Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

God preserving his word

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

That all depends...your defintion of "advances," "scholarship," "and what you consider ancient languages. I don't believe that any of these loses it's meaning if one can compare to books of the same time period, actually has access to the meaning of the words from that time through the people, the context in which things were written, etc. It still comes down to context and content.

Books of the same era, yes. But books from different eras, there are differences as people in the later era could not without great difficulty understand what in written in the oldest text. Chaucer's Canterbury tales is an example. Shakespeare's writing is easier to understand as it is in Early Modern English. Yes, some of his sentences and words are hard for many moderns to understand. For instance Shakespeare has  Macbeth say,  "Lay on McDuff." Most people today misunderstand this phrase. It is not an invitation to attack, but "after you," or I'll follow you. 

Time change, words change, meaning changes, and some words disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SureWord said:

There is nothing in the KJV that a modern English speaker cannot understand. I'm a high school dropout with a GED who never attended college and who never read a book prior to my salvation yet I could understand. 

The bottomline is do you believe that God is powerful enough to give us his words without error in a language we can read and understand.

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

BB, though this question is not directed to me, as I stated before, anyone worth their salt could find these words in supplemental books, dictionaries, or even in today's society, google them and get the meanings. It's not that hard. You seem to have a knack of trying to make things difficult when they shouldn't be. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

BB, though this question is not directed to me, as I stated before, anyone worth their salt could find these words in supplemental books, dictionaries, or even in today's society, google them and get the meanings. It's not that hard. You seem to have a knack of trying to make things difficult when they shouldn't be. 😉

You give a good argument as to why modern translations should be used. Thanks for supporting my belief. 

I do not understand Job 15:26-27 as stated in King James. But, if I check a modern translation I can gain an understanding of the passage. I would quote one here, but it seems I am not allowed to quote anything except King James. No comparisons, I guess. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
33 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You give a good argument as to why modern translations should be used. Thanks for supporting my belief. 

I do not understand Job 15:26-27 as stated in King James. But, if I check a modern translation I can gain an understanding of the passage. I would quote one here, but it seems I am not allowed to quote anything except King James. No comparisons, I guess. 

I can't say that I don't use other translations as supplements, but I DEPEND on the KJV. It's my preferred version. I grew up with it, and I'm more familiar with it than other translations. I don't try to discourage others from reading the other translaions if they wish, because God has already stated that his Word would not come back void. But, I also emphasize that the KJ was written in the same era as Shakespeare, and that it's written on an 8th grade level...at least that's what they said it was when I was younger. Now, they're saying it's written on an 11th or 12th grade level. I guess that's from the dumbing down of the students through the new teaching methods. UGH! Still...I believe the KJV/TR is the better of the translations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I can't say that I don't use other translations as supplements, but I DEPEND on the KJV. It's my preferred version. I grew up with it, and I'm more familiar with it than other translations. I don't try to discourage others from reading the other translaions if they wish, because God has already stated that his Word would not come back void. But, I also emphasize that the KJ was written in the same era as Shakespeare, and that it's written on an 8th grade level...at least that's what they said it was when I was younger. Now, they're saying it's written on an 11th or 12th grade level. I guess that's from the dumbing down of the students through the new teaching methods. UGH! Still...I believe the KJV/TR is the better of the translations.

The King James Bible is certainly the most poetic translation. This makes it easier to memorize. It is a beautiful read.

Yes, Shakespeare died in 1616, five years after the King James translation was published. 

Yes, the reports of reading level currently says 12th grade. I found the following online:

  • King James Version (KJV): 12th grade
  • Revised Standard Version (RSV): 12th grade
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): 11th grade
  • New Revised Standard Version (RNSV): 11th grade
  • English Standard Version (ESV): 10th grade
  • New International Version (NIV): 8th grade
  • Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV): 8th grade
  • New King James Version (NKJV): 7th grade
  • New Living Translation (NLT): 6th grade
  • God’s Word (GW): 5th grade
  • The Message (MSG): 5th grade
  • New Century Version (NCV): 3rd grade

Do you ever use a parallel Bible where passages from two or three translation are printed side-by-side? 

Have you used the Amplified Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

The King James Bible is certainly the most poetic translation. This makes it easier to memorize. It is a beautiful read.

Yes, Shakespeare died in 1616, five years after the King James translation was published. 

Yes, the reports of reading level currently says 12th grade. I found the following online:

  • King James Version (KJV😞 12th grade
  • Revised Standard Version (RSV): 12th grade
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): 11th grade
  • New Revised Standard Version (RNSV): 11th grade
  • English Standard Version (ESV): 10th grade
  • New International Version (NIV): 8th grade
  • Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV): 8th grade
  • New King James Version (NKJV): 7th grade
  • New Living Translation (NLT): 6th grade
  • God’s Word (GW): 5th grade
  • The Message (MSG): 5th grade
  • New Century Version (NCV): 3rd grade

Do you ever use a parallel Bible where passages from two or three translation are printed side-by-side? 

Have you used the Amplified Bible?

Yes, I've used both the parallel and the Amplified Bibles. I don't own copies of them, though my mother does. 

Now out of the versions you've listed, of course, I use the KJV. Our church used the Holman. One of the churches I helped start in Augusta, GA back in 1984 used to KJVO, then when the new pastor was called from Bob Jones University, he brought the NIV. I wasn't impressed. In fact, it got to be such a sticking point that my wife and I left. Of course, the debate over KJV and other versions hadn't really reached a fevered pitch yet, but it was starting to get there in some IFB churches. We left what was Garden City Baptist Church and went to Providence Baptist Church of Augusta at that point. 

My father had a NKJV in 1984 or 85, I believe..I may be incorrect on the year. He got it from being in contact with Jerry Falwell. I have it packed up, or I could tell you the exact year. My father left that one and went back to the regular KJV, though. The NLT is what our men's Bible study/recovery group in the Cowpunchers Cowboy Church uses. I have a copy of the "hippie Bible," Good News for Modern Man, the RSV and the ESV. I like the ESV to some extent, I NEVER use "The Message" except for reference material/commentary. It's far too much of a paraphrase for me. I've only seen the NSV once...there are several more translations out there, and I've used several of them for research/comparison. I still rely on the KJV, though. 

I believe, as I've stated here, and in other threads, that anyone worth their salt, could get off their backsides and research and find what the meanings are if they'd just follow 2 Tim 2:15. The Bible tells us to study, not just here, but, when it is speaking of how the Bereans studied what was said to see if the things being preached were so. It's our job as Christians to do this...not a translations job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Good for you. Researching is important. 

21 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Good for you. Researching is important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It comes down to this: Bouncing Bill does not believe in the God of the Bible - God who knows all things, and knows that languages change and adapt over time - He knew all this, and yet chose to write His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, knowing it would need to be translated into other languages. God wasn't caught off guard with no pure Word to give the world.

Also, it is simply wrong to define the Bible rather than translate it. It is up to the faithful translators and copyists to render the Word of God exactly as it is given, translate exactly what it says - then let the people of God throughout history study it, learn it, define the words as they study and teach it to others. If you expect a Bible translation to come along that magically defines every word and makes it so no child of God has to study it, then you don't know the Book itself which commands us to study it, compare passages, lean upon the Holy Spirit for understanding. Lost people want a Bible they can understand without putting the effort into it - YET God's Word itself states that the natural (ie. unsaved) man CANNOT understand it; therefore, translating and changing the Bible in such a way that the LOST can receive it as is, is going totally counter to God's purposes.

Sounds a bit like what happened with the world at Babel:

Genesis 11:1-7 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jerry said:

It comes down to this: Bouncing Bill does not believe in the God of the Bible - God who knows all things, and knows that languages change and adapt over time - He knew all this, and yet chose to write His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, knowing it would need to be translated into other languages. God wasn't caught off guard with no pure Word to give the world.

 

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7Z:1-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7Z:1-4

I can see Jerry's point, BB. We're supposed to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God," and from some of your posts about the Bible, and the way you seem to be questioning God's ability to preserve his inspired Word, it makes people wonder. The Bible also tells us to judge RIGHTEOUS judgement....at least present both sides and not just your SEEMINGLY distorted viewpoint, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I can see Jerry's point, BB. We're supposed to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God," and from some of your posts about the Bible, and the way you seem to be questioning God's ability to preserve his inspired Word, it makes people wonder. The Bible also tells us to judge RIGHTEOUS judgement....at least present both sides and not just your SEEMINGLY distorted viewpoint, please!

I don't question God's ability. I am simply asking how does He do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I don't question God's ability. I am simply asking how does He do it?

We don't know everything God knows. He doesn't lay his plans for preserving his Word out in front of us except to tell us that not one jot or tittle will disappear. That's good enough for me. Our ways aren't His ways, and our thoughts aren't His thoughts. The closest we can come it trying to have the mind of Christ in our daily living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

We don't know everything God knows. He doesn't lay his plans for preserving his Word out in front of us except to tell us that not one jot or tittle will disappear. That's good enough for me. Our ways aren't His ways, and our thoughts aren't His thoughts. The closest we can come it trying to have the mind of Christ in our daily living.

Very true. But, does God use people in the preservation of his word such that people can understand his word regardless of the era in which the live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Very true. But, does God use people in the preservation of his word such that people can understand his word regardless of the era in which the live?

Well, the answer to that should be self-evident in the fact that we have translations. And again, there is studying those translations, comparing them to the original content and context. I think you know all this already...at least you should. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Well, the answer to that should be self-evident in the fact that we have translations. And again, there is studying those translations, comparing them to the original content and context. I think you know all this already...at least you should. 😉

Yes, I knew. Glad you answered as you did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was just thinking about this and realized some posters here are thinking backwards on the translation issue. It DOESN'T matter if some words are hard to translate from another language into English or be able to be translated word for word into another language - what matters is: Is God's Word able to be translated into those languages accurately? Languages develop over time - however, the three Bible languages are now dead languages (not modern Greek, but Koine Greek); therefore their meaning is static, unchanging. God - who is all knowing, who knows the end from the beginning - chose specific words when He used the Bible prophets to pen His Word. Regardless of how a newer language may have since developed (and how difficult it may or may not be to translate THAT language into another), is God's Word able to be translated INTO (not FROM) that language? That is the primary issue. If God cannot oversee an accurate translation of His Word into a receptor language, that's on God. If man created some words/phrases/ideas that are difficult to translate from a receptor language into another language, that doesn't matter. We are not referring to a Tribesman from (insert random name here) translating his written or spoken words into English or whatever other language you pick, we are determining whether God's preserved words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be translated into these receptor languages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
36 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I was just thinking about this and realized some posters here are thinking backwards on the translation issue. It DOESN'T matter if some words are hard to translate from another language into English or be able to be translated word for word into another language - what matters is: Is God's Word able to be translated into those languages accurately? Languages develop over time - however, the three Bible languages are now dead languages (not modern Greek, but Koine Greek); therefore their meaning is static, unchanging. God - who is all knowing, who knows the end from the beginning - chose specific words when He used the Bible prophets to pen His Word. Regardless of how a newer language may have since developed (and how difficult it may or may not be to translate THAT language into another), is God's Word able to be translated INTO (not FROM) that language? That is the primary issue. If God cannot oversee an accurate translation of His Word into a receptor language, that's on God. If man created some words/phrases/ideas that are difficult to translate from a receptor language into another language, that doesn't matter. We are not referring to a Tribesman from (insert random name here) translating his written or spoken words into English or whatever other language you pick, we are determining whether God's preserved words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be translated into these receptor languages?

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

So, you believe in "double inspiration" instead of God being able to preserve his word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...