Jump to content
Online Baptist

Another question I have.


Recommended Posts

  • Members



That's the point that is conveniently forgotten by many.

In the Bible there are examples of "originals" being destroyed. Starting with Moses and the ORIGINAL 10 commandments. God did preserve those by His own hand. Do we doubt the 10 commandents because we can't put the original pieces of stone back together? No, as Christians, we understand (should understand) that God did and does preserve the scriptures, even though the evidence isn't as "dramatic" as the second writing of the commandments.


I was not saying that God does not preserve His word. I was saying that we can not claim that one translation is "better" or "more right" than others...
Link to post
Share on other sites



I was not saying that God does not preserve His word. I was saying that we can not claim that one translation is "better" or "more right" than others...


I will say this and be done. I would never recommend someone should use one of the new EVs. Having done my own research on the subject I will always use the KJV AV.

A bucket of cool water and a ladle can provide a refreshing drink to workers on a hot day. However, you need to insure the dogs didn't get to it just before you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

It's not just the translation, Teyla, although the translation process used can seriously affect the authenticity of the text. You'll need to look up some on dynamic equivalency - which is the translation philosophy used for the MVs - to see that. (Dynamic equivalency is the philosophy that changed "the Lamb of God" into "the seal pup of God." Excuse me. I don't think seal pups were acceptable sacrifices for sin - totally messes up the 'types' God used to foreshadow Christ in the Old Testament.) You also have to consider the manuscripts the translations were produced from - if the manuscripts were corrupted, the text is corrupted even before translation. And since there are two distinct lines of manuscripts with distinct differences - they can't both be true. :twocents:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You seem to be missing the point that there are dozens of English versions and they don't all agree. That in itself means they all can't be the preserved Word of God. If one studies the history of the various translations and the sources used to bring them about, it becomes clear that a few were brought about using historically accepted ancient manuscripts while most of the others were not.

When one translates from a corrupted source, that translation will be flawed and cannot, by definition, be the preserved Word of God.

There are some good threads on this board dealing with the subject. Brandplucked has put forth some excellent examples in some threads too.

Here's one:

Edited by John81
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If someone uses The Message Bible to bring someone to Christ and they accept Jesus as their savior then great!

When we say God only favors certain translations, doesin't that mean we are limiting the power of God?


Your confusing two different things. I don't think many if any on this board would deny that the MV's contain some of the word of God, but that doesn't make them Gods inerrant preserved scriptures as a whole. For example if I were to tell a lost person "if you don't repent and turn to Christ trusting in him alone for salvation your going to one day die and go to hell" is that the word of God? Yes it is in a sense, because it accurately expresses the truth found in the scriptures. However it obviously is not scripture itself, it is merely an explanation of the truth of scripture and the accuracy of the statement depends on how well it conforms to the actual scriptures.

That is what your talking about.

Do not confuse that with the divinely & perfectly preserved scriptures themselves though. The bible itself uses the term "holy" to describe the scriptures. For example:

"2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Note that the apostle Paul calls the scriptures "holy" when speaking to timothy. Remember that they did not have the original copies of the old testament scriptures he was speaking of any more than we have the original copies of either the old or new testament scriptures. Yet in spite of that Paul, under the inspiration of God, calls the scriptures "holy" because God had and still has perfectly preserved the scriptures. In truth, most of the users of the MV's(at least if they have studied the issues enough to understand them) do not even believe what their bible says on the cover let alone the contents. It may say "holy bible" but they don't really believe that, they believe that some parts are of God & some parts contain errors and they get to pick and choose which is which. If one takes that approach I fail to see how one could possibly genuinely believe the scriptures are holy as they claim to be. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



Your confusing two different things. I don't think many if any on this board would deny that the MV's contain some of the word of God, but that doesn't make them Gods inerrant preserved scriptures as a whole. For example if I were to tell a lost person "if you don't repent and turn to Christ trusting in him alone for salvation your going to one day die and go to hell" is that the word of God? Yes it is in a sense, because it accurately expresses the truth found in the scriptures. However it obviously is not scripture itself, it is merely an explanation of the truth of scripture and the accuracy of the statement depends on how well it conforms to the actual scriptures.

That is what your talking about.

Do not confuse that with the divinely & perfectly preserved scriptures themselves though. The bible itself uses the term "holy" to describe the scriptures. For example:

"2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Note that the apostle Paul calls the scriptures "holy" when speaking to timothy. Remember that they did not have the original copies of the old testament scriptures he was speaking of any more than we have the original copies of either the old or new testament scriptures. Yet in spite of that Paul, under the inspiration of God, calls the scriptures "holy" because God had and still has perfectly preserved the scriptures. In truth, most of the users of the MV's(at least if they have studied the issues enough to understand them) do not even believe what their bible says on the cover let alone the contents. It may say "holy bible" but they don't really believe that, they believe that some parts are of God & some parts contain errors and they get to pick and choose which is which. If one takes that approach I fail to see how one could possibly genuinely believe the scriptures are holy as they claim to be.


I was a user of the NIV and so is most of my church family. I do believe that the Word of God is holy. So does my church family... we do not pick and choose verses that we think are good and ignore others.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was a user of the NIV and so is most of my church family. I do believe that the Word of God is holy. So does my church family... we do not pick and choose verses that we think are good and ignore others.


Well I am not going to pick at you, you are studying the issue out a little so that is good. By and large though at the foundation the MV users tend to teach that we can't really know 100% for sure what is Gods word and what isn't. Almost by definition then they don't believe the word of God is holy because they don't believe it is pure, and the two go hand in hand. You can't think that one verse is "doubtful" that another passage is a "scribal error" and yet view the whole thing as holy. Most people who still choose to use the MV's after studying the issue out do not believe in the literal divine preservation of the word of God. Rather they tend to say they believe that "no import teachings have been lost" or something like that that gives them wiggle room to attack/reject/cast doubt on different passages here and there. That is what textual criticism is all about, and that way of looking at the scriptures is the direction the MV's and the translators of them come from. These things may not apply to you as your still examining the issue, but overall it tends to be a fact. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If someone uses The Message Bible to bring someone to Christ and they accept Jesus as their savior then great!

When we say God only favors certain translations, doesin't that mean we are limiting the power of God?


Ma'am, would you kindly share your salvation testimony with us? How were you saved by God?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members



Ma'am, would you kindly share your salvation testimony with us? How were you saved by God?


of course! I was five years old and I was being horrible to my parents one day, disobeying left and right. My father sat down with me and told me the reason I was disobeying so much was because of sin and he asked after he explained about sin and what Christ did on the cross. He prayed with me and asked me to pray and I accepted Jesus and my Lord and Savior. Now, I don't remember that and that was from what my parents told me. It bugged me for years that I could not remember accepting Christ as my savior. So when I was 10 I asked one of my teachers to pray with me and I prayed again for Christ to be my savior. This time I remember and then when I was 16 I gave my life to God saying I am His servant.
:)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 54 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...