent hired and directed by King James to translate the Bible.  They went to him and asked for funds to continue their work.  Being that he was the King at the time he "authorized" it.  That is the extent of his involvement.  The lesbo was directly involved and had direct influence on translation of the NIV.
> The owners of the copyright of the NIV, Zondervan, are owned by HarperCollins.  This same HarperCollins also owns the copyrights to none other than Anton LaVey's satanic bible as well as his many satanic writings.  Do you really want to support someone who wants to destroy you?  Do you think it is still divinely inspired?  It is but by the devil.  Romans clearly states that homosexuals are given up to a reprobate mind and are worthy of death.  The devils handy work.
> 
> The little symbol on the NKJV is the same symbol used in satanic, wican, and several other pagan beliefs.  They claim it is symbology for the trinity but Acts 17:29 forbids such symbology.
> ...



Mind if I quote you for my new signature line?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> You do realize that the translators werent hired and directed by King James to translate the Bible.  They went to him and asked for funds to continue their work.  Being that he was the King at the time he "authorized" it.  That is the extent of his involvement.  The lesbo was directly involved and had direct influence on translation of the NIV.
> The owners of the copyright of the NIV, Zondervan, are owned by HarperCollins.  This same HarperCollins also owns the copyrights to none other than Anton LaVey's satanic bible as well as his many satanic writings.  Do you really want to support someone who wants to destroy you?  Do you think it is still divinely inspired?  It is but by the devil.  Romans clearly states that homosexuals are given up to a reprobate mind and are worthy of death.  The devils handy work.
> 
> The little symbol on the NKJV is the same symbol used in satanic, wican, and several other pagan beliefs.  They claim it is symbology for the trinity but Acts 17:29 forbids such symbology.
> ...



Really?  Never heard the "mega church pastor" I listen to compare his version to the KJV.  The only people that I've heard compare other versions to the KJV are legalistic fundamentalists who think the KJV is the only inspired version.

Oh..and King James did have influence over the translation.  He laid the ground rules for the 47 scholars...and approved them as well.  You really show your lack of knowledge on this subject when you write such things.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?  Never heard the "mega church pastor" I listen to compare his version to the KJV.  The only people that I've heard compare other versions to the KJV are legalistic fundamentalists who think the KJV is the only inspired version.
> 
> Oh..and King James did have influence over the translation.  He laid the ground rules for the 47 scholars...and approved them as well.  You really show your lack of knowledge on this subject when you write such things.



No you need to do your research.  I have done mine and found it accurate from more than one account.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2011)

This is something a Muslim would argue, "You cant understand the Quran correctly because its translated into english,french,spanish,etc" Limiting the God and Saviour of the world to one language or one translation. I havent studied this very much, so I wont post much, I dont think the doctrine of Christianity varies by which translation one uses. Just one mans opinion.


----------



## pbradley (Mar 30, 2011)

FireHunter174 said:


> Ya'll might have already discussed this this in another thread, but here it goes.
> 
> I was raised using the KJV and in a Baptist church.  I, now attend a non-denominational church.  That being said, I am wondering what Bible to purchase and study.
> 
> ...




I'm currently using the Nelson King James Version study Bible. 

In addition to the center column footnotes, it also includes over 5,700 annotations on the text, doctrinal footnotes, mini-bios of Biblical characters, information on archeological sites, and maps of the region.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> ... the translators werent hired and directed by King James to translate the Bible.



Translate the Bible into _what_?  Into the common language of the people (the "vulgar" tongue, according to the KJV translators.)  That is the purpose of the translation of _anything_:  to take the words of one language and make them understandable to someone who does not speak that language.

This is the primary reason I don't use the KJV:  it's no longer the common language of the people.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> No you need to do your research.  I have done mine and found it accurate from more than one account.



Mind posting your sources?

"James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible.[43] It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special command."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.



The KJV translators did not believe that.  I don't think you can overstate that point.

In addition, the English people did not believe that.  It took many years before the KJV finally supplanted previous versions in the hearts of the people.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

Here is your quote ambush.

Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 
Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 
Rom 1:29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 
Rom 1:30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 
Rom 1:31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 
Rom 1:32  Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Here is your quote ambush.
> 
> Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> ...



It won't fit.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The KJV translators did not believe that.  I don't think you can overstate that point.
> 
> In addition, the English people did not believe that.  It took many years before the KJV finally supplanted previous versions in the hearts of the people.



The translators did believe.  
If you havent read the original translators preface, here is a link.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Mind posting your sources?
> 
> "James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible.[43] It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special command."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version



Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers.

Read more: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/is-wikipedia-reliable.html#ixzz1I68J5rLg


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It won't fit.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> You do realize that the translators werent hired and directed by King James to translate the Bible.  They went to him and asked for funds to continue their work.  Being that he was the King at the time he "authorized" it.  That is the extent of his involvement.  The lesbo was directly involved and had direct influence on translation of the NIV.
> The owners of the copyright of the NIV, Zondervan, are owned by HarperCollins.  This same HarperCollins also owns the copyrights to none other than Anton LaVey's satanic bible as well as his many satanic writings.  Do you really want to support someone who wants to destroy you?  Do you think it is still divinely inspired?  It is but by the devil.  Romans clearly states that homosexuals are given up to a reprobate mind and are worthy of death.  The devils handy work.
> 
> The little symbol on the NKJV is the same symbol used in satanic, wican, and several other pagan beliefs.  They claim it is symbology for the trinity but Acts 17:29 forbids such symbology.
> ...



I've always found that disciples of the Pefect KJB are very hardcore in their beliefs and never actually listen to what others have to say.  Many of them have become disciples to their Bibles rather than disciples of Jesus Christ.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Is Wikipedia Reliable?
> By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny
> 
> The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers.
> ...



Can you prove any inaccuracy from what I posted?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Can you prove any inaccuracy from what I posted?



No but I can do the same as you, find endless support for my belief.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

I have found that most most opponents of the KJB are either pastors or members of churches that allow many things to go on in their churches that are against the word of God.  Adultery, homosexuality, thievery, gossip, so on and so forth.  When you compromise you open the door for the devil to be effective in his work.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The translators did believe.
> If you havent read the original translators preface, here is a link.
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm



I have read it, and it's obvious that you have not.  The translators did not believe their translation was perfect or divinely inspired.  They say:


_"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk: but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."_


It's there in black and white:  they wanted to make a good translation better -- not the perfect, "certified by God Almighty" translation.  In addition, they wrote:


_"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God"._


As far as "omissions", here is what they wrote about the Septuagint:


_"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?"_


Answer?  None of the Apostles condemned the Septuagint.  Contrast that with the KJV-only position that any other version was translated by Satan himself.

When it comes to language, they wrote:


_"But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?"_


... and writing about the Catholics, they said:


_" ... so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort ..."_


Why are KJV-only people so unwilling to put the word of God into the language of the people?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Many of them have become disciples to their Bibles rather than disciples of Jesus Christ.



Exactly.

KJV-onlyism is dangerously close to Bibliolatry.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> I have found that most most opponents of the KJB ...



I don't know a single "opponent" of the KJV.  I'm certainly not.  I'm only opposed to the false notion that it's the only translation fit for use.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Mar 30, 2011)

I will cast my two cents worth in here, though, like at least one other, this is devisive and I wish not to participate in an argument. As a student of the Word of God whose primary language is English I have spent many years including Bible College researching the history of Bible(s) in our tongue. One must state our English is very difficult to accurately translate from the common Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. There are often no existant English words that reflect clear thoughts in the original language texts. Over centuries new words are added, or meanings change. If you grew up using the King James and understand it, I wouldn't change. This version arose because of abuse in high places which resulted in perversion(s). One need only read the history to discern the merit. In 1382 John Wyclifffe completed the first translation of the Bible in English. In 1522 Martin Luther produced a version in German. William Tyndale produced an English translation in 1535 that has much influenced all English translations that have followed. In the same year Miles Coverdale rendered a version dedicated to King Henry VIII which was the first printed in England. In 1539 a new work which was a combination of Coverdale's and Matthew's(1537) known as "The Great Bible". In 1560 from Switzerland where they were exiled, the Geneva Bible was printed by Coverdale, William Whittingham, John Knox, and others, was issued after Mary became Queen. (this translation originally had John Calvin's notes in the margins, and later is said to have incorporated them into the narritive). In 1582-1610 the Catholic or Douay-Rheims Bible appeared. When James came to the throne he assembeled the brightest scholars of the day. In 1611 these learned men gave what most regard today as the finest Bible in the English Language. It was intended to correct mis-deeds of two English Kings, ...and in fact did so. Many of our forbears have used this version, and countless are in heaven today as a result of it's being preached and read. I have heard it said the King James does not need to be re-written, but re-read.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Can you prove any inaccuracy from what I posted?





crbrumbelow said:


> No but I can do the same as you, find endless support for my belief.



Can you post support of the fact that King James did not have any influence in the 47 people chosen/approved and that he didn't establish the ground rules for the translation?



crbrumbelow said:


> I have found that most most opponents of the KJB are either pastors or members of churches that allow many things to go on in their churches that are against the word of God.  Adultery, homosexuality, thievery, gossip, so on and so forth.  When you compromise you open the door for the devil to be effective in his work.





centerpin fan said:


> I don't know a single "opponent" of the KJV.  I'm certainly not.  I'm only opposed to the false notion that it's the only translation fit for use.



Well said.  And to boot, I don't compromise on adultery, homosexuality, thievery and gossip.


----------



## dawg2 (Mar 30, 2011)

LOL @ "Bibliolatry"


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I have read it, and it's obvious that you have not.  The translators did not believe their translation was perfect or divinely inspired.  They say:
> 
> 
> _"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk: but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."_
> ...




Just as I was saying before.  "YOUR translation of what someone else says.  

The translators letter to King James States something completely different and gives their quest to make a perfect translation. 

That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before vs, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAIESTIE did neuer desist, to vrge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might iustly require.

You may read the rest here.
http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/kingIames.htm


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't know a single "opponent" of the KJV.  I'm certainly not.  I'm only opposed to the false notion that it's the only translation fit for use.



Neither am I.  I don't believe I've ever in all my life known a person who was an opponent of the KJV.
I use it...... even though I know it isn't perfect.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Well said.  And to boot, I don't compromise on adultery, homosexuality, thievery and gossip.




So do you preach against it? and how do you handle it when it manifests itself in your church?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 30, 2011)

I remember being taught by good Southern Baptist preachers, that there was no possibility of inaccuracy in the King James Bible because the Holy Spirit governed the translation of scripture and prevented any possibility of man corrupting God's word, even accidentally.  I wonder if that only applies to the KJV?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

If you compare any other version to it, ie.  "This is what the NIV says,  Now this is what the KJV says.  Now I just dont like what the KJV says  on this so we will go with that."


You made a choice to oppose it!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Just as I was saying before.  "YOUR translation of what someone else says.





I C&P those quotes directly out of the link you posted!  That proves you didn't read it.  




crbrumbelow said:


> The translators letter to King James States something completely different and gives their quest to make a perfect translation.
> 
> That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before vs, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAIESTIE did neuer desist, to vrge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might iustly require.



That says nothing about their "quest to make a perfect translation".  Even in the old English, that's obvious.


Please C&P statements from the link you posted that say anything like this:



crbrumbelow said:


> The KJB is perfect and is the anointed English version.






crbrumbelow said:


> ... the KJB is the perfect word.







crbrumbelow said:


> ...  the KJB is the perfect authorized English Bible.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

There was a preface and a letter to King James.  The letter link I posted was complete.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 30, 2011)

Let's not go through all this again. There are plenty of threads on here already hashing this out. Use the search feature....it's neat


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> There was a preface and a letter to King James.  The letter link I posted was complete.





Wrong again.  You still haven't read it, even after I called you out about not reading it!

Here's the passage from the first link you posted:

G REAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad. 

But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven. 

Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty's loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father. 

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require. 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm


And here's the same passage from the second link you posted:

Great and manifold were the blessings (most dread Soueraigne) which Almighty God, the Father of all Mercies, bestowed vpon vs the people of ENGLAND, when first he sent your Maiesties Royall person to rule and raigne ouer us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well vnto our SION, that vpon the setting of that bright Occidentall Starre Queene ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thicke and palpable cloudes of darkenesse would so haue ouershadowed this land, that men should haue bene in doubt which way they were to walke, and that it should hardly be knowen, who was to direct the vnsetled State: the appearance of your MAIESTIE, as of the Sunne in his strenght, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gaue vnto all that were well affected, exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the gouernment established in your HIGHNESSE, and your hopefull Seed, by an vndoubted Title, and this also accompanied with Peace and tranquillitie, at home and abroad.

But amongst all our Ioyes, there was no one that more filled our hearts, then the blessed continuance of the Preaching of GODS sacred word amongst vs, which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth, because the fruit thereof extendeth it selfe, not onely to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men vnto that Eternall happinesse which is aboue in Heauen.

Then, not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it vp, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous predecessour of your HIGHNESSE did leaue it; Nay, to goe forward with the confidence and resolution of a man in maintaining the trueth of CHRIST, and propagating it farre and neere, is that which hath so bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAIESTIES loyall and Religious people vnto you, that your very Name is precious among them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they blesse you in their hearts, as that sanctified person, who vnder GOD, is the immediate authour of their true happinesse. And this their contentment doeth not diminish or decay, but euery day increaseth and taketh strength, when they obserue that the zeale of your Maiestie towards the house of GOD, doth not slacke or goe backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting it selfe abroad in the furthest parts of Christendome, by writing in defence of the Trueth, (which hath giuen such a blow vnto that man of Sinne, as will be not healed) and euery day at home, by Religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of GOD, by hearing the word preached, by cherishing the teachers therof, by caring for the Church as a most tender and louing nourcing Father.

There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your MAIESTIE: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present vnto your MAIESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe iudgment apprehended, how conuenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before vs, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAIESTIE did neuer desist, to vrge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might iustly require.

http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/kingIames.htm


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

TO THE MOST

HIGH AND MIGHTIE

PRINCE, JAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.

The Translators of the Bible

wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord.
The letter to King James.



''

''


'''

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.
Preface to the King James Version 1611

(Not Copyrighted)

THE BEST THINGS HAVE BEEN CALUMNIATED

The preface to the reader.  


As I said

There was a letter to king james and a preface to the reader.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

So why then would I go find it referenced on a different site and post it for you to read it.  You obviously couldnt discern the difference in the original post.  You needed clarification.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> There was a letter to king james and a preface to the reader.



... yet you were so unfamiliar with what the translators wrote, you didn't realize you quoted the same thing twice.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> So why then would I go find it referenced on a different site and post it for you to read it.  You obviously couldnt discern the difference in the original post.  You needed clarification.





This is just beyond ridiculous.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 30, 2011)

I've deleted some posts in here that simply were not needed. I am sure there are more but I have a real job to attend to and don't have the time to read through all of this right now. 

I am going to remind you that while you all are free to post your opinions and reasons for then, there is no need for name calling and personal attacks. 

In order to help I am going to give you a correct and incorrect example: 

Correct: " I'm sorry but I don't agree with that. It seems from my study and resources that the fairly recent finds of newer and more reliable texts takes the legs out from under the KJV is perfect argument." 

Incorrect: OK you moronic idiot, you must not even be able to read. If you were able to read you would know that the [insert favorite translation here] is the better bible. But since you're a moron and an idiot who cannot read or comprehend English I guess you'll never be able to see that. You're probably going to H E L L anyway.......you dummy. Oh yeah,  and if you don't read the [insert favorite translation here] you aren't saved and don't love Jesus. Moron


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

Do you not understand that the letter and preface are separate?  I understand that it was quoted twice.  Two different places.  For YOUR clarification.  You still havent read the letter to king james and understood it or you would see that they called for "one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue". 

Exact=Perfect. 

Have a good day!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Do you not understand that the letter and preface are separate?  I understand that it was quoted twice.  Two different places.  For YOUR clarification.  You still havent read the letter to king james and understood it or you would see that they called for "*one more *exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue".
> 
> Exact=Perfect.
> 
> Have a good day!



Does this mean there are _more _than one exact translations into the English tongue?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Does this mean there are _more _than one exact translations into the English tongue?



It is quite possible it seems doesnt it.  It would be older.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Do you not understand that the letter and preface are separate?  I understand that it was quoted twice.  Two different places.  For YOUR clarification.  You still havent read the letter to king james and understood it or you would see that they called for "one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue".
> 
> Exact=Perfect.
> 
> Have a good day!




What you don't seem to get is that the KJV was the closest they could come to an "exact translation" with what the translators had to work with. 

Since 1611 older and more reliable texts have been found that make an even more "exact translation" than the KJV. 

Before you jump on me with both feet, I have no problem with the KJV even though in all honesty I rarely use it, except when preparing a sermon to make text comparisons along with the Greek. 

It's just not exact or perfect....and neither is any other translation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Do you not understand that the letter and preface are separate?



You're the first person I've ever seen who separated the two completely.  They're usually organized like this:

http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Translators_Preface_to_1611_KJV.pdf




crbrumbelow said:


> ... they called for "one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue".
> 
> Exact=Perfect.



They didn't say that, but let's say they did (just for the sake of argument.)  In that case, they are clearly saying the opposite in the preface.  One passage I quoted above had them citing the Septuagint and the many places it differed from the originals and how that was fine and dandy with the Apostles.  You've got the translators saying one thing in the letter and another thing in the preface.  You even admit as much back in post #73:



crbrumbelow said:


> ... The translators letter to King James States something completely different ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> It's just not exact or perfect....and neither is any other translation.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You're the first person I've ever seen who separated the two completely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The two are separate.

It is a direct quote.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The two are separate.
> 
> It is a direct quote.



No, you selected a section from the letter and decided it said what you wanted it to say.  Then you ignore the sections from the preface that say the opposite, even after you admit that they do make opposite claims.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> So do you preach against it? and how do you handle it when it manifests itself in your church?



Yes and when it manifests itself, we practice Matt 18.

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, you selected a section from the letter and decided it said what you wanted it to say.  Then you ignore the sections from the preface that say the opposite, even after you admit that they do make opposite claims.



From the preface.  "The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with them? "

The KJB is an exact translation so full and so perfect.  

Translation was necessary.
"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11] "

Translation perfected.
"Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."

No other version has used any new found documents to make a more complete bible.  All other versions are updates to the KJB with omissions and additions seeking to sanctify a specific doctrine in which those versions were developed.

Again the 1611 KJB is pure in form.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 
Rev 22:20  He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 
Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> Rev 22:20  He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
> Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.



So...if Genesis to Revelation is the Bible and anything added or taken away from it is anathema,

Which KJV is correct concerning the deuterocanonical books.  They're in one and then not in the other.  Which is perfect?

And, I've read all the above, and you still haven't answered the question?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> Rev 22:20  He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
> Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.




What exactly does Revelation 22:18 mean to you?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> From the preface.  "The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with



Also from the preface (in the section where the translators explained why they put alterative readings in the margins):

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken ..."

"...  Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."  

Couple of questions for you:

1) If the KJV was perfect, why put alterative readings in the margins?

2) Do you agree with St. Augustine and the KJV translators "that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The KJB is an exact translation so full and so perfect.



If that's true, why did the translators write this:


_... that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God._

(In this context, "meanest" refers to something of "inferior quality".)

Do you agree with the translators?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So...if Genesis to Revelation is the Bible and anything added or taken away from it is anathema,
> 
> Which KJV is correct concerning the deuterocanonical books.  They're in one and then not in the other.  Which is perfect?
> 
> And, I've read all the above, and you still haven't answered the question?



# Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
# None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
# The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
# The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
# The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
# The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 
# It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
# No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
# Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East. 

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> If that's true, why did the translators write this:
> 
> 
> _... that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God._
> ...





I do agree with them saying that all other english versions before the KJB were inferior.  That is what they were saying


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> What exactly does Revelation 22:18 mean to you?



It means that all those that lead with false doctrine by adding to the book to make it scripture, either by teaching or writing, will have the 7 plagues afflicted upon them at some point.  Maybe at judgment.  I dont know.  Havent really studied it out.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> I do agree with them saying that all other english versions before the KJB were inferior.  That is what they were saying



That's clearly not what they're saying.  They state unambiguously that other versions are "the word of God".  It's there in black and white.

Also, they state unambiguously that the KJV is merely an improvement over it's "good" predecessor.

_Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk: but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark._

If you disagree with that, I don't know what to say.  As Ronnie mentioned earlier, there's just no reasoning with a KJVO person.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 30, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material.



okay...let me type this a little slower.

I don't believe that the deuterocanonical books are inspired.  I don't believe the deuterocanonical books are inspired.

The issue is that the KJV 1611 included it.  Then later, took it out.  You don't sandwich an appendix in the middle of the book.  If it is just added for an appendix or for historical value, it goes at the end.  

So since it isn't inspired scripture, does that make the 1611 imperfect?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> okay...let me type this a little slower.
> 
> *I don't believe that the deuterocanonical books are inspired.  I don't believe the deuterocanonical books are inspired.*
> The issue is that the KJV 1611 included it.  Then later, took it out.  You don't sandwich an appendix in the middle of the book.  If it is just added for an appendix or for historical value, it goes at the end.
> ...


was it weird that I read this like a person talking in slow motion?!?!?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Mar 30, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> okay...let me type this a little slower.
> 
> I don't believe that the deuterocanonical books are inspired.  I don't believe the deuterocanonical books are inspired.
> 
> ...




s l o w l y   .   .   .   .   .   . o n e  m o r e   t i m e....


"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles".

No it does not make either imperfect.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

What most people fail to consider is that God did not write the "original scripts" other than the Ten Commandments.  Assuming that every piece of accepted scripture was divinely inspired by God, this means that God placed the thought or message into the mind of the prophet or author.  Assuming that the message was clearly understood by the author, the challenge begins when the author must attempt to reduce this thought to the few symbols that comprise the authors known human language.  

Think of a realistic dream that you have had recently and attempt to relay every facet of that dream in written communication.  It's impossible to transfer every aspect of the dream into language.  It's also unrealistic to expect that the limited amount of information that you were able to describe would be interpreted by the reader exactly as you intended it to be.  Jesus had trouble relaying certain "Godly" concepts to his disciples and had to repeatedly address the same subjects, and He was talking to them daily face-to-face.  

The major challenges of communication occur when a man must try to determine the most effective way to relay a thought through limited language, and the recipient must overcome language and cultural differences to try to determine what the sender actually meant to relay.  Different members of a church congregation hear different messages from the exact same sermon.

The point is that no matter how completely the prophet understood the message from God, the problems begin before he even puts pen to paper, when he must try to reduce the thought to words.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> What most people fail to consider is that God did not write the "original scripts" other than the Ten Commandments.  Assuming that every piece of accepted scripture was divinely inspired by God, this means that God placed the thought or message into the mind of the prophet or author.  Assuming that the message was clearly understood by the author, the challenge begins when the author must attempt to reduce this thought to the few symbols that comprise the authors known human language.
> 
> Think of a realistic dream that you have had recently and attempt to relay every facet of that dream in written communication.  It's impossible to transfer every aspect of the dream into language.  It's also unrealistic to expect that the limited amount of information that you were able to describe would be interpreted by the reader exactly as you intended it to be.  Jesus had trouble relaying certain "Godly" concepts to his disciples and had to repeatedly address the same subjects, and He was talking to them daily face-to-face.
> 
> ...



Your detailed explanation points to another biblical problem.  That problem lies within us modern, idealistic human beings (all of us) who are no longer able to conjure up enough faith to believe in the entirity of God's inspired word.
We say:  God does not have the power to use mankind to give us accurate written guidance, so we who live today will figure out what's of God and what is not.
And how will we do this?  By using our human brains with its worldly point of view.

If I cannot trust that God can provide His Word to me accurately, I'm certainly NOT going to trust a mere human who lives over 2000 years later.

You have God's Word.  You either believe it and accept it, or you make it what you want it to be.  It's that simple.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> If I cannot trust that God can provide His Word to me accurately, I'm certainly NOT going to trust a mere human who lives over 2000 years later.
> 
> You have God's Word.  You either believe it and accept it, or you make it what you want it to be.  It's that simple.



Do we have God's Word?
Or do we have man's meager attempt at relaying in human language a concept that God placed into a man's mind?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do we have God's Word?
> Or do we have man's meager attempt at relaying in human language a concept that God placed into a man's mind?





*We have God's Word.*


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do we have God's Word?
> Or do we have man's meager attempt at relaying in human language a concept that God placed into a man's mind?



My belief is that we have God's word.....yours obviously is not.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 31, 2011)

Yep, God's word. There is a huge, unfathomable difference in (1) men communicating to men and (2) God communicating through men , to men. Not even apples and oranges or inorganic and organic. When God is in the process, you can park human wisdom at the curb.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do we have God's Word?
> Or do we have man's *meager attempt *at relaying in human language a concept that God placed into a man's mind?



Just exactly what is it that you are *meagerly attempting *to do or say?  And from whom did you get the idea that you need to 'flesh out' the human from the devine?
I believe you are much safer to keep your mind and intellect in check rather than expounding Hawgjawl's new and improved way.
Until you can do that, you're faith is in yourself, not God.

Your claim is that God could not control His inspiration upon the apostles, but you can separate the world from the spirit, in your mind, as you search the Bible!
Doesn't something seem wrong with that thinging?

.


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 31, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Just exactly what is it that you are *meagerly attempting *to do or say?  And from whom did you get the idea that you need to 'flesh out' the human from the devine?
> I believe you are much safer to keep your mind and intellect in check rather than expounding Hawgjawl's new and improved way.
> Until you can do that, you're faith is in yourself, not God.
> 
> ...



Here, Here, praise God, you spit out a mouthful that time and I didn't even notice you chocking.


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 31, 2011)

Lately I have found it so easy to have faith in God. 

We should be so thankful for having his word.

I feel sorry for the nahsayers of the world today.

Thank you God for being my father and for
providing me with your word.


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do we have God's Word?
> Or do we have man's meager attempt at relaying in human language a concept that God placed into a man's mind?



My friend; 
I have God's word
I do wish you could
find it. I will pray 
for it to happen.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

I hear a lot of folks proclaiming that with God involved in the process, there is no possibility for error.

Look back over the first two pages of this thread and apply that same belief to the topic being debated regarding the "good" and "bad" translations.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I hear a lot of folks proclaiming that with God involved in the process, there is no possibility for error.
> 
> Look back over the first two pages of this thread and apply that same belief to the topic being debated regarding the "good" and "bad" translations.



When I looked over the first two pages I saw a lot of YOU.  You and your doubt of the authenticity of God's word.
The things that you challenge are things that I am comfortable with.

Why should I allow your human reasoning affect my life?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> When I looked over the first two pages I saw a lot of YOU.  You and your doubt of the authenticity of God's word.
> The things that you challenge are things that I am comfortable with.
> 
> Why should I allow your human reasoning affect my life?



My last post wasn't asking you to use MY reasoning.  I was asking you to use the reasons that you and others provided that made you confident that no errors were possible in the original scripts.  Based upon your own professed belief that the Holy Spirit controlled the original writing in order to protect the integrity of God's word, would the Holy Spirit not continue to protect the integrity of God's word in later translations?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> My last post wasn't asking you to use MY reasoning.  I was asking you to use the reasons that you and others provided that made you confident that no errors were possible in the original scripts.  Based upon your own professed belief that the Holy Spirit controlled the original writing in order to protect the integrity of God's word, would the Holy Spirit not continue to protect the integrity of God's word in later translations?



The integrity is there, most people are just rooting for their favorite translation. You,me, or anyone else on the face of this earth picks up a Bible in the particular language one speaks, and reads that Bible, will know the most important thing in life, a relationship with Jesus Christ, and what the results of that relationship are.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The integrity is there, most people are just rooting for their favorite translation. You,me, or anyone else on the face of this earth picks up a Bible in the particular language one speaks, and reads that Bible, will know the most important thing in life, a relationship with Jesus Christ, and what the results of that relationship are.



I understand what you're saying.  But, there is close to a hundred posts arguing over which translation is correct or perfect and which one is not.  Some of the debate became rather heated when certain translations were attacked as being less than perfect or accurate.  Hence my question, does not the same governing protection apply to translations as applied to the original writing?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand what you're saying.  But, there is close to a hundred posts arguing over which translation is correct or perfect and which one is not.  Some of the debate became rather heated when certain translations were attacked as being less than perfect or accurate.  Hence my question, does not the same governing protection apply to translations as applied to the original writing?



I would say the Holy spirit protects both IMO. People arguing about which one is better is like arguing the hashbrowns at Waffle house are better than Huddle house. To me, the Bible teaches the same essential messages throughout, no matter the translation, but thats not going to stop mere humans from arguing the topic! Not saying a little debate is not healthy for spiritual growth, by all means it is, but when the heat gets turned up to much, its high time to end the debate.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I would say the Holy spirit protects both IMO. People arguing about which one is better is like arguing the hashbrowns at Waffle house are better than Huddle house. To me, the Bible teaches the same essential messages throughout, no matter the translation, but thats not going to stop mere humans from arguing the topic! Not saying a little debate is not healthy for spiritual growth, by all means it is, but when the heat gets turned up to much, its high time to end the debate.



I agree with you in regard to people expressing their preference in Bibles.  What I'm refering to is when someone says that a particular translation is not valid, is inacurrate, is imperfect, etc.  That's not like saying you prefer the hashbrowns at Waffle House over Huddle House.  That's like saying that the only true hashbrowns are at Waffle House and the ones at Huddle House contain no potatoes.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> That's like saying that the only true hashbrowns are at Waffle House and the ones at Huddle House contain no potatoes.



That's the  KJV-only position in a nutshell.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 31, 2011)

I see it as being inconsistent and contradictory to state that a control exists that ensures that all hashbrowns contain the exact ingredients that hashbrowns are supposed to contain, and this control works perfectly, and then turn around and state that some hashbrowns are completely substandard.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> My last post wasn't asking you to use MY reasoning.  I was asking you to use the reasons that you and others provided that made you confident that no errors were possible in the original scripts.  Based upon your own professed belief that the Holy Spirit controlled the original writing in order to protect the integrity of God's word, would the Holy Spirit not continue to protect the integrity of God's word in later translations?



I believe the person seeking God's truth will have it given to them.
I also believe the person seeking their own truth, and not that of God, will have the opportunity to do that also. 

God's truth will always be there for those who seek it.
The disagreement concerning which Bible is the only Bible isn't about the Bible at all.  It's about how filled with pride mankind can become.

The Bible will always be fodder for people, not unlike yourself, who would rather use it to sow discourse rather than glorify God.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I see it as being inconsistent and contradictory to state that a control exists that ensures that all hashbrowns contain the exact ingredients that hashbrowns are supposed to contain, and this control works perfectly, and then turn around and state that some hashbrowns are completely substandard.



I see it as......................


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 31, 2011)

Im hungry..... WH anyone??


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 31, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The Bible will always be fodder for people, not unlike yourself, who would rather use it to sow discourse rather than glorify God.


 
An "in a nutshell" post as well. 



stringmusic said:


> Im hungry..... WH anyone??


Sorry, I'm on a diet so I can be allowed into the church of...  ah, nevermind!


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Im hungry..... WH anyone??



I got my picture stapled on the bulletin board in the foyer.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 4, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I see it as......................



"He who views stirring a pot as a bad thing, must become accustom to eating burned food."
HawgJawl


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "He who views stirring a pot as a bad thing, must become accustom to eating burned food."
> HawgJawl


I like that one, is that yours?


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I like that one, is that yours?



"Uhh... I think I invented it"
Rocky Balboa


----------

