Jump to content

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    5,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    190

Everything posted by DaveW

  1. You are deliberately refusing to see the point - it is not about publishing, but about royalties from a "NEW' version. This is actually the main reason for so many different versions and the ongoing stream of "new" versions - each new version has a copyright that is held almost exclusively by corporations, who receive royalties from the reproduction of the version that they "OWN" - that is why it is important to understand the difference between the copyright on the KJV and almost all other versions. The NKJV's changes were made mostly to facilitate the copyrighting of a "new" versions. Thomas Nelson owns the copyright to the NKJV, and every publisher who produces a copy, ASIDE FROM THEIR OWN production costs, must pay a royalty to Thomas Nelson. This is the primary reason why there are so many different versions - nothing to do with "better translation" etc, but as a moneymaking scam. But I am giving up on this because you apparently are unable - or more likely unwilling - to understand the point. You constantly misrepresent the matter and answer points that are not relevant. And you are wrong - there are several printers that produce KJV Bible as a ministry and make no money on the process - they lose money, supported by the gifts of Christians, so that they can provide Bibles to people who don't have them.
  2. AND YET AGAIN you miss the point - is this deliberate, because it sure looks like it. The Actual work of producing the NKJV was for the purposes of making a new version capable of being copyrighted. This means that any publisher who produces a copy of the NKJV MUST PAY a royalty to the copyright holder. For this to be possible, a certain % of changes had to be done. A number of the changes made in the production of the NKJV were made for no other purpose than to allow them to gain the property rights of copyright, and thereby gain the royalty stream from a "new translation". Not for any translational reason. Not for any theological reason. Not for any reason other than to make money. THIS MEANS that many of the changes from the KJV to the NKJV were not made for any good reason. They made a new version so they could make money off it...…….
  3. Jordan, you have run this line before, but if you read the rest of that passage the issue is explained: Eze 45:21-23 (21) In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. (22) And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering. (23) And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering. If you go looking for the original giving of the feasts you find that Passover is a single day, and it is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread. There is the "day" (singular) of Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which is referred to as "days". Even moreso, you find that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread is "an holy convocation" (a Sabbath), but the Passover is not. That is not to say that it has not been observed INCORRECTLY at times. As for what Tyndale says - I will go for the Bible every time over what ANYONE else says. In any case, we have been over this before and there is little point in going over it again.
  4. That is a gross misrepresentation of the Song of Solomon. It does not promote lust etc at all.
  5. (My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....) Oh my - the old Easter issue..... Have you READ the Bible sir? Acts 12 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread? That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread. It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true. Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested. Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread. Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself. Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense. Strike one, try again.
  6. Come on Mr Roby, let's get on with it. You keep claiming goofs and booboos yet you have not given any apart from one single one that you have mentioned a couple of times which is totally wrong anyway. List them out for us so we can address ALL THESE goofs and booboos that keep claiming. There are apparently so many by the way you are spouting off about it. Give us a few. Or are you only interested in causing trouble, mis-answering direct questions, and misrepresenting what people say? Lay it out clearly so we can answer. And you better have a lot of them - or is it all just bluster and wind? So far that is all we have seen - opinion based on your own brilliance, intellect, and knowledge. Don't leave us waiting - if you have got anything, then lay it out clearly for us. Let's leave off all this side issue stuff and get stuck right in. I know you think you have the authority over the Word of God to pick, choose, and decide what God really means, but let's test out your so far unsubstantiated claims.
  7. And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways. The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright. Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs. EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee. THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money. And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved. Not chasing money there......
  8. One thing that can be statistically proven is that families where both parents work have more of such problems than families where the wife stays at home to raise the children.
  9. Ridiculous answer that avoids the point. The point is that the NKJV text itself is owned by a corporation, but the only way they could do that was to make sufficient changes from the KJV to then own the copyright for the NKJV SO THEY COULD PROFIT FROM IT. The changes they made are in the majority to satisfy the copyright requirements for them to own the rights NOT FOR ANY LINGUISTIC, TRANSLATIONAL, DOCTRINAL, OR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES. FOR PROFIT. FOR MONEY. FOR CASH. NOT FOR ANY GOOD THEOLOGICAL REASON. NOT FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY. NOT FOR ANY TRANSLATIONAL REASON. How about then answer the ACTUAL points, rather than sidestepping them?
  10. You are asking a lot of disjointed questions. Are looking for answers, or are you just trying to find a subject that causes trouble? If you are genuinely seeking answers, then by all means continue.
  11. Ok Mr Robycop.... List em out for us. Every single one of them so that they can be addressed. We need it clear, concise, and fully referenced, chapter and verse, and precisely why you think each one is a goof or a booboo. And if possible each one separated so that it can be easily addressed in isolation. You are making the accusations - let's see the goods.
  12. Salvation is not in any church. Roman's 10 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. No mention of any church there, just trusting in Christ. And also: Ephesians 2 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it isthe gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. No mention of any church. Salvation is about what Jesus Christ has done to pay for our sins.
  13. And yet, overall it was to his profit - that cannot be denied. He profited in learning about the passage from God's Word, and he profited from learning more about the English language. And he did so AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE. By the way, each of the versions that you have noted still contain certain archaic language, so your use of that argument against the KJV is actually irrelevant. Are you aware that the majority of changes made to the KJV in the production of the NKJV were done not for any translation or doctrinal issue, but simply to avoid the copyright implications? Copyright requires a % difference for something to be considered a "new work", and as such a number of changes were made for the sole purpose of avoiding the copyright issue. Were they good changes or bad changes? one thing is certain - they were not made for any genuine reason that had any readability, doctrinal, or translational basis, but only for the sake of avoiding the copyright implications. How does that make it better? Change for the sake of making changes - just in order to make it different...…………..
  14. The matter of children becoming criminals and drug addicts has NOTHING to do with the number of children and everything to do with the teaching and leading of the parents. If the parents are doing what they should as parents then the GREATEST LIKELIHOOD is that the children will at least grow up to be "good kids" and most likely they will grow to be decent serving Christians. Every man will still walk his own path and is individually responsible, but the greatest influence is godly parents, not the number of children in a family. One could just as easily pull statistics to show that children from families where both parents work are more likely to become criminals. One could very easily show that children from single parent families are more likely to end up as criminals. Statistically both of these are true. But they are not solid laws that cannot be overcome.
  15. Alan is in another country altogether - I think he was making the point that he is not in the same city as his study books.
  16. YOU decide which of the DIFFERENT - sometimes vastly different - renderings is correct according to WHAT YOU THINK is right...… You become the authority as it is based upon your decisions. Just because you refuse to see that you are placing yourself in authority over God's Word does not make it less so. I had the situation once when I was talking to a friend that I pointed out to him that he should choose one Bible for his family so that he could say to his children that they had one single authority. He understood it when I said to him that if he picked and chose a different version for each situation, what he was doing was showing his children that if he didn't like what one bible said, he could choose another THAT SUITED HIM. That shows his children that the standard was not solid but changed according to circumstance. Multiple versions means that YOU BECOME THE JUDGE OVER THE WORD of God. YOU choose the one that SUITS YOU in any given situation. YOU change the Word of God (by choosing what suits you) according to WHAT YOU WANT. One single version that you make yourself accountable to means that YOU CHANGE to SUIT THE WORD OF GOD. Which one of those is right? Should I change the Word of God, or should I let the Word of God change me? And remember, at this point I am only arguing for a solid and firm foundation instead of a moveable and changing one, NOT what that foundation should be. That is another matter. Oh yeah - if you were an advanced member in a practical rather than a technical sense you have known that. The quoting thing is always a little bit hard - I think everyone realises it was not out of intent to deceive in some way.
  17. Since Independent Baptist Churches are independent churches, the closest would be a church that is 100% independent from any denominational grouping, and since Independent Baptist Churches TRY to follow the Bible in all respects, it would have to be a 100% independent church that tries to follow the Bible as its only guide and rule - regardless of what name it hangs over the door.
  18. Strangely enough, our friend gave a KJV to a someone who came up with a word that he didn't understand, and to alleviate the problem our friend here FIRST OF ALL explained the meaning of that word to the gentleman. The result was that the gentleman grew in his knowledge of God by the explanation, and ALSO grew in his knowledge of English. Our friend here presents this as a negative, but how is a gaining in knowledge a bad thing? Also, our friend has unknowingly followed a Bible principle. That of explaining the meaning of a word that is unfamiliar - NOT OF CHANING THAT WORD, but explaining it. 1Sa 9:6-11 (6) And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. (7) Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we? (8) And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way. (9) (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.) (10) Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was. (11) And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here? Interesting here that the writer of this passage inserts vs 9 as explanation to the readers, for in his current time the Man of God was called a prophet, but then in vs 11 which is a retelling of the actual account, the word used is not prophet, even though that would have been the common word in the writer's time, but the word "seer" is used because that is what Saul spoke on that day. So what we have here is a direction by example of the writer of the book of 1 Samuel (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit remember) not to CHANGE the archaic word used to the modern term so the audience understood, but to EXPLAIN the archaic word for the audience. I had just this example the other day - talking of the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the word "twain" is used in reference to the pairs of wings. I knew that there were some in our audience who might not understand that word, so I stopped momentarily and explained "the word "twain" simply means "two", and I could see the light of understanding shine in a few eyes to whom this was new knowledge. From then on when I read that verse as I did a few times, I didn't change it to "two" - they all understood it with no problem, and they now had a greater knowledge of the English language than they did when they came in, and when they read that word in other places of the Bible or indeed in other settings, they have understanding. And by the way, what happens when you get to a word that is still in modern use but not common? - it is not an archaic word, but it still needs to be explained, and even moreso if there is no modern alternative. When I was learning to be a photogrammetrist, (sorry for those don't know it is a specialised area of geomatics), they didn't find common English terms for things such as Parallax, but they taught me what Parallax meant. I had no idea what "Sterovision" was but instead of finding another word that I understood, they explained what it meant. They didn't find a common term for a graphic pantograph mechanism, they explained it to me. They didn't find a common word for a stereotriangulated solution, they explained what it was. Personally I have found that when people come across a difficult or archaic word, often the first they will do is find a dictionary - especially nowadays on line. If they still don't understand, then will ask at church, and hopefully get a reasonable and sufficient answer. I have some people here who are seriously deficient of education, but they ask questions, they seek understanding, they learn and they grow - and the learn how to understand the Bible. Note: for those who understand neither the old word "photogrammetrist" nor the modern equivalent "Geomaticist", I will EXPLAIN IT for your understanding: It is the science of compiling map data from aerial photography, airborne laser scanning data, or other survey tied spatial data - I draw maps from photos taken from planes.
  19. Can you show some sort of Biblical support for such a thing? I don't care if science can prove it, although the first article didn't state any scientific proof as far as I could see, and the second spoke of temperature reading in an uncontrolled setting by a single man - hardly scientific. The most important thing is "is it Biblical?" Lots of unexplained things happen in this world. If it does not have Biblical support, then it is simply not of God.
  20. Two things: First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew. Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request". If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting. This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says. God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life. If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like. Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong? Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance. You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense". If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas. Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.
  21. How then do you decide which one is perfect for a particular use?
  22. That is not the point. To Claim "advanced member status" when you haven't been active on the site for TEN YEARS, whilst being correct on the technicality of the statistics, is in reality borderline deceitful. And the fact that you refer to Slayan as a gentleman only serves to prove the point. The fact is that you noticed your status comment and have tried to use it to give your position more weight, but Salyan is a senior member of the forum, a moderator, and a woman, none of which you realised, which proves that you are not in fact an advanced member IN REALITY.
  23. So the answer to that question is "No, we don't have a perfect translation today". And you use the version YOU BELIEVE is best......... Since you don't believe we have a perfect Bible available to us how DO YOU determine what is actually God's Word and what is "not right yet"?
  24. A quick look around finds that the last post of his before this current visit was 2009...… (https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/1219-what-is-a-ruckmanite/?do=findComment&comment=218414) To then claim an "advanced member" status may be technically correct according to the info in the side panel, but it is hardly accurate. It might even be considered a little disingenuous......
  25. Thank you brother, well said.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...