New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[Guest Guest]

He used Scriptures, and history to prove his point.

Katy-Anne

[Will]

He used Scriptures, and history to prove his point.

Katy-Anne

There's no historical sources cited, which is troubling. When there's no historical sources cited, it tends to make me think that the author doesn't have them.

[kevinmiller]

I find reference in my KJV that proves it's perfect though. And if it is perfect then everything in it is correct.



I think Dr Gipp has other verses too in his book, I'll see if I can find them.

Katy-Anne

That's a good verse but it didn't say the words of the KJV are pure words. It says the words of the LORD which means the Bible, whether it's in the form of the Geneva, KJV, or Korean Bible.

[Will]

Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April.

Actually, Easter comes from the word "Eostremonat" meaning "Easter Month." It is a Saxon name for the month of April, and supposed to be in connection with a goddess known as Eostre(De Temporum Ratione by Venerable Bede). The alleged connection between Eoster and Ishtar is both geographically and linguistically distant. Also, the lands that worshipped the goddess "Ishtar" never had a spring festival that could be associated with Easter. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus (b. 380) attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of local custom, "just as many other customs have been established", stating that neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. However, he did not call it "Easter" or "Ishtar." Polycarp, a disciple of John, likewise adhered to a Nisan 14 observance. Irenaeus, who observed the "first Sunday" rule notes of Polycarp (one of the Bishops of Asia Minor), "For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance [of his Nisan 14 practice] inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of the Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant." (c. AD 180; 1.569 "Ante-Nicene Church Fathers"). Irenaeus states that this was not only Polycarp's practice, but that this was the practice of John the disciple and the other apostles that Polycarp knew.

Furthermore, Ishtar is not even a Roman or Greek goddess. She was a Sumerian goddess.

[Guest Guest]

That's a good verse but it didn't say the words of the KJV are pure words. It says the words of the LORD which means the Bible, whether it's in the form of the Geneva, KJV, or Korean Bible.

Or NKJV or NASB or NIV or Living Bible or...?!? What foundation do you make to say what is good and what isn't?

[kevinmiller]

Good question Vince but I have a good answer.

The foundation is the original. A Bible is God's Word if it is accurate to the Greek and Hebrew sources. Just like the KJV is an accurate translation, so is any translation that is faithful to the original text.

[dwayner79]

Or NKJV or NASB or NIV or Living Bible or...?!?

AMEN! oh.... wait..... :hide

[kevinmiller]

Just stirring the pot a little aren't you Dwayne? :D

[dwayner79]

It was setup too perfectly. I was actually going to reply with the same exact thing earlier but opted not too. Since someone else did I figured I would note it.

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your position except that 'TR' would be replaced with 'original text'.

[kevinmiller]

Yeah, I was trying not to set myself up though since they like to claim that the originals are non-existent. Oh well, I'll go ahead and change it anyway. You'll back me up right? :

[Guest Guest]

Well it's true, the "originals" are non-existent.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

Ah my...that wasn't bait. lol

Back on track:

Good question Vince but I have a good answer.

The foundation is the original. A Bible is God's Word if it is accurate to the Greek and Hebrew sources. Just like the KJV is an accurate translation, so is any translation that is faithful to the original text.

[Guest Guest]

Good question Vince but I have a good answer.

The foundation is the original. A Bible is God's Word if it is accurate to the Greek and Hebrew sources. Just like the KJV is an accurate translation, so is any translation that is faithful to the original text.

Two things:

How do we know that it's "accurate," and what "original text" do you compare it to?

Translation is always relative, based on the translator's bias. I can translate a Spanish sentence multiple ways, depending on how I feel it should be translated. It's relative.

You have to realize that "The Original" does not exist in any form. We may have faithful copies of it, but definitely NOT "The Original." The manuscripts that the writers wrote on have been destroyed. "The Originals" have not been preserved in any form. They have been copied, which copies were copied, etc. etc., up to the point where the translators translated them, the Textus Receptus along with many other sources, into the King James Bible that we believe today.

However, simply saying that any "faithful" translation from the "Original Texts" is acceptable, is simply not accurate. "Faithful" is relative, while the "Original Texts" are not available in any form today. If you want to say that any translation that you agree with from a certain version of the TR is acceptable, then that would definitely be better. The way that you are saying it is not entirely honest.

[kevinmiller]

Okay...fine.

Good question Vince but I have a good answer.

The foundation is the original. A Bible is God's Word if it is accurate to the Greek and Hebrew sources. Just like the KJV is an accurate translation, so is any translation that is faithful to the Textus Receptus.

[Guest Guest]

Okay...fine.

Which Textus Receptus? : There are dozens of editions of it.