|
Post by Hisshooter on Nov 7, 2004 17:35:03 GMT -5
Our church divided into many small groups and went through the video based 40 Days of Purpose study that is based on the book by Rick Warren(The Purpose Driven Life). What a blessing to hear all the testimonies of the ones that participated. I joined one of the small groups,and my life will never be the same! This series is for everyone from the mature to the baby to the unsaved. I recommend this series to anyone who felt like I did when I attended our first small group meeting. I have been a Christian for a long time but I felt unsatisfied and with no clear direction in my life. I now know my purpose for my life on earth! It sure is great to have a clear direction to follow as a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ! Cal,
|
|
|
Post by Rifleman on Nov 7, 2004 19:26:38 GMT -5
My wife just got the book, I started to read some of it, but the author chooses to use other sources then the Bible for his quotes and attributes them as Bible,such a shame since much of the information seems to be very good.
|
|
|
Post by MasterHunter on Nov 8, 2004 15:50:37 GMT -5
I just got this book also. I'm anxious to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Hisshooter on Nov 8, 2004 20:21:37 GMT -5
Rifleman, I don't understand what you ment about the author useing other sources besides the Bible. Would you please explain your meaning? Cal,
|
|
|
Post by Rifleman on Nov 9, 2004 2:24:06 GMT -5
Hisshooter, I will be glad to ;D
I was referring in a not so subtle way that there is only one Bible for English speaking men, and the other so called translations are false and not Gods Holy Word.
I can make 5 quick points that will not necessarily convince anyone, but will at least make my position clear.
1. The authorized KIng James version is the only version that is not copywrited. No big deal? Big deal for sure. All the other versions are copywrited, therefore bound, therefore not Gods Word.
2Ti 2:9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
2. Some call these different translations. A weak argument at best. If I say to you in German the word "ein" and I tell you in English this means one. I translated it. It is true, therefore a translation. If I tell you it means three, I lied or was simply incorrect, regardless not true, a false translation thereby no translation at all.
3. Some say these false translations are easier to read. Not so, linguists and english experts have studied these different "translations" and have proven that not only is the King James the easiest to read in grade level of difficulty, but is also the most succint, accurate, and is progressive from Genisis to Revelation. By progressive I mean that in Genesis it starts at about the 3rd grade level and by Revelation is about the 8th grade level. It also teaches you how to understand it,basically. It also comes with it's own built in dictionary for those who know how to see it.
4. They all come from the same place. Not so, the KJV is the only one that can trace its roots all the way back to the original manuscripts. This is a hotly debated topic among scholars and one that won't be settled here, but it is settled in my mind and if you study this, you will find they have different roots,manuscripturaly speaking.
5. Denial of the virgin birth. This is a critical doctrine. Sin is passed on thru the father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he had sin. If he had sin, he was not God. He claimed to be God. If he was not, he was a liar. If He was not God or had sin, either way, then He was not a sinless sacrifice. If He was not a sinless sacrifice, then there is no salvation. That would make all of christiianity the biggest lie ever told. Study John 3:16. Compare the KJV and the NIV for instance. The word begotten in the KJV refers to the fact that Christ was virgin born. The NIV deletes this word, which is a denial of the virgin birth. Now if this was the only place a person could say this was simply am oversight, but it is not the only place the NIV does this. Also if it was an oversight, then it would be an error. Gods Word has no errors, but the NIV does.
God made this an issue with me many years ago, and while I am not the most learned or educated man, God gave me this conviction and it has helped me greatly. I do believe that every person needs to study this subject for themself and let God lead them to the convictions that are true. As God is the only one that can settle this argument in the heart and mind of the believer. I cannot. I have tried and learned from experience. I just simply am putting forth my conviction since you inquired. Thanks for the opportunity to state my position. Respectfully, Rifleman
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Nov 9, 2004 20:01:16 GMT -5
Here we go, the "KJV only" stuff... First off, the "Authorized version" IS copyrighted! The copyright is owned by Oxford. The copyright is not enforced. Now, I will agree that the NIV is horrible. In fact, I'll agree that MOST modern translations are horrible. However, (and though you did not state this specifically, Rifleman, I'll bet that it's safe to assume that you may think so...) I will NOT agree that the KJV is "perfect". This is the overwhelming driving force pushing the "KJV only" group. It is DEMONSTRABLY imperfect. Many times over. Most of the imperfections are minor, to say the least. There are two major ones of which I am aware, and they are the idea of "Lucifer" (who doesn't exist) and the fraudulent passage found in 1 John 5; 7-8 (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). First, "Lucifer" (as found in Isaiah 14;12) is a Purely Latin word, and that alone should show why it should not exist in a proper translation from Hebrew. This is a Catholic tradition which was carried through into Anglicanism. Instead of simply translating the word as "light-bearer" or "shining one", the traditional Catholic word "Lucifer" was used, as if it were a proper name (there is a Catholic doctrine surrounding this passage, which goes back to the 4th century, perhaps earlier). Why would the Lord be talking of the King of Babylon for a good length of time, then suddenly, out of the blue, be talking about Satan, and then, just as suddenly, be talking about the King of Babylon again? And, to show that most historical Protestant teaching of this passage denies the idea of "Lucifer", Martin Luther translated the passage as "du schoener Morgenstern"..."the beautiful morning star". There is no mention of Satan in any way. And the Luther translation (which edition, by the way?) is supposed to be the "perfect" Word for Germans, just as the KJV is for the English! Also, we must look to the origins of the KJV itself. The sole purpose of the "authorized version" was to provide a government counter to the Geneva Bible (which was primarly printed in Geneva, hence the name), with its VERY Calvinistic notes. The Anglican Church/Government, being quite Arminian, greatly disliked the Geneva Bible, and also disliked anyone who read it. For a time, it was legally produced in England, but with later editions, the notes became more numerous, and more strongly Calvinistic, and under King James, this bible was declared unlawful to be produced in England, and he sent buyers throughout Europe to snap up every copy they could get their hands on, just to keep them from being distributed to believers. Anyone caught in England printing them was to be put to death. Remember those Pilgrims we all know and love who were escaping persecution in England? They were escaping King James! They would not have been caught dead with an "authorized" Bible. Now, back to "Lucifer"...The Geneva Bible does use the word "Lucifer", though with a specific purpose...to "unteach" this traditional belief! The very integral notes explain how this means "shining one" and simply refers to the King of Babylon! The second thing I would like to point out goes to your statement of the translation "tracing its roots back to the original manuscripts". The KJV, the Geneva Bible, and the Luther bible are all translations (in the New Testament, anyway) from the Greek text compiled by Desideratus Erasmus. Erasmus took all the texts he had available, from all sources, and compiled them. Many of the KJV only people are big fans of what are called "the Majority texts", as am I. The text by Erasmus is MOSTLY composed of Majority texts, HOWEVER, there are some odd ducks thrown in as well, which brings us to the passage of "...in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth". When Erasmus, who was a good Catholic (well, actually, not so good), was compiling the texts, he came to this passage, which is in the Latin Vulgate, but not in ANY Greek text he could find. He brought this up to his superiors and a text was "supplied" to him that had this passage. As I understand it, there are only two individual Greek texts that have this passage, and they both are from the 13th or 14th century!!! Luther was leery of the passage, but put it into his translation anyway. In his next edition, he was convinced it was fraudulent, and took it out. Later publishers routinely put it back in, however. (There was no copyright law in most of Germany.) Many will say that by removing this passage you are "taking God out of the Bible" and "you are weakening the doctrine of the Trinity" (oh, how I have heard this ad nauseum). All I can say is that if you think the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on this single passage, then it's not much of a doctrine at all. God's triune being is fairly well represented throughout the Bible, it does not need this passage by any means. Besides, why rely on a lie? This passage DOES NOT appear in any of the "Majority texts" which are considered "perfect" (even by me!), hence the obvious contradiction in the "KJV only" position. This is why any claims of perfection have no legs to stand on. Unfortunately, No bible is readily available that is translated from the Majority Texts. The "modern" translations are based on what is often called the "critical text", or "Alexandrian" text, and, while made up of earlier individual texts, they are, more and more, being called into question, and the "critical text" has been revised several times and is coming more into line with the "Majority" or "Byzantine" texts. Now, what Bible do I use, you may ask? Well, for "normal" reading, I use the KJV. Even with it's demonstrated faults, it STILL is a generally GOOD translation, by all accounts, with no modern editorial nonsense. As the Rifleman said, it is clear, and easy to understand (ASSUMING you grew up reading it, and are familiar with 16th century English!). When I come to something that needs further study, or is unclear, I get out my Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (which is not copyrighted, by the way!!!), which is based on the same texts, and translated word-for-word as best as possible. Singular words are singular, and plural words are plural, "man" is "man", "person" is "person" etc. The King James (and ALL other bible translations) very often change the tenses of the verbs and change singular words to plural and vice-versa, which can, on occasion, cause some theological problems. The "three days and three nights in the tomb" dilemma is easily solved when the text is read with all the words in their proper original tense! There is the idea among the "KJV-only" people that it is perfect because "God will preserve His Word"...well, He will, and it IS preserved perfectly in some of the Greek texts that still exist. Bear in mind ALL translations are, to a great extent, judgement calls (try to translate the German word "Gemuetlichkeit"!). Even the vaunted KJV translators did not claim infallibility, and, in fact, they went so far as to say that other translations, though imperfect as theirs was, not only "carried" the Word of God, but "were" the Word of God! (read the original edition translator's notes). I will agree with almost all of the charges leveled by the KJV only folks at the NIV, it's translators, Westcott and Hort, etc., but I will not go to the reactionary extreme of saying that the KJV is THE ONLY Bible for the "English speaking people", or that it is "perfect". It's actually pretty easy to see that this is not the case. While it is "good", and contains all the information you need for salvation and a proper, Godly life, and nothing can be found in it that contradicts this; and it may even be called "the best" for the English speaking people, it is not perfect. God gives us wisdom to study things and research statements presented to us. He knows we are fallible and He uses us anyway to transmit the knowledge of His Perfection, even through fallible men and fallible means. I find the idea of "translator infallibility" to be as distasteful as "papal infallibility". Remember, the original writers claimed inspiration and infallibility, but the translators never made such a claim! I may have gone overboard here, and if so, I apologize. When I find an opportunity to write, I take advantage of it, especially when it is on a subject that I am passionate about. It's just that there were some positions presented that I think required some counter and explanation. Not so much as to "convince" anyone of anything, but perhaps to provide information to those who have no knowledge of the subject. All of my above statements are easily researched, I'm just hoping to get folks thinking and pointed in the right direction. This subject can cause some REALLY heated debates (or should I instead say "shouting matches") and I do not wish to start one here, though I may have unintentionally opened Pandora's box here, without the ability to close it. I just ask for folks to study the origins of the bible that you read, whatever it is, and find out about the texts that are used or not used, and find out what agendas the translators may or may not have had, and ask God for direction by all means. And if I can give one single piece of advice: no matter what Bible you decide to read, take all the words that are printed in italics and IGNORE THEM! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Nov 9, 2004 20:08:19 GMT -5
Sorry, I know that was long, and it could have been several paragraphs longer!!! The "machine" told me that my post was over 10,000 characters and I had to shorten it!
|
|
|
Post by Hisshooter on Nov 9, 2004 20:57:07 GMT -5
Hey Guys, Is it safe to say that if you were saved while certain (versions/translations) of the Bible were used, then you weren't really saved? Isn't it true that only God's Word (Jesus) is infallable? When fallable men translate things there is the possibility for error. If God Uses fallable men and women to share His Good News then why can't He use fallable versions/translations of His (written word) to do the same? Just a thought! Cal,
|
|
|
Post by Rifleman on Nov 9, 2004 21:35:58 GMT -5
Fatdutchman, Thanks for taking the time to reply, I too am aware of many of the arguments you pose. I patently disagree on numerous points you make. Including the one on the KJV being copywrited, funny I cannot find a copywright in mine, but I am sure you have an argument for this as well. Now that you have explained to folks how there is no trustworthy Bible for them to use, I guess they can just go back to not trusting a God who is either incapable of providing a perfect Bible or is that uncaring. What I really disagreed upon the most was your post was that you automatically assume that your research itself is infallible. Well you must have read alot of books. So have I. The books I have read counter your points. Obviously you are a more educated man then I, that is good, and I would have to put forth a great deal of effort to site sources and to argue your post point by point, so I will not as there is no doubt that we will never agree on this subject. Well that is ok by me. But I cannot say Godspeed to you. I said my piece and still maintain every individual must come up with their own conviciton. I have mine, you have yours. You all can debate this more if you want, I am done.
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Nov 10, 2004 18:28:36 GMT -5
Actually, I was hoping to get back to this before anyone responded, so that I could simply remove it. After writing it, I knew that there would be some anger over it. Rifleman, you seem to think that my post was written in anger or a sense of "smart-alec"-ness. This is not the case.
Also, perhaps, I was "projecting" a bit here. I have a good friend who is really into the idea in question, and that was what brought me to my "quest for knowledge" if you will, a few years ago. If I appeared to be haughty, I apologize, again, this was definitely not my intent. Also, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to try to debate the subject, as it is totally pointless. I have already been through that enough. I never had that desire, but only wished to present some information for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.
All I ask is for those interested to research everything for themselves, and, once again, to ask for Divine guidance.
By no means do I consider my research to be infallible...do any of you so consider yours?
"God will perfectly preserve His Word". Indeed, but through most of the last 2000 years it was hidden, muted, and perverted. The Greek (and Hebrew) texts that are perfect, were squirreled away. A corrupted Gospel was taken and translated into a language that the people couldn't understand, and so it stood for a thousand years, even more.
I shall not post any more about the subject, and I wish that I did not respond to Rifleman's statements to begin with. I knew the reaction it would get. As I said, I have dealt with this situation before. It only seems to rouse strife and anger.
Der Herr Jesus Christus sey mit deinem Geist! Gnade sey mit euch! Amen 2 Thimotheus 4:22
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Nov 10, 2004 19:58:02 GMT -5
I will respond to Hisshooter's question/comment, however. Saving Faith is a gift from God, first of all. It can come whether or not a person has ever even read a Bible at all!!! Remember, for the first few centuries, the individual did not have direct access to any part of God's word! They were saved through preaching and teaching! What few copies of the Gospel existed, were in the care of pastors and deacons. When one wished to learn of God, they went to them. Very often, the church only had a copy of one or two gospels, perhaps the old testament. It took quite some time to collect the "canon" as we know it. After the canon was collected, the Roman government took over Christianity. The Word began to be suppressed, and true Christians had to take bits of the Word wherever they could get it. Some precious few Latin-speaking clergy would take a corrupted Gospel (which was all they had) and preach truth from it. People became Christians because of it. Not many, but a few. They had no perfect translation of the Gospel, and yet, their faith was certainly real. Their salvation IS real. During the late Middle ages, there were those who began translating the Bible into various languages that people actually spoke (primarily German and Old or Middle English) from the Latin Vulgate Bible. A translation of a translation of a corrupted Gospel. And still, there are those who were saved through it. Many more than before. Remember, even Christ Himself found it sufficient to quote from the Septuagint (which is the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, which was the common language of the Middle East 2000 years ago), which NO scholar or translator of any time period considers to be an absolutely perfect translation! Then, of course, was the Reformation, which, I think, would be better termed a "rediscovery" of true Christianity, which had, for the most part, been absent for so long. Jan Hus was burned at the stake in 1415 for preaching the Gospel...from a Latin Bible. Martin Luther became a Christian from reading the Vulgate, as did Menno Simonsz., Huldreich Zwingli, John Wycliffe, Savonarola, Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Huebmayer, etc., all great men of God who learned of God through an imperfect Gospel. They all knew that God was more than sufficiently powerful enough to make His truth known, no matter what men may do. The Bibles many of these men helped to later translate were not claimed to be absolutely perfect. In fact, many of them openly wrote of their own infallibility in their translations. Luther revised his own work several times and it was never intended to be an absolute, exact (read "perfect") word-for-word translation from Hebrew and Greek, and it isn't. The Oxford translators made similar statements, and always described their efforts as the best that they could do. ONLY the original transcrbers of the Word of God claimed to be inspired and infallible, no one else has made any such claims, therefore, we should not expect it from them. Man's fallibility and making mistakes, no matter how diligent they may be is a problem, to be sure, but one that can be understood, even overlooked. There are, however, those who strive to purposely distort the Gospel, sometimes a little, other times a great deal. There are changes made to the Gospel. Not mistakes, but purposeful changes. Done in a misguided attempt to make the Gospel more palatable to certain groups of people. This has been happening a lot in the past 100 years, and has risen to unprecedented levels in recent times. Words are changed, meanings are changed, and little editorial comments are added to confound the word. Can the Word of God be found in these corruptions? Usually, but it takes great discernment to find it out. Those who are not as advanced in their spiritual walk (and even many who are) can be easily misled by some of these corruptions. If someone tells me they were saved from reading the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, I would believe them, though I would encourage them to find out a bit more about their bible of choice and perhaps recommend another! Even my "vehement KJV" friend, previously mentioned, claims to have been saved when reading the NIV, and doesn't doubt that it "contains" God's Word! It is GOD who saves, it is not for man to save himself, therefore, if God seeks to work salvation in a man's heart, nothing on Earth, not bad preaching, not corrupted Gospels, not anything can stand in the way! ;D
|
|