I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
Bible Historicity
- Thread starter Dad of 3
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(Dad of 3;63989)
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
Hi "Dad of 3",What you're asking for is not going to come in a few days or even maybe a few years. I've been at it for 25 years and I'm still learning.Which is why the Apostle Paul wrote:Ephesians 6:12-13 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."----What is "the armour of God"? Well that is the WORD of God. We need to KNOW the scriptures!1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."---------------Now with that said, debating the Mormons is not easy, therefore, you DO need to know and understand more than them. There are two books that may be able to help you...Mormons Answered Verse by Verseby John R. Farkas, David A. ReedAnswering Mormons' Questionsby Bill McKeeverThe best way to debate the Mormons is not to challenge them head on. They have their "playbooks" ready to go and are ready for just about anything.But ask pertinent questions. Get them to question what they themselves believe.Not everything the Mormons believe is wrong. The trick is to know and understand which is right and which is wrong. Agree with them when you see something right, but question the things they have wrong.And remember, you cannot pursuade anyone who doesn't want to be persuaded. And you cannot open a closed mind. If one believes strongly in their doctrine, not even a nuclear bomb can change their mind. Your objective is not to change them or their minds or to convert them, but to get them to question their own reasoning and belief.The Bible IS the WORD (logos) of God. The King James version, I believe, is the best because many men died, including William Tyndale, in order to translate this bible into English so the whole of the western world could read and understand the Word of God. So they have respect for this Bible, so use the KJV in your discussions.Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"--------In other words, by our Lord, Jesus Christ, do we hear the Word of God today.And where do we find that? In the Bible.The Gospel of John, chapter 1, "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God...........and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us".There were actually 70 books in the original Canon. Of course, 70 makes sense, it's a sacred biblical number. 7x10 is number of "completion" in numerology.Ask them why they trust what MEN have written over what GOD has written?I hope that helps....Kim
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
Hi "Dad of 3",What you're asking for is not going to come in a few days or even maybe a few years. I've been at it for 25 years and I'm still learning.Which is why the Apostle Paul wrote:Ephesians 6:12-13 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."----What is "the armour of God"? Well that is the WORD of God. We need to KNOW the scriptures!1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."---------------Now with that said, debating the Mormons is not easy, therefore, you DO need to know and understand more than them. There are two books that may be able to help you...Mormons Answered Verse by Verseby John R. Farkas, David A. ReedAnswering Mormons' Questionsby Bill McKeeverThe best way to debate the Mormons is not to challenge them head on. They have their "playbooks" ready to go and are ready for just about anything.But ask pertinent questions. Get them to question what they themselves believe.Not everything the Mormons believe is wrong. The trick is to know and understand which is right and which is wrong. Agree with them when you see something right, but question the things they have wrong.And remember, you cannot pursuade anyone who doesn't want to be persuaded. And you cannot open a closed mind. If one believes strongly in their doctrine, not even a nuclear bomb can change their mind. Your objective is not to change them or their minds or to convert them, but to get them to question their own reasoning and belief.The Bible IS the WORD (logos) of God. The King James version, I believe, is the best because many men died, including William Tyndale, in order to translate this bible into English so the whole of the western world could read and understand the Word of God. So they have respect for this Bible, so use the KJV in your discussions.Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"--------In other words, by our Lord, Jesus Christ, do we hear the Word of God today.And where do we find that? In the Bible.The Gospel of John, chapter 1, "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God...........and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us".There were actually 70 books in the original Canon. Of course, 70 makes sense, it's a sacred biblical number. 7x10 is number of "completion" in numerology.Ask them why they trust what MEN have written over what GOD has written?I hope that helps....Kim
(Dad of 3;63989)
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
excellent post! God bless you and keep you as you share with the Mormons! And God bless your humility as well, with so many people, they have an overly high estimate of themselves and their biblical knowledge. To be humble enough to ask for help is wise, and refreshing to me personally to hear. I had the blessing and honor to be able to get a degree in Biblical Counseling and a Minor in Systematic Theology and another Minor in Apologetics, and I have direct access to over 10,000 Christian books in my own personal library, this is all to say, I know I have barely scratched the surface of studying the Bible!!! It truly will take a lifetime of studying to know the Bible well.A couple of books I would highly recommend is Ron Rhodes book "Reasoning From the Scriptures With Mormons" and Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes book When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations".On the reliability of the Scriptures, its tough to do better than FF Bruce's "THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: Are they Reliable?" And even better, you do not have to buy this one!! Its free in its entirety online athttp://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbr...li/ntdocont.htmOn the question of different versions, another free online book is Leland Ryken's Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences at http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/excer...581347308.1.pdfalso there is Philip Comfort's "The Essential Guide to Bible Versions" at http://books.google.com/books?id=FyB2nD5ZI...um=11&ct=resultthough there are missing pages, you can still learn much from it....Lastly, there are a couple of books on the King James Only controversy that are very helpful in understanding the whole issue of manuscript authority, and which manuscript families are used, and why, in the various translations of the Bible. These are The King James Only Controversy by James White (see his excellent website on help with the Mormon issue as well at http://vintage.aomin.org/Mormonism.html ) and D. A. Carson's “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism”. PS, I personally really enjoy the ESV version... check it out at http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ you can do searches from there... or download a freeware bible program that uses the ESV, the KJV and a few other un-copyrighted versions... I love this program, very well done!! http://www.sdsoftware.org/default.asp?id=7791If I can be be of any help to you, I would be glad to, if I am able....blessings,Ken
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
excellent post! God bless you and keep you as you share with the Mormons! And God bless your humility as well, with so many people, they have an overly high estimate of themselves and their biblical knowledge. To be humble enough to ask for help is wise, and refreshing to me personally to hear. I had the blessing and honor to be able to get a degree in Biblical Counseling and a Minor in Systematic Theology and another Minor in Apologetics, and I have direct access to over 10,000 Christian books in my own personal library, this is all to say, I know I have barely scratched the surface of studying the Bible!!! It truly will take a lifetime of studying to know the Bible well.A couple of books I would highly recommend is Ron Rhodes book "Reasoning From the Scriptures With Mormons" and Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes book When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations".On the reliability of the Scriptures, its tough to do better than FF Bruce's "THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: Are they Reliable?" And even better, you do not have to buy this one!! Its free in its entirety online athttp://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbr...li/ntdocont.htmOn the question of different versions, another free online book is Leland Ryken's Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences at http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/excer...581347308.1.pdfalso there is Philip Comfort's "The Essential Guide to Bible Versions" at http://books.google.com/books?id=FyB2nD5ZI...um=11&ct=resultthough there are missing pages, you can still learn much from it....Lastly, there are a couple of books on the King James Only controversy that are very helpful in understanding the whole issue of manuscript authority, and which manuscript families are used, and why, in the various translations of the Bible. These are The King James Only Controversy by James White (see his excellent website on help with the Mormon issue as well at http://vintage.aomin.org/Mormonism.html ) and D. A. Carson's “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism”. PS, I personally really enjoy the ESV version... check it out at http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ you can do searches from there... or download a freeware bible program that uses the ESV, the KJV and a few other un-copyrighted versions... I love this program, very well done!! http://www.sdsoftware.org/default.asp?id=7791If I can be be of any help to you, I would be glad to, if I am able....blessings,Ken
... also, I agree with Kim ... David Reed's book is very good as well... also, if you can get your hands on the book "Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors" by John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, this might help you out as well.blessings,Ken
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(Jordan;64059)
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
Hi Jordan,I am curious about your source for the ESV being, "one of the worse versions of the bible" comment? Just interested.I prefer the KJV myself since my Greek and Hebrew are a little rusty and I like to be able to consult the Strong's at times.
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
Hi Jordan,I am curious about your source for the ESV being, "one of the worse versions of the bible" comment? Just interested.I prefer the KJV myself since my Greek and Hebrew are a little rusty and I like to be able to consult the Strong's at times.
(Dad of 3;63989)
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
You can not go to wrong with a KJV and Strongs concordance because you can take every word back to the original language it allows little room for error as you remove the middle man (interpters who try as they may were often left with no English words to convey thr hebrew or greek thought. You can download E sword which has a strongs with it or use an on line source http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.htmlhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm
I've been debating Mormons online for a while now and am very familiar with them and what they believe. While they use the KJV, they don't put much stock in it, only cherry picking through it to support whatever point they're trying to make. I don't use the Bible much in these debates because they have a back door, their Eight Article of Faith: "We believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." They put Mormon texts far higher above it in terms of reliability. If I were to quote a Bible verse, they'd likely tell me that it was missing something "plain and precious" or simply wasn't translated correctly. Mormons also seem to place great value on the number of works they have at their disposal, but by the same token, the Catholic Church is more right because it uses 72 books instead of the standard 66. Nonsense, I know, but that's the standard they use.That all said, what I've noticed throughout the debate is that I'm more Bible-illiterate than I thought. This embarrasses me a bit because I know how to tear down Mormonism, but not how to build up Biblical Christianity.What I want to know is how do I approach Bible historicity and reliability and the different versions in relation to what is actually the Word of God? If one version says one thing and another states something else, how do I know what is correct? Those are things I have no idea how to address.Any sorry if I put this in the wrong catagory. Move it if need be. Thanks.
You can not go to wrong with a KJV and Strongs concordance because you can take every word back to the original language it allows little room for error as you remove the middle man (interpters who try as they may were often left with no English words to convey thr hebrew or greek thought. You can download E sword which has a strongs with it or use an on line source http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.htmlhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm
(tomwebster;64062)
(Jordan;64059)
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
Hi Jordan,I am curious about your source for the ESV being, "one of the worse versions of the bible" comment? Just interested.I prefer the KJV myself since my Greek and Hebrew are a little rusty and I like to be able to consult the Strong's at times.How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
(Jordan;64059)
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
Hi Jordan,I am curious about your source for the ESV being, "one of the worse versions of the bible" comment? Just interested.I prefer the KJV myself since my Greek and Hebrew are a little rusty and I like to be able to consult the Strong's at times.How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
(Jordan;64059)
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
I see that this is only your opinion, you do not have one single verse of scripture to support your view, so this is merely the interpretations and doctrines of men, so it means nothing.blessings,Ken
I hate to break that up, but ESV is one of the worse versions of "the bible" In fact it takes Christ out of the picture, so yes they do attack Christ. And I could careless if you believe in me or yours... Men doesn't mean much to me.
I see that this is only your opinion, you do not have one single verse of scripture to support your view, so this is merely the interpretations and doctrines of men, so it means nothing.blessings,Ken
(Christina;64070)
Did you bother to click the link??
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
Did you bother to click the link??
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
(Christina;64064)
You can not go to wrong with a KJV and Strongs concordance because you can take every word back to the original language it allows little room for error as you remove the middle man (interpters who try as they may were often left with no English words to convey thr hebrew or greek thought. You can download E sword which has a strongs with it or use an on line source http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.htmlhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm
the esv and nas have Hebrew/Greek concordances so you can take every word back to the original as well....also, "Strongs" is a man's name (Dr. James Strong), he had to make translational decisions when he wrote his dictionary... he did us a great service, but it is a "he" doing the service... in other words, a middleman...also, outside of reading the orignal languages, we all have to go through middle men, people who are fallen sinners just as we are, not infallible, but people who loved God and loved His word and who have done us a great service by providing concordances, dictionaries (Vine's, Thayers) and commentaries.We have middlemen in every translation of the Scripture, in the case of some versions, and make no mistake about it, they are just versions, only 1 person was involved, versions like Eugene Peterson's "The Message", Kenneth Taylor's "Living Bible", JB Philip's translation, Moffats. Goodspeed, etc etc etc... and there are versions of the bible that had entire committees of sinful fallen people who nevertheless did their best to provide us with accurate translations, versions like the King James Version, the New King James Version the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the American Standard Version, the English Standard Version. etc etc. And these committees and people had to also decide which philosophy of translation to follow.... do they want to provide, as much as possible a word for word translation, as the KJV, the ESV, the NASB have done...? or a thought for thought translation like the NIV or the New Living Translation..? or do they want to do a paraphrase, like The Message or The Living Bible...? Again, these are all decision made by middle men..... blessings,Ken
You can not go to wrong with a KJV and Strongs concordance because you can take every word back to the original language it allows little room for error as you remove the middle man (interpters who try as they may were often left with no English words to convey thr hebrew or greek thought. You can download E sword which has a strongs with it or use an on line source http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.htmlhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm
the esv and nas have Hebrew/Greek concordances so you can take every word back to the original as well....also, "Strongs" is a man's name (Dr. James Strong), he had to make translational decisions when he wrote his dictionary... he did us a great service, but it is a "he" doing the service... in other words, a middleman...also, outside of reading the orignal languages, we all have to go through middle men, people who are fallen sinners just as we are, not infallible, but people who loved God and loved His word and who have done us a great service by providing concordances, dictionaries (Vine's, Thayers) and commentaries.We have middlemen in every translation of the Scripture, in the case of some versions, and make no mistake about it, they are just versions, only 1 person was involved, versions like Eugene Peterson's "The Message", Kenneth Taylor's "Living Bible", JB Philip's translation, Moffats. Goodspeed, etc etc etc... and there are versions of the bible that had entire committees of sinful fallen people who nevertheless did their best to provide us with accurate translations, versions like the King James Version, the New King James Version the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the American Standard Version, the English Standard Version. etc etc. And these committees and people had to also decide which philosophy of translation to follow.... do they want to provide, as much as possible a word for word translation, as the KJV, the ESV, the NASB have done...? or a thought for thought translation like the NIV or the New Living Translation..? or do they want to do a paraphrase, like The Message or The Living Bible...? Again, these are all decision made by middle men..... blessings,Ken
(Jordan;64065)
How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
what you need to ask yourself is this: did the KJV ADD those verses to the Bible? You see, to presuppose the King James is THE standard by which all others must be compared just begs the question.blessings,Ken
How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
what you need to ask yourself is this: did the KJV ADD those verses to the Bible? You see, to presuppose the King James is THE standard by which all others must be compared just begs the question.blessings,Ken
(Christina;64070)
Did you bother to click the link??
no I didn't, because at that time I had my browser window open, was responding to a post, got distracted, did not refresh and so did not see the response until now.....be that as it may, he is still just providing man's interpretations, for he did not provide one single verse to support the view that the King James Bible is THE version we must use. Until I see a verse that says specifically and exactly this, I am quite happy to use versions of the bible that make use of the latest in archeological and manuscript discoveries.blessings,Ken
Did you bother to click the link??
no I didn't, because at that time I had my browser window open, was responding to a post, got distracted, did not refresh and so did not see the response until now.....be that as it may, he is still just providing man's interpretations, for he did not provide one single verse to support the view that the King James Bible is THE version we must use. Until I see a verse that says specifically and exactly this, I am quite happy to use versions of the bible that make use of the latest in archeological and manuscript discoveries.blessings,Ken
(Jordan;64071)
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
calm down, I actually have a life outside of this forum, and had to take care of business with my children, get hem ready for bed, pray for them, etc etc etc so it took me a bit, but believe me when I say this, you have not written one single thing that has been all that convincing or profound, rather it mostly your interpretations and doctrines of how much you hate other people's interpretations and doctrines...blessings,Ken
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
calm down, I actually have a life outside of this forum, and had to take care of business with my children, get hem ready for bed, pray for them, etc etc etc so it took me a bit, but believe me when I say this, you have not written one single thing that has been all that convincing or profound, rather it mostly your interpretations and doctrines of how much you hate other people's interpretations and doctrines...blessings,Ken
(epistemaniac;64076)
(Jordan;64065)
How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
what you need to ask yourself is this: did the KJV ADD those verses to the Bible? You see, to presuppose the King James is THE standard by which all others must be compared just begs the question.blessings,KenKJV was made (or published) in the year 1611.ESV is made (or published) in the year 2001.What did God say about removing bible verses? (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19)(epistemaniac;64078)
(Jordan;64071)
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
calm down, I actually have a life outside of this forum, and had to take care of business with my children, get hem ready for bed, pray for them, etc etc etc so it took me a bit, but believe me when I say this, you have not written one single thing that has been all that convincing or profound, rather it mostly your interpretations and doctrines of how much you hate other people's interpretations and doctrines...blessings,KenYou're telling me to calm down, when I'm not even hyper. In fact I'm in a good and smile mood. Sometimes it makes me wonder if you are saying some things just to avoid seeing the Truth.
(Jordan;64065)
How about this?English Standard Version (ESV) removes 16 bible verses, CLICK HERE!Isn't that enough? It came from men, not God.And yes I do prefer the KJV + Strongs. Since you can see which word are translated to.
what you need to ask yourself is this: did the KJV ADD those verses to the Bible? You see, to presuppose the King James is THE standard by which all others must be compared just begs the question.blessings,KenKJV was made (or published) in the year 1611.ESV is made (or published) in the year 2001.What did God say about removing bible verses? (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19)(epistemaniac;64078)
(Jordan;64071)
Obviously not, with the argument that he's been going on. That argument doesn't really prove his arguments. Geez!
calm down, I actually have a life outside of this forum, and had to take care of business with my children, get hem ready for bed, pray for them, etc etc etc so it took me a bit, but believe me when I say this, you have not written one single thing that has been all that convincing or profound, rather it mostly your interpretations and doctrines of how much you hate other people's interpretations and doctrines...blessings,KenYou're telling me to calm down, when I'm not even hyper. In fact I'm in a good and smile mood. Sometimes it makes me wonder if you are saying some things just to avoid seeing the Truth.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
There is a lot of controversy which translation is better, but whether or not it is written, the KJV is a most marvelous translation to last all these years. And although it has its rough spots, was translated with no denominational ax to grind.The issue I have with most other translations is the fact that man "copyrights" these translations and when I have a web site that quotes long passages of scripture, I do not appreciate that I must ask permission from man to quote supposedly God's word. Maybe because it is not God's Word any longer for God would see to it that such blasphemy would not go on in His Name.The KJV is in public domain.And lastly, here's probably one of the most important things I noticed about the KJV translation. It was made in the same time in history as the 3rd overturn of the throne of King David. (Ezekiel 21:27). It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is".Many other translations incorrectly translate the word "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 to "ruin". Ruin implies a termination, whereas overturn (Or "overthrow" in the Strong's concordance) are synonyms that basically mean a change in order. God clearly promised an eternal lineage and operation of this earthly throne, not a ruin.BTW, I measured my blood pressure yesterday and it was 121/75 (Not bad for a 49-year-old) (Insider knowledge.)
(tim_from_pa;64087)
There is a lot of controversy which translation is better, but whether or not it is written, the KJV is a most marvelous translation to last all these years. And although it has its rough spots, was translated with no denominational ax to grind.The issue I have with most other translations is the fact that man "copyrights" these translations and when I have a web site that quotes long passages of scripture, I do not appreciate that I must ask permission from man to quote supposedly God's word. Maybe because it is not God's Word any longer for God would see to it that such blasphemy would not go on in His Name.The KJV is in public domain.And lastly, here's probably one of the most important things I noticed about the KJV translation. It was made in the same time in history as the 3rd overturn of the throne of King David. (Ezekiel 21:27). It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is".Many other translations incorrectly translate the word "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 to "ruin". Ruin implies a termination, whereas overturn (Or "overthrow" in the Strong's concordance) are synonyms that basically mean a change in order. God clearly promised an eternal lineage and operation of this earthly throne, not a ruin.BTW, I measured my blood pressure yesterday and it was 121/75 (Not bad for a 49-year-old) (Insider knowledge.)
I 100% agree with you. In fact, you could look to see if a bible like ESV for example has copyrights on it, by using www.biblegateway.com
There is a lot of controversy which translation is better, but whether or not it is written, the KJV is a most marvelous translation to last all these years. And although it has its rough spots, was translated with no denominational ax to grind.The issue I have with most other translations is the fact that man "copyrights" these translations and when I have a web site that quotes long passages of scripture, I do not appreciate that I must ask permission from man to quote supposedly God's word. Maybe because it is not God's Word any longer for God would see to it that such blasphemy would not go on in His Name.The KJV is in public domain.And lastly, here's probably one of the most important things I noticed about the KJV translation. It was made in the same time in history as the 3rd overturn of the throne of King David. (Ezekiel 21:27). It's as if this translation was meant to be eternal in the English-Speaking world until "He's whose right it is".Many other translations incorrectly translate the word "overturn" in Ezekiel 21:27 to "ruin". Ruin implies a termination, whereas overturn (Or "overthrow" in the Strong's concordance) are synonyms that basically mean a change in order. God clearly promised an eternal lineage and operation of this earthly throne, not a ruin.BTW, I measured my blood pressure yesterday and it was 121/75 (Not bad for a 49-year-old) (Insider knowledge.)
I 100% agree with you. In fact, you could look to see if a bible like ESV for example has copyrights on it, by using www.biblegateway.com
Well I will only say that this site recommends KJV with a Stongs concordence and it has been the best for many years. While we dont tell one what Bible to use I will say all these differnet translation have only servered to cause greater confusion and division I see no need to change what wasnt broke unless someone has an agenda that agenda may be good or bad, But we have no way to know these things.If one sticks with what has been proven they have no worries.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(Christina;64108)
Well I will only say that this site recommends KJV with a Stongs concordence and it has been the best for many years. While we dont tell one what Bible to use I will say all these differnet translation have only servered to cause greater confusion and division I see no need to change what wasnt broke unless someone has an agenda that agenda may be good or bad, But we have no way to know these things.If one sticks with what has been proven they have no worries.
I also prefer the KJV and a Strong's; in fact I use a KJV Companion Bible, edited by E.W. Bullinger. But we also need to be aware of the fact that the Strong's has been published by a number of publishers and some are much better than others. Also, it is important to have knowledge of the structure used in Scripture and the fact that Greek Grammar does not always translate to English very well and the grammatical differences do not always show up in the Strong's. If the reader does not have some knowledge of Greek grammar, checking other versions can be useful. Some of you might want to check out a site like: http://www.biblicalgreek.org/
Well I will only say that this site recommends KJV with a Stongs concordence and it has been the best for many years. While we dont tell one what Bible to use I will say all these differnet translation have only servered to cause greater confusion and division I see no need to change what wasnt broke unless someone has an agenda that agenda may be good or bad, But we have no way to know these things.If one sticks with what has been proven they have no worries.
I also prefer the KJV and a Strong's; in fact I use a KJV Companion Bible, edited by E.W. Bullinger. But we also need to be aware of the fact that the Strong's has been published by a number of publishers and some are much better than others. Also, it is important to have knowledge of the structure used in Scripture and the fact that Greek Grammar does not always translate to English very well and the grammatical differences do not always show up in the Strong's. If the reader does not have some knowledge of Greek grammar, checking other versions can be useful. Some of you might want to check out a site like: http://www.biblicalgreek.org/
Similar threads
