Piercing The Darkness

Advanced search

>Grim outlook for Democrats puts House up for grabs
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Colorado fire forced residents to make mad dash
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Floods leave tens of thousands homeless in Mexico
<div class="hnews hentry item">
UN reports over 500 rapes in eastern Congo
<div class="hnews hentry item">
WTC steel column installed at ground zero
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Report: Castro blasts Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Sect leader Jeffs fights extradition to Texas
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Iraq displays hundreds of recovered artifacts
<div class="hnews hentry item">
Boise State gains ground in AP Top 25
<div class="hnews hentry item">

[facedown]

Did you know those things? I am amazed at all these details.

<div><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NXVrX1j9irs&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18&amp;rel=0" width="425px" height="344px" wmode="transparent" quality="high" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="never" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" autoplay="false" autostart="false" /><noembed><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/NXVrX1j9irs&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/NXVrX1j9irs&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18&amp;rel=0</a>

[David]

Did you know those things? I am amazed at all these details.

I didn't know about THESE details, but I know that there are significant changes. However you may just have created the latest thread to get deleted. We haven't had one for awhile.

There are folks who have more faith in the scholarship of men over faith in God to preserve His word. What these folks fail to understand is that its not that the KJV is only accurate Word of God in the world, but that it is still the most accurate English translation. This is being discovered by independent students of the Bible. Yet these people get blasted by scholars and those who support "modern" scholarship.

But I agree with this teacher. Words mean things and God places value on His Word above all else. When you have something as seemingly innocent as changing the words "garden" to the word "grove" in and of itself doesn't seem so much a change, but placed in the broader context what activities happen in groves and what activities happened in gardens the potential damage that can take place by this word change becomes obvious. Especially if you are either in such a religion or cult or just coming out of one and understand the significance.

So what? you might ask? Well Paul takes a great deal of time telling his followers that where we are free to do what ever we please, not all that we do is right in the eyes of a weaker brother in the faith and we are to be considerate of them. Based on this example, it is a terrible thing to have our Lord teaching or praying or whatever in a grove.
If a grove existed I believe Jesus would have spoken against it. I can't find any direct mention of a grove in the NT. But throughout the OT groves are associated with idols and false gods.

The NIV translators had no problems or concerns, apparently,  with Jesus using something that God hates and in the OT is associated with false gods. Subliminal message? Are the NIV translators trying to tell us they don't believe in Jesus. That he's no more significant than Baal or other idols? Ridiculous?

OK. Watch this space for

David

[facedown]

What's sad is that all these arguments simply bounce off of the NIV people.
They simply don't seem to be affected by them at all. How is this possible?
Are they simply deceived beyond hope? Why do they not stop for a second and consider all these things?
It's like they have become totally unsensitive and all they can do is hide behind their "The oldest manuscripts say something different" bullshit. 

[Winter]

I avoid posting in these thread at all costs, usually.  LOL

But since David said it may get deleted now I want to watch the vid.  Human nature is sooo funny!   

[DennisS]

Sad to see more of this from face.

We have been over and over this.  And you should know it by now.

If someone reads the NIV, the Amplified, the Message, the NKJV, the NASB, etc - and they learn about Christ and believe from reading that version, are they any less saved?  I missed the verse in the KJV that says only those who believe in the supreme lordship of the KJV will be saved.

Do you not understand that Christians aren't to be arguing over words?

Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening (2 Ti 2:14).

I can't get the videos to play on my computer - but it really doesn't matter. I don't use the NIV, but I don't appreciate the NIV bashing by the KJVO crowd. 

[David]

If someone reads the NIV, the Amplified, the Message, the NKJV, the NASB, etc - and they learn about Christ and believe from reading that version, are they any less saved?  I missed the verse in the KJV that says only those who believe in the supreme lordship of the KJV will be saved.

Do you not understand that Christians aren't to be arguing over words?

Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening (2 Ti 2:14).

I agree that any of God's Words can be used by the Holy Spirit to convict a heart.

Let me ask this question regarding wrangling over words, does this apply to mistranslations or words changed to avoid copyright infringement?

David

[DennisS]

David - I've never thought that there should be a "copyright" for Bible versions. I'm well aware that the KJV is in the public domain, so is in a different category.  I believe that people should be compensated for their work, but not that a Bible version should be copyrighted.

Wrangling over words, to me, has more to do with individuals who are having trouble seeing the forest because there are so many trees in the way.  If someone is curious, and wants to look at the various versions, and even ask the translaters why a specific word was chosen - I see know problem.  Where I see a problem is when someone throws out a blanket condemnation for a translation which might be being used quite profitably for some (toward growing in the knowledge, faith, and love of God).  It's like telling someone they should use a 24' moving van, when they have a pickup available and has the time to make additional trips.  If it gets the job done, then why say they are stupid for doing it the way that works for them?  If the text is moved into the heart, then what more could be asked?  The wrangling over words or versions is useless.

In regard to mistranslations, this is a matter for the experts - and I do mean those who thoroughly know the Biblical languages.  I do NOT believe that God is going ask what version of the Bible we studied (not that He wouldn't already know anyway).  You know this passage (very recent in the lectionary)...

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.j “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” (Lk 10:25-28).

He knew the right answer in his head.  The question is about whether it was in his heart such that it guided his life in practice.  It says then that "wanting to justify himself" he asked who is neighbor is.  And Jesus responds with the story of the Good Samaritan.  It ends like this:

Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” (Lk 10:36-37).

Again, putting it into practice is the real test of faith - not mere knowledge.

The wrangling over words leads to people doubting not only one version, but all versions.  Is God able to keep his word?  This gets into the question of whether or not a specific version of the Bible is THE Word of God.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.
8 God finds fault with them when he says:
“The days are surely coming, says the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;
9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
for they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord.
10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach one another
or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
13 In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. (Heb 8:7-13).

Wait a minute!  Where is the NT (New Covenant) to be written?  Upon hearts, and not ink on a page?

David, you already know this. I am trying to make a point though of how serious I believe Bible teaching should be.  Yet the effort should be living out the Word - not making sure a favored translation is defended or used.  We all need to be truly studying the Bible so that we will know ever clearer our Lord, and so that we can live out His will, and so that His Word is written upon our hearts - not with ink - but with compassion and love.  If some folks miss out on portions of the Bible - even entire books - I believe they can still receive the full understanding of the Word - even though they cannot memorize all those words of the Bible, or even just the NT.

I'm aware that I haven't answered your question directly.  We are at different places on this.  I'm not very interested in copyright infringement.  I'm not particularly interested in a generic broad brush regarding mistranslations either.  I would rather deal with specifics, though I would much rather leave it to people with much more experience than myself.

I want people to seek after the heart of Jesus - to love the Lord with all their being, and their neighbor as themselves.  And if this can be done through nursery rhymns, then so be it.

[David]

David - I've never thought that there should be a "copyright" for Bible versions...I believe that people should be compensated for their work, but not that a Bible version should be copyrighted.

Especially when it forces translators to select alternate words. Grove for example. Poor choice.

...Where I see a problem is when someone throws out a blanket condemnation for a translation which might be being used quite profitably for some (toward growing in the knowledge, faith, and love of God)...If the text is moved into the heart, then what more could be asked? The wrangling over words or versions is useless.

I believe the the wrangling has more to do with, say, did Jesus mean to say its alright to eat with dirty hands or not. This would be a pointless wrangling over words in my opinion. Quite different than pointing out the differences between Bible translations.

In regard to mistranslations, this is a matter for the experts...

Yet we are held accountable and are without excuse. We can't claim that we were mislead by men or Bible versions. While reading and studying a particular translation we discover inconsistencies, let's say, and discover heresy, what should we do? Allow such things to pass because we aren't experts or sound the alarm to help the church guard against the heresy from getting a foot hold?

Again, putting it into practice is the real test of faith - not mere knowledge.

Agreed.

The wrangling over words leads to people doubting not only one version, but all versions.  Is God able to keep his word?  This gets into the question of whether or not a specific version of the Bible is THE Word of God.

What if a version was intentionally corrupted? Designed to mislead?

Wait a minute! Where is the NT (New Covenant) to be written?  Upon hearts, and not ink on a page?

Yet, the Word is written on ink and page in order for there to be a standard.

...If some folks miss out on portions of the Bible - even entire books - I believe they can still receive the full understanding of the Word - even though they cannot memorize all those words of the Bible, or even just the NT.

Agreed. God has so designed His Word that the Gospel is visible in both the macro and micro sense. Where translators and do disservice down to the letter of a word, man cannot hide the Gospel written in entire books like Ruth, for example.

I would rather deal with specifics, though I would much rather leave it to people with much more experience than myself.

I do deal with specifics as did the pastor in the video.

I want people to seek after the heart of Jesus - to love the Lord with all their being, and their neighbor as themselves.  And if this can be done through nursery rhymns, then so be it.

Agreed. However people stop needing the milk and want to start cutting their teeth on the meat of the Bible and the example of Jesus going to the grove to pray might be missed by most, but what about those who themselves went to the groves to conduct their pagan rights?

David

[DennisS]

I'm unable to view the video. I think I mentioned it previously. They just don't seem to load on this computer (about 4 years old).  I can't tell if there are specifics there or not.  I can't tell if it is preaching the Word, or if it is preaching against a translation.

I know that there are a variety of words that can be used to translate from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  Hebrew can be quite poetic, such that a literal translation can actually hinder our understanding, as we miss the message.

A "house" in Greek can be referring to the structure itself, to the people of the household (including slaves/servants), to the economy of the home, to the wider community, etc.  There is another word that can be translated as "heart", "mind", "will", among others.  This is one reason for the existence of the Amplified Bible - where more than one word can be put forth to give a fuller understanding of what can be meant.

There is a real difference between "logos" and "hrema", but they are both translated as "word" in English.  This is but one example.

I don't know what the situation with "grove" is - which you are referring to.  I've read your first post on this thread - is this in the NIV some specific place?  When the NT is referring to agriculture, why is it that we want to make a distinction between "garden" and "grove"?  These were essentially the same place.  A garden could easily have more trees than vegetable plants.  Was the garden of Eden a place devoid of trees?

There is a certain arrogance in those who undertake a new translation.  There is also a certain arrogance in the KJVO crowd, as though a translation into English in the 1500's or 1600's is the ultimate translation for all times.  Arrogance that it is only in English, arrogance that a translator without full access to all the manuscripts got everything right, arrogance that because it is called the "Authorized Version" because of and earthly king who authorized it - means it is THE ONLY version authorized by God.

I believe there is value in reading through the Bible in several translations - whether simultaneously or sequentially.

Quarreling over translations is where the wrangling over words is most seen today.  Do you have evidence that a translation is "intentionally corrupted"?  If so, then go to them and see if they will retract it.  If not, gather support from a wider community and go to them.  If that fails, then sue them.  But, what it comes off like to me is that it is a broad accusation without specifics.  Do I really want to get into the specifics here?  No.  I am not arrogant enough, nor educated enough, nor have unlimited time for such things.  Is this the proper forum?

If someone here wants to dig into things, show the various ways something could be understood, than take a stand - that is one thing.  Put an article here on the difference between a garden and a grove, and state how the garden is a better choice.  I would welcome that, as it would have specific usages of scripture mentioned, it would show the roots of the word and its various uses, etc.  But to blast a translation based upon an effort to discredit a translation because it somehow threatens another translations dominance - well, that seems to be based in the reptilian brain, with the fight or flight response.  I think that things get blown way out of proportion in such wrangling over words.

I'm not saying that we have to blindly accept the words of another, or words in print.  If when you speak of "a church" you are referring to a specific congregation, then I have no problem with them holding up the KJV as a standard there.  But if we are talking about THE CHURCH as a world-wide collection of believers, then I do have a problem with the KJV being lifted as THE STANDARD.

This seems to boil down to Context, Context, Context.  Is it in the local congregation, or the Church universal?  Is the responsibility with someone who is charged as a teacher or preacher, or someone who is being taught?  Is someone trying to teach, or mainly trying to tear down another?  Is it a deeply held belief that a person can articulate, or do the words of someone else persuade them to post a comment that is corrosive and flammable?  (As though it is resolved as fact for all, and thus not something leading to battle.)

[DennisS]

In regard to mistranslations, this is a matter for the experts...

Yet we are held accountable and are without excuse. We can't claim that we were mislead by men or Bible versions. While reading and studying a particular translation we discover inconsistencies, let's say, and discover heresy, what should we do? Allow such things to pass because we aren't experts or sound the alarm to help the church guard against the heresy from getting a foot hold?

I'm not following you well here.  For one, I see generalizations rather than specifics (heresy).  For another, we seem to disagree on the very nature of what it means to be "held accountable and are without excuse. We can't claim that we were mislead by men or Bible versions."

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (King James Version (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ro 1:19-21).)

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? (King James Version (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ro 2:1-3).)

Being without excuse is not based upon a Bible translation.  It has more to do with failing to clearly see that God created, and of failing to glorify or thank God when they indeed knew God, and thus holding self as of more importance than God.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (King James Version (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Mt 24:24).)

Is it a Bible translation that is the deceiver, or "false Christs and false prophets"?  I can see how a person could suggest that a false christ could be quoting from another version than the KJV.  But does that mean that a false Christ could not come quoting the KJV?  (Rhetorical question in which I assume the answer is "No".)

[DennisS]

Wait a minute! Where is the NT (New Covenant) to be written?  Upon hearts, and not ink on a page?

Yet, the Word is written on ink and page in order for there to be a standard.

I'm thinking we run in different circles, and that we use some words differently.  When I see the word "standard", I think of a measurement - of something that is a specific height or width.  A gallon or a liter could be considered standard units of liquid measurement.  A standard could be something that is jumped over (high jump, steeple chase, etc).  A standard can be a type, model, or pattern.  It can be the basis of rule.

As I see it, Jesus is the standard (not a particular Bible version).

[DennisS]

Don't hear what I'm not saying... I'm not disparaging the Bible.  I would indeed prefer a "standard" version.  David - I think that threw me in your previous post.  For some reason I didn't catch that you were referring to a standard version, rather than a standard.  (Sometimes I am too literal for my own good - just ask my wife.)

It would be awesome to have a standard version of the Bible - such that we could memorize and quote the Bible - all in the same version (at least for each language group).  Personally, I prefer it to not be the KJV, as that is not my heart language.  I don't speaketh, nor heareth in that manner.  I don't refer to a deer as a hart, etc.  I've stuck with the NRSV for many years now, such that it is the standard version for me (my default version).  It is the Bible that has been in the pews of all the places I've worshiped in the past two decades (and not because I put them there).

It would also be great to have a standard version of the Lord's Prayer (sins, trespasses, debts).

An example of how important the Bible is to me - I can affirm the words of James Smith (1849) as listed here:  http://gracegems.org/C/WORD OF GOD.htm

He doesn't call the Bible a standard, and he doesn't speak to a specific translation (though most likely the translation he is using is the KJV).

I suppose this opens another can of worms... Since it was stated that...

There are folks who have more faith in the scholarship of men over faith in God to preserve His word. What these folks fail to understand is that its not that the KJV is only accurate Word of God in the world, but that it is still the most accurate English translation. This is being discovered by independent students of the Bible. Yet these people get blasted by scholars and those who support "modern" scholarship.

I would like to state that I disagree that the KJV is the most accurate English translation.  There are indeed some things the KJV does well - especially in pointing to whether something is stated in the second person singular or plural.  However, I am not willing to throw out "modern" scholarship as dirty bathwater.  For one, I do not agree that the TR is the best set of manuscripts, etc to translate from.

Please don't hear what I'm not saying.  I'm not saying that I am going to push the NRSV on anyone, nor am I going to suggest that the KJV is any less the Word.  If anyone is convinced that the KJV is the best to study - then please study it.  If anyone is convinced that the NIV is the best for them to study - then please study it.

As to the matter of whether a person gets more meat from the KJV - I think that claim would be bogus.  If a person grows in the depth of knowledge and wisdom, they will truly be shown to be disciples and saints - regardless if they are using the KJV, the NIV, or even a single page of scripture that they could hide in their cell.

[Winter]

I am not and will never be a KJV only person.   Having said that I will say it is my favorite version because I am such a Shakespeare fan.  If someone is not used to that style it makes perfect sense that they use another version.

The reason I do not get into these debates is because I do agree with what you both said, it takes spirit to understand. 

I also believe you cannot kill the spirit in "Living Words". And God can use anything he wants.

Think about all the Christians in other countries who do not even have a KJV in their language.   One of the fastest growing group of Christians, or so I've heard, is in China, many are underground. They do not have a KJ, it did not stop God from speaking.

And that's it here for me.  Peace out!

[David]

As I see it, Jesus is the standard (not a particular Bible version).

Agreed. But how do we learn about Jesus?

David

[David]

He doesn't call the Bible a standard, and he doesn't speak to a specific translation (though most likely the translation he is using is the KJV)...As to the matter of whether a person gets more meat from the KJV - I think that claim would be bogus.  If a person grows in the depth of knowledge and wisdom, they will truly be shown to be disciples and saints - regardless if they are using the KJV, the NIV, or even a single page of scripture that they could hide in their cell.

Where the Spirit can impart knowledge and reveal mysteries, we are called to test the spirits. We, as flawed mortals men, have to rely on the recorded Word of God to test with. When it comes to the various Bible versions, use the one that the Holy Spirit convicts you to use.

I have have gone from RSV to Living to NIV to KJV. I asked God to lead me to the version He wanted me to read. I am convicted to use the KJV. There is a great deal of meat between the pages of any Bible if one would just study it. And study is the key. If you had a bible from the church of Satan and never read from its pages, it would have little impact on you. Same for the Bible.

The NIV is in the majority of the churches. Its is typically the Bible version used for quotes in people's books and articles. Newer versions are beginning to have a larger share there. I will read the NIV in unison during worship services. But I'll re-read it in the KJV. What I find interesting is the my minister reads the NIV during his sermons, but for clarity will often times use a key word as used in the KJV. Sometimes he mentions it, sometimes he simply says, "other versions".

Whatever you do obey what you read from whatever version the Holy Spirit convicts you to read.

David

[Today]

• Does Will Smith abuse his... by facedown [Today at 05:53:28 AM]
• Beck's real agenda by David [September 06, 2010, 11:13:59 PM]
• Hawking says God was not ... by David [September 04, 2010, 11:50:36 PM]
• Calvinism is unbiblical by DanielH [September 04, 2010, 10:07:21 PM]
• Is the christian right be... by facedown [September 04, 2010, 07:18:24 PM]
• VMA 2009 ritual analysis by facedown [September 04, 2010, 07:08:46 PM]
• Good videos about NLP and... by facedown [September 03, 2010, 05:22:51 PM]
• Are the biblical books in... by facedown [September 02, 2010, 06:02:52 PM]
• Need your prayers by facedown [September 02, 2010, 05:37:14 PM]
• Your brain on Christianit... by David [September 01, 2010, 11:32:28 AM]
• Pastor says armed militia... by David [August 30, 2010, 04:40:08 PM]
• The Gospel According to G... by David [August 30, 2010, 10:56:48 AM]
• U.S. Navy swastika build... by David [August 29, 2010, 10:50:33 AM]
• What is the Bible about? by DennisS [August 28, 2010, 09:57:46 AM]
• For DanielH by Bluehorse [August 21, 2010, 10:29:15 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 89
• Latest: catmancurtis

Stats

• Total Posts: 11463
• Total Topics: 1005
• Online Today: 6
• Online Ever: 111
• (August 25, 2009, 01:43:41 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 9
• Total: 9