Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:11/12/2007 7:23 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

I am coming to the conclusion that I will gain more out of reading a modern translation of the Bible along side the KJV. I strongly suspect that I will grasp the meaning and thrust of Scripture easier if using a more up-to-date version. Now the question is, can you recommend which one?

I have been looking into the matter on-line, and am considering the NIV, ESV or NLT. And perhaps even "The Message" - as a completely different approach to the KJV.

Do you have a personal preference? If so, could you share with me which it is and, more importantly, why you chose the version you did.

Thanks!

George (ex CAI).

PS I am healing from the abuse of the CAI, and have found a good non-Pentecostal church to attend. I am not yet ready to look into doctrines - but am slowly getting there. We wer burned so badly in the CAI with the *right* interpretation of the Bible shoved down our throats, that it is taking some time to even begin to look again at specific doctrines. Still, I am much more open than I was, and have just been judging by fruit rather than doctrinal truths at this time, which is why I am quite happy in this new church for the meantime. But I am sure as God heals my hurts more and more I will start to examine doctrine. However, for now, a fresh look at the Word of God in a language I can fully grasp would be of great benefit. 

 

 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:12/12/2007 7:37 PMCopy HTML

Hi George,

A while back Ian recommended the ESV as part of the Reformation Study Bible. I purchased a copy and so far I find it very easy to use after years of the KJV (I had not been comfortable with other modern versions). If you want to trial the ESV (or the ASV as recommended by Brolga above), download the e-sword free bible (on the internet) and add the ESV and ASV on for free. I am amazed at how good e-sword resources are...and they are free....however I would encourage anyone to send a donation.

If you like the ESV you might want to buy a Reformation Study Bible ESV.

Kind regards, John Paul

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:12/12/2007 9:31 PMCopy HTML

Hi John,

Ha! That was the version/study Bible I was considering purchasing. Good to hear.

I have been downloading podcasts from a Reformed Theological Seminary in the States and listening to the lectures on the way to work. They have been really good. I am working my way through the "Church History" course. Once I am done that one, I will move on to OT then NT.

I am half considering learning Koine Greek as well. Lets see.

God bless - George. 

 

 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:12/12/2007 10:29 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

 

Which would you recommend - the Reformation Study Bible or the Schofield Study Bible? And you can you please state your reasons for your preference?

I am not (yet) a 5 point Calvinist. Would I still benefit from the Reformation Study Bible?

G. 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:12/12/2007 11:17 PMCopy HTML

Hi George, Good luck with the Koine Greek. I am having enough trouble learning German.

Mark Twain made a wonderful quote, which my teacher and classmates (young and old) love:

"Never knew before what eternity was made for. It is for some of us the chance to learn German" (Notebook # 14, 11/1877 - 7/1878)

See: http://www.twainquotes.com/German.html     His humour was, and is, priceless.

John

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:04/01/2008 3:21 AMCopy HTML

George, et al.

Just about any modern English translation would be a far better choice than the archaic KJV, and for a good many reasons (both textual and translational). In short, though, I recommend the ESV as being a very good, very reliable translation. I also recommend the NLT, as it often succeeds in bringing out the meaning of a given text far better than do the more formally equivalent translations.

So far as 'Study Bibles' go, my recommendation is the ESV Reformation Study Bible. Forget the Schofield Study Bible, as it's based on the KJV (an inferior text), and is built around a Dispensational hermeneutic (which is just out-and-out cr*p) [EMOTE]smiley-innocent.gif[/EMOTE]

Anyway, enough for now, I'm still on holidays!

Blessings,

Didaktikon/SOTT (haven't used that n-d-p in a while!) [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:04/01/2008 5:58 AMCopy HTML

Forget the Schofield Study Bible, as it's based on the KJV (an inferior text), and is built around a Dispensational hermeneutic (which is just out-and-out cr*p)

Reminds me of the Old "Sly and the Family Stone" song "Everyday People"

Sometimes I'm right then I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my songs
A butcher, a banker, a drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in
I am everyday people

Then it's the blue ones who can't accept
The green ones for living with
The black ones tryin' to be a skinny one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby

Ooh sha sha
We gotta live together

I am no better and neither are you
We're all the same whatever we do
You love me you hate me
You know me and then
Still can't figure out the scene I'm in
I am everyday people

Then it's the new man
That doesn't like the short man
For being such a rich one
That will not help the poor one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on scooby dooby dooby

Ooh sha sha
We got to live together

There is a yellow one that won't
Accept the black one
That won't accept the red one
That won't accept the white one

Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and
Scooby dooby dooby
Ooh sha sha
I am everyday people

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/01/2008 3:03 AMCopy HTML

Top of the day to you.

(I said) Forget the Schofield Study Bible, as it's based on the KJV (an inferior text), and is built around a Dispensational hermeneutic (which is just out-and-out cr*p)

(you then quipped) Reminds me of the Old "Sly and the Family Stone" song "Everyday People"

Sly and the Family Stone?! Man, you are showing your age! [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] But seriously, this isn't an issue about one person's choice being as good as another, or even of one Bible version being likewise. The issue is actually about the fidelity of a given translation to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and the capacity of translators to adequately (and honestly) render the same from source to receptor languages. When these two considerations are applied, the KJV (and the Schofield Study Bible) comes off looking rather 'shoddy' indeed.

But you're more than welcome to hang your hat on a translation that was based on only six, very late and textually inferior Greek manuscripts. And, if you're 'into' Dispensationalism to boot, on a theory based on some visions of an illiterate farm girl a slight 200 years ago. As for me, I prefer something a little more textually robust, and aged! [EMOTE]smiley-innocent.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

 

And to our former CAI friend who also voiced his concerns: you fellows really do need to get over the whole 'Nazism' thing.

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/01/2008 3:50 AMCopy HTML

Pardon, you may not have realised......but your guile is slipping again. I'm not the one frothing at the mouth about which versions are good and bad......you are. Where did I say I hung my hat on the KJV? Were the Greek texts carbon dated? No matter, none are originals. You missed the point about the song. But my point was not made for your benefit. It was meant as a warning for anyone not to get caught up in the "revivalist" mentality of rigidity and version dogma. You really need to seek counselling over your leftover "revivalist" manner. Time to move on. Racist comments to ex CIA members with regard to Nazism may parallel you with Scott, who was fond of that rhetoric.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/01/2008 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Big fella,

Spoiling for a fight, eh? [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Pardon, you may not have realised......but your guile is slipping again.

Is that so? Help me out here, just what do you understand to be the definition of 'guile'?

I'm not the one frothing at the mouth about which versions are good and bad......you are.

Oh, I'm "frothing at the mouth", huh? Okay, but if it's "froth" that's forming around my mouth, what's the stuff that's dribbling out of yours, currently? Eeeewwww! [EMOTE]smiley-innocent.gif[/EMOTE]

Where did I say I hung my hat on the KJV? Were the Greek texts carbon dated?

I'll try to very quickly bring you up to speed on the subject. The few mansuscripts that Erasmus used to produce the Greek text that went on to underpin the KJV date from the tenth century, by-and-large. And there's no real need to carbon date them, given that four were dated by the scribes who produced them, and paleographic evidence provids the date for the other two. Simple stuff really [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

No matter, none are originals. You missed the point about the song. But my point was not made for your benefit. It was meant as a warning for anyone not to get caught up in the "revivalist" mentality of rigidity and version dogma.

Well here's one point that you may have missed, and one which I've made many times here previously: it pays to be careful when presuming to speak authoritatively on subjects about which one has no first-hand familiarity. When it comes to the different English Bible versions, one would be quite hard-pressed to find a modern committee-produced translation which is worse than the KJV when it comes to imparting the 'voice' of Scripture. Some are superior, but most are adequate.

Second, but building on my former point, if one wishes to witness dogmaticism that reflects Revivalist ignorance, one might simply review certain of your former comments, above. Personally, I reckon you've provided a pretty good showing of the sort of 'rigidity' that's often based on too high an opinion of one's own competence and understanding, but then without the benefit of either knowledge or wisdom. After all, George framed his question to me (and not you, requests of this sort seem to be wholly lacking, here), and he did so, likely as not, because he believes that I'm someone who is capable of providing him with an informed opinion on the subject matter. George's query, and my own response, weren't based on thoughts of dogmaticism. Capiche?

You really need to seek counselling over your leftover "revivalist" manner. Time to move on. Racist comments to ex CIA members with regard to Nazism may parallel you with Scott, who was fond of that rhetoric.

Hmmm. Showing a little more of that 'Revivalist' penchant for ad hom attack rather than substantiated argumentation? Why on earth would you presume that: (a) I need counselling due to some sort of residual 'Revivalist' manner, or (b) that I haven't moved on, and/or (c) that I was 'racist' in my former comments? After all, I can quite proudly state that I'm certifiably 'A-OK', both emotionally and spiritually. WRT the second point, the fact is that I 'moved on' from 'Revivalism' years and years ago. Can I ask, have you? And finally, to be sustainable a charge of racism requires that comments were based on the issue of race. Hence the term 'racism'. My previous comment wasn't racially based, but ideologically based, reflective of the immature (or, perhaps, naive?) reference to "gleichschaltung" in a former post. And finally, as for your own rhetoric with respect to me somehow parallelling ASW, sorry, no match. I'm 6'3" and 90kg (ergo, I ain't short, fat and flatulant). Next, I'm someone who is formally educated in theology and biblical studies, and so can actually comment on biblical and theological matters from an informed position (again, unlike ol' Scotty who wouldn't know a diphthong from a demiurge). And, of course, there is the consideration that I'm heterosexual in orientationand wholly lacking in prediliction towards the young ('nuff said on this score). Last but by no means least I don't now, and never have, formed a 'flock' with the sole intent of 'fleecing' it financially, raping it relationally, or lording over it legalistically. So I guess I'm at a bit of a loss to see any similarity between your former 'overseer' and little ol' me [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/01/2008 6:45 AMCopy HTML

There you go again ......

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/01/2008 7:49 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the answer. I have purchased a NLT and am really enjoying it, gaining much more out of it than I have from the KJV for many-a-year. In fact I bought my 9 year old daughter one for Christmas. I guess if I am buying a non-KJV bible for Christmas, I must be moving slowly away from my CAI past! LOL.

I will get round to buying that ESV study bible, but for the mean-time the NLT is working well.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer.

George. 

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/01/2008 1:11 AMCopy HTML

There you go again ......


And why not? The 'tune' is upbeat, and allows me to get down and boogey! [EMOTE]smiley-yell.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/01/2008 1:16 AMCopy HTML

Hi, George.

Thanks for the answer. I have purchased a NLT and am really enjoying it, gaining much more out of it than I have from the KJV for many-a-year. In fact I bought my 9 year old daughter one for Christmas. I guess if I am buying a non-KJV bible for Christmas, I must be moving slowly away from my CAI past! LOL.

You're certainly welcome! The NLT is a very solid translation, produced by a very solid group of Christian scholars. I reckonyou'll continue to smile the more you read it! [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] 

I will get round to buying that ESV study bible, but for the mean-time the NLT is working well.

Fair enough. 

Thanks again for taking the time to answer.

Always a pleasure, George. 

Ian

 


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/01/2008 4:32 AMCopy HTML

I have taken a liking to the NRSV
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/01/2008 5:59 AMCopy HTML

I have taken a liking to the NRSV

"Guest",


Good for you. It is another excellent, modern English translation! [EMOTE]smiley-innocent.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:30/01/2008 9:55 PMCopy HTML


All,

Dr Gordon Fee has recently co-authored a very helpful book on the subject of choosing a Bible version. It's titled, "How to Choose a Bible Version for all it's Worth", and will cost around $18.00 from Koorong. The book lays out in some detail, the technical issues that surround Bible translation, and many of the myths that surround the issue of what does, or doesn't make for a "good" version. I found it to be straightforward, and a good read [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:03/02/2008 10:25 AMCopy HTML

Given that the King James was translated in two schools. The Old Testament from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the New Testament from the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament published by Erasmus, one cannot lightly dismiss the King James altogether. Although I admit that the Greek Text is far inferior to the more modern and better researched NA27/UBS4, the Hebrew on the other hand is not that easily dismmissed other than the English is the dated Elizabethan style. I find good use in the King James for referencing purposes especially in the use of tools such as Brown - Driver Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon in parsing Hebrew Text. I therefore do keep a King James in my personal library. After all one can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.   

.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:03/02/2008 10:04 PMCopy HTML

Given that the King James was translated in two schools. The Old Testament from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the New Testament from the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament published by Erasmus, one cannot lightly dismiss the King James altogether. Although I admit that the Greek Text is far inferior to the more modern and better researched NA27/UBS4, the Hebrew on the other hand is not that easily dismmissed other than the English is the dated Elizabethan style. I find good use in the King James for referencing purposes especially in the use of tools such as Brown - Driver Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon in parsing Hebrew Text. I therefore do keep a King James in my personal library. After all one can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, you may recall that the KJV was translated in three "schools", not two (OT, NT and Apocrypha). And contrary to your assertion above, I believe that one can safely "dismiss" the KJV altogether. The Greek text, as you've pointed out, is markedly inferior to that which is available today, and whilst the Hebrew text of the KJV OT is the same Masoretic text used by most modern versions, the translation produced by the KJV scholars is choppy, and in some cases, wrong. The fact of the matter is this: there has been an additional 400 years of Hebrew scholarship since 1611, not to mention the discovery of cognate languages to Hebrew (such as Akkadian) that were made during the 20th century, both of which has helped to illuminate once dark passages, and produce far better English translations.

As for BDB, 'yes', it is still an excellent tool. But it, too, has been eclispsed by modern lexical works (e.g. HALOT). In short, unless one is a fan of English literature, or hasn't the budget or inclination to purchase modern Hebrew and Greek reference works, I can't see any reason to retain the KJV. But that's just me [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:04/02/2008 6:52 AMCopy HTML

How wrong you are Guest in Posting # 20. One can not only throw, the baby out with the bathwater, one can rip the plumbing out of the wall and lie in wait to snarl and tear at anyone that comes to bathe. Many can, and do with the same zeal that the "KJV Only" fanatics have. That same religious zeal evolutionists have.

I saw Revivalists cross bits out of their Bibles, paste in photocopies from BI books etc. etc. I remember exhorting a man called Mike in Perth about the danger of taking anyone's advice as to what we should put and take, lest we run the risk of tampering and having to give account. Each new wave of scholars of course know more than their predecessors, theirs is a deeper and more correct knowledge......hmmmm, now that sounds familiar.

By the way, Mike a few days later showed me a "clean" Bible he bought, free from "corrections".

In my library I have numerous (about 30 I think) translations. I am a bit of a magpie when it comes to books. I can and do consult several versions, but I do like the style of the KJV. I for one have no intention of getting caught up in the new wave of "Hillversion" only.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:04/02/2008 9:51 PMCopy HTML


Good morning, John.

How wrong you are Guest in Posting # 20. One can not only throw, the baby out with the bathwater, one can rip the plumbing out of the wall and lie in wait to snarl and tear at anyone that comes to bathe. Many can, and do with the same zeal that the "KJV Only" fanatics have. That same religious zeal evolutionists have.

Well that's quite an interesting comment. The inference, of course, is that one must be a qualified plumber to make such a statement to begin with, given the skill required to pass judgement on the serviceability of the pipes! Are you a qualified plumber, yourself, or simply a 'handy-man'? [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

I saw Revivalists cross bits out of their Bibles, paste in photocopies from BI books etc. etc. I remember exhorting a man called Mike in Perth about the danger of taking anyone's advice as to what we should put and take, lest we run the risk of tampering and having to give account. Each new wave of scholars of course know more than their predecessors, theirs is a deeper and more correct knowledge......hmmmm, now that sounds familiar.

It depends. Given that the production of an English Bible version demands quite a detailed and specific skill-set that is additional to spiritual regeneration (e.g. mastery of the original languages, a profound knowledge of textual criticism, considerable expertise in exegesis, etc), sometimes it actually is wise to defer to the experts [EMOTE]smiley-tongue-out.gif[/EMOTE]  After all, the average 'hack' wouldn't have the first idea about  most (if not all) of these subjects. And, of course, if one is to compare the situation today, to that in the early 1600's, well, we're streets ahead!

In my library I have numerous (about 30 I think) translations. I am a bit of a magpie when it comes to books. I can and do consult several versions, but I do like the style of the KJV. I for one have no intention of getting caught up in the new wave of "Hillversion" only.

I've got absolutely no idea what you meant by the term "Hillversion", but I am interested in why you support (perhaps prefer) the KJV? Is it for technical reasons, or simply due to personal familiarity? And what if I could categorically prove that the KJV translators actually added to the Word of God? Would such constitute the "tampering" that you alluded to, above? [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/02/2008 12:45 AMCopy HTML

And a very good morning to you Ian,

It is quite odd how you find "inferences'. I am neither plumber nor handyman. I am however a dweller in the many mansions. I have used a variety of taps and showerheads, to know what I like and feels comfortable. Qualificaions come not by certificates and learning.

After twenty years plus of personal fellowship with Christ and the fellowship in Him thereatrer, Peter is withstood by Paul for his withdrawal. We read in Galatians 1 and 2 that the learning comes from our walk with God. Legalism and pedantry were rife with both the Pharisees and Saducees. Unfortuantely that same misapropraited pedantry has haunted the chruches and so-called churches down through the ages. Bigot and against bigot. Constantine with his "By this sign conquer". Luther and the Catholic Hierachy, and later day narcisists such as Knox and Wesley et al. Fanatical about espousing their versions of Christinity which of course were ALL right...and they said so! Ad nauseum. Then 20th Century nitwits (of which I was one and so were you) hitched their wagon to Satan's latest chicanery of "Pentacostalism".

Paul had an incredible background of learning but had learned "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". (2 Corinthians 3:6)

You say you have no idea why I "prefer" the KJV. You of course know the answer, as you often do when you feign dismay, only to make a point. I stated very clearly, I like its style, but I can and do consult several versions, one of which I recently bought (see above) after readiing your comments (ESV Reformation Study Bible). It is a shame I can't find an electronic version, do you know of one?

Alluding about tampering? No alluding whatsoever. I am adamant. Every translator stamps their opinion on a translation, because it is impossible I believe, for any person to be totally unbiased, as to a meaning of what a word or phrase should be or mean in "context" etc. We can spend years learning, studying, weighing up who we believe and why we must believe, that this is a better old COPY to translate from, and lose the plot. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". I've seen some very learned in men in and out of churches, poor in both spirit and occupation, for lack of the ability ot apply. It is the bane of our modern society "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". (2 Timothy 3:7).

Come on Ian, you know what I meant about "Hillversion". You don't do "coy" believeably! I was of course "alluding" to the foolishness of Hillsong to get immersed in new wave "gospel" singing, rejecting all that has gone before....throwing out the baby with the bathwater as they go.

Of late you seem to have mellowed a little, don't spoil it by reverting to the old "Ghengis Ian" despoiling as you go, or "Don Ianquote" tilting at windmills.

Peace

John
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:05/02/2008 1:17 AMCopy HTML

And a very good morning to you too, John.

It is quite odd how you find "inferences'. I am neither plumber nor handyman. I am however a dweller in the many mansions. I have used a variety of taps and showerheads, to know what I like and feels comfortable. Qualificaions come not by certificates and learning.

Ah, but when one presumes to discuss the relative merits of copper versus plastic pipes, it's probably wise to have more than just a superficial knowledge of either copper or plastic. Especially if one is prone to making judgments with respect to the serviceability of either [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

After twenty years plus of personal fellowship with Christ and the fellowship in Him thereatrer, Peter is withstood by Paul for his withdrawal. We read in Galatians 1 and 2 that the learning comes from our walk with God. Legalism and pedantry were rife with both the Pharisees and Saducees. Unfortuantely that same misapropraited pedantry has haunted the chruches and so-called churches down through the ages. Bigot and against bigot. Constantine with his "By this sign conquer". Luther and the Catholic Hierachy, and later day narcisists such as Knox and Wesley et al. Fanatical about espousing their versions of Christinity which of course were ALL right...and they said so! Ad nauseum. Then 20th Century nitwits (of which I was one and so were you) hitched their wagon to Satan's latest chicanery of "Pentacostalism".

First, I'm of the opinion that your overly broad and way-too-sweeping statements do neither you, nor the subjects of them, justice. If nothing else, they make you look hyper-critical and petty. Second, this is not now, nor has it yet been, a discussion about theological preference. What it is, however, is a tete-a-tete on technical competence and complexities as such relate to the art and science of Bible translation.

Paul had an incredible background of learning but had learned "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Thoroughly wrested and misquoted, my friend [EMOTE]smiley-cry.gif[/EMOTE]

You say you have no idea why I "prefer" the KJV. You of course know the answer, as you often do when you feign dismay, only to make a point. I stated very clearly, I like its style, but I can and do consult several versions, one of which I recently bought (see above) after readiing your comments (ESV Reformation Study Bible). It is a shame I can't find an electronic version, do you know of one?

The KJV certainly has a nice cadence to it, but when I reach for an English Bible, what I'm principally after is lexical and textual accuracy. Anyway, as for whether I know of an electronic version of the ESV or not, unfortunately, I don't. I'm not enamoured with electronic Bibles or tools. I comfortably remain a dinosaur bibliophile! [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Alluding about tampering? No alluding whatsoever. I am adamant. Every translator stamps their opinion on a translation, because it is impossible I believe, for any person to be totally unbiased, as to a meaning of what a word or phrase should be or mean in "context" etc. We can spend years learning, studying, weighing up who we believe and why we must believe, that this is a better old COPY to translate from, and lose the plot. "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". I've seen some very learned in men in and out of churches, poor in both spirit and occupation, for lack of the ability ot apply. It is the bane of our modern society "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". (2 Timothy 3:7).

You keep saying the "letter kills" etc, but I'm left with the distinct impression that you might not properly understand what the point of that particular saying of Paul's was. Please, prove me wrong [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] Anyway, translations that are undertaken by multi-denominational committees are less likely to allow personal (or theological) bias to intrude into translational choices. Further, a thorough grounding in the range of skills and knowledge that apply to Bible translation work, similarly, makes for far more balanced versions. I suppose, when assessed against the entire range of these, and similar criteria, well ... the KJV comes off looking rather poor, indeed. That, and the fact that it has added to God's Word [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

Come on Ian, you know what I meant about "Hillversion". You don't do "coy" believeably! I was of course "alluding" to the foolishness of Hillsong to get immersed in new wave "gospel" singing, rejecting all that has gone before....throwing out the baby with the bathwater as they go.

Yes, but my feigning ignorance is far preferable to you demonstrating yours. If you understood even the basics of what takes place with Bible translation, then you would not have suggested what you did previously. No reputable translation stands, or even attempts to stand, in discontinuity with what has gone before. Far from it, each subsequent translation seeks to stand on the shoulders of earlier giants, thereby affording a far more breath-taking and complete view!

Of late you seem to have mellowed a little, don't spoil it by reverting to the old "Ghengis Ian" despoiling as you go, or "Don Ianquote" tilting at windmills.

Perhaps, and for what it's worth, I fear that you might be slipping back into your infallible and hyper-judgemental ways [EMOTE]smiley-cry.gif[/EMOTE] But, on one matter you can rest assured: I'm just as advserse to ignorance and ignorant statements now, as ever I was [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/02/2008 8:24 AMCopy HTML

 

Regarding the King James version..

Here's a little issue I'd like to bring up about the KJV translators taking Hebrews 13:4 for an example.

The NA27/UBS4 text reads:

Timio" o& gamo" e*n pasin kai h& koith a*mianto"

The Textus Receptus reads exactly the same ( I have a hard copy in my personal library  !!) and for that matter the Byzantium has a slight variation but the text still remains in agreement.

The mood of the verb  ( Timios ) is the mood of imperative and the voice is passive because it receives the action of  ( gamos) (ie the subject of the verb).

So with these points in mind the sentence should translate: " Let marriage be respected by all and let the marriage bed (koite) be undefiled."

But our ignorant and misguided and ill-informed Revival Centres and Revival Fellowships would uphold the King James translators: " Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled."

And yet quite clearly the KJV translators have got it completely wrong and probably because they failed to translate the imperative. I suppose this could present some difficulty with Elizabethan English which is not as developed as our modern English.

Of interest, the NRSV translates " Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled " which I think is pretty close to the knuckle.

The inadequacy of the King James Version becomes all too apparent and indeed an unreliable source for any reasonable hermenuetical work. A perusal of Please Consider suggests that there are a plethora of such mistranslated passages contained within the work of the KJV translation. Many I will ,no doubt, continue to discover as time goes. But nevertheless I feel that some of it may well be due to the difficulty that Elizabethan English may have presented to the translators at that time in our church history.

blessings
Eric

ps the ESV states: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled,"

..
 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/02/2008 9:44 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Eric.

Agreed [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE] The KJV is far from being (in any sense, including a literary one) the "best" translation of the Scriptures into English. It also remains the version of choice for the vast majority of aberrations to Christianity. Why? Because its inherent ambiguity ideally serves the purposes of Scripture-twisters!

A few further points to reflect upon. First, many of the discepencies within the KJV have more to do with the fact that the Greek that was understood by the scholars of the Elizabethan period was the classical Attic of a much earlier time, and not the koine of the NT period. Vocabulary differences, grammatical differences and syntactical differences abound between the two different forms of the language.  Second, the KJV was an intentionally tendentious translation.  Consequently, the religious and political biases of the translators tainted their work. Third, although the level of scholarship was remarkable for the time, it is far from being comparable to what we enjoy today. In many cases the KJV dudes simply made "guesses" rather than informed choices, for the simple reason that they didn't have the information needed, at their disposal [EMOTE]smiley-sealed.gif[/EMOTE]

The KJV should be sitting on the shelf gathering dust. It's the Word of God, certainly, but to be effective the Word itself must be mediated in a way that is comprehensible and relevant. Put simply, the KJV fails these twin charges.

Blessings,

Ian 
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
chris7 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:New Member
  • Score:940
  • Posts:47
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 5:46 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:14/02/2008 11:11 PMCopy HTML

Ian
Please excuse my ignorance

What is dispensational hermenutics

Chris
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:15/02/2008 1:06 AMCopy HTML

Please excuse my ignorance ... What is dispensational hermenutics
Chris,

Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation, in this case, biblical interpretation. It comprises the "rules" (and assumptions) that one applies every time one approaches a text in the attempt to make plain its meaning. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant hermeneuts (scholars who undertake hermeneutics) all use the historical-grammatical method. We also use the historical-critical method.

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a very, very modern form of hermeneutic theory; one that was codified and formalised by the firebrand Irish Brethren leader, John Nelson Darby in the 19th century. It's this form of hermeneutic which is fiercely reactionary towards "modernism", and which underpins such nonsense as the "Left Behind" novels of the 1990s; and Hal Lindsay's, "The Late, Great Planet Earth" of the 1970s. There are any number of aspects to Dispensationalism which are definitive and distinctive (and "loopy"), but in the end, it fails as a theory because it remains a "forced" and "artifical" approach to interpreting the biblical material, and one which fails to appreciate the very nature of the biblical material itself.

Dispensationalists themselves have recently begun to acknowledge the flaws in the system; consequently, the most popular version is now known as "Progressive Dispensationalism", which is really quite orthodox and quite unlike the "Classical Dispensationalism" of old. Importantly, there was nothing that was remotely like Dispensationalism until about 200 years ago.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
chris7 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:New Member
  • Score:940
  • Posts:47
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 5:46 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:15/02/2008 1:26 AMCopy HTML

Thank you ian

Chris
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:15/02/2008 9:10 PMCopy HTML

When I started to seriously question my love affair with the KJV, textus receptus, and majority text I found the following book to respectfully, systematically and convincingly deal with the furphies presented by many KJV-only/best proponents.

White JR (1995) The King James Only Controversy – can you trust the modern translations. 286 pp Bethany House Publishers

Ian
   Do you have any feedback on this book or White himself. My understanding is that White is a respected theologian somewhat well known as a defender of Calvinist theology.

Others
  Also, Ian pointed me to the enlightening

Wegner PD (1999) The journey from texts to translations. 462 pp Baker Academic (available ex Koorong)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:17/02/2008 10:16 PMCopy HTML

When I started to seriously question my love affair with the KJV, textus receptus, and majority text I found the following book to respectfully, systematically and convincingly deal with the furphies presented by many KJV-only/best proponents.

White JR (1995) The King James Only Controversy – can you trust the modern translations. 286 pp Bethany House Publishers

Ian
Do you have any feedback on this book or White himself. My understanding is that White is a respected theologian somewhat well known as a defender of Calvinist theology.

Others
Also, Ian pointed me to the enlightening

Wegner PD (1999) The journey from texts to translations. 462 pp Baker Academic (available ex Koorong)
Good morning, RFOTE.

To be honest, I've never read any of White's books, but authors whom I do respect have commented favourably on his KJO Controversy. There are a number of books that address this particular issue, including one written by a favourite author of mine, Don Carson.

I still recall the discussions I had with some "die-hard" old CAI-ers on the previous forum. Talk about being rabidly ill-informed! [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] Thankfully, however, many of them have repented in recent years.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:21/02/2008 6:00 PMCopy HTML

HI Ian,

One thing that never sat well with me in the CAI was their understanding of Jesus being the Word (logos) made flesh.

Thus whenever it says in the NT that they preached Jesus, the CAI concluded that it did not mean the actual Jesus but that they simply preached "The Word". Upshot of this was that Jesus was greatly diminished within the CAI.

Do you have anything on the real meaning of John 1 - Jesus (the logos) becoming flesh?

Thanks!

G.

PS Thanks for your essays on Acts & Mark. I am not yet convinced on the Acts essay, but it certainly prompted me into further study and questioning, which can only be a good thing. I liked the one on Mark 16, though the CAI don't have the same slant on it as GRC/RCI etc. It is still good to read that it was talking about Christians in the plural sense though.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:21/02/2008 8:58 PMCopy HTML

HI Ian,

One thing that never sat well with me in the CAI was their understanding of Jesus being the Word (logos) made flesh.

Thus whenever it says in the NT that they preached Jesus, the CAI concluded that it did not mean the actual Jesus but that they simply preached "The Word". Upshot of this was that Jesus was greatly diminished within the CAI.

Do you have anything on the real meaning of John 1 - Jesus (the logos) becoming flesh?

Thanks!

G.

PS Thanks for your essays on Acts & Mark. I am not yet convinced on the Acts essay, but it certainly prompted me into further study and questioning, which can only be a good thing. I liked the one on Mark 16, though the CAI don't have the same slant on it as GRC/RCI etc. It is still good to read that it was talking about Christians in the plural sense though.

Good morning, George.

Any good commentary on John will address the issue of the logos becoming incarnate, and will also provide links to the OT concept of the Memra. And there are plenty of good commentaries on John [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

With respect to the essays, "you're welcome". Can I ask though, is there is any particular reason that you didn't find my Acts paper convincing? After all, I went into excruciating detail to prove my case, and I would hate to think that my findings were dismissed for no other reason than they didn't sit well with your personal experience [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:21/02/2008 10:44 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Have been reading commentaries on-line today about Memra and Logos. Thanks for that. It has been very interesting. However, the CAI teach that since Jesus is the Word (Logos/Memra), that He is a personification of the Bible. Thus to know Jesus/preach Jesus/Jesus in the midst of 2-3 believers etc - means that we should simply know the bible/preach the bible/talk about the bible between 2-3 believers. In other words Jesus is synonymous with the written Word of God.

So if I go back and discuss with them the flaws of their beliefs regarding Logos, how would I go about that?

 

As for the essay on Acts, I understamd your arguments but am not qualified in Greek to say wether or not they hold any water. Having being burned once by taking in what one man said is "gospel", I am a bit more cautios this time around. Once bitten twice shy. So until I can verify your arguments (either through learning Greek, or getting neutral opinions on it), I will need to reserve judgement. But it is very interesting.

Thanks for all of your input,

George.

 

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 1:49 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Have been reading commentaries on-line today about Memra and Logos. Thanks for that. It has been very interesting. However, the CAI teach that since Jesus is the Word (Logos/Memra), that He is a personification of the Bible. Thus to know Jesus/preach Jesus/Jesus in the midst of 2-3 believers etc - means that we should simply know the bible/preach the bible/talk about the bible between 2-3 believers. In other words Jesus is synonymous with the written Word of God.

So if I go back and discuss with them the flaws of their beliefs regarding Logos, how would I go about that?

 

As for the essay on Acts, I understamd your arguments but am not qualified in Greek to say wether or not they hold any water. Having being burned once by taking in what one man said is "gospel", I am a bit more cautios this time around. Once bitten twice shy. So until I can verify your arguments (either through learning Greek, or getting neutral opinions on it), I will need to reserve judgement. But it is very interesting.

Thanks for all of your input,

George.


Good afternoon, George.

In a nutshell, the CAI has gotten things terribly, terribly wrong. Jesus being the Logos of God in no way likens him to a book. The former is the active and Creating Word of God, the Bible is simply the written record of God's words and work in salvation history. The two are not one and the same! [EMOTE]smiley-tongue-out.gif[/EMOTE]

Concerning my essay on Acts, well ... clearly you'll have to suspend your judgment for a decade or two! At least, that is if you wish to develop the level of personal competence in Greek that is necessary to even attempt to dismiss my findings [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]  But, on a serious note, an observation if I may: the level of paranoia and distrust that you former CAI types exhibit towards others (and certain informed opinions) is a bit disconcerting. It seems to be that you fellows refuse to consider that some people actually do know what they're talking about, and that not everyone who offers theological commentary is a charlatan like your former "overseer".  Personally, I find the dismissive comments of some former CAI 'folk' quite remarkable, after all, it's not as if any of you have a truly informed knowledge base on which to base such decisions.

Just my tuppence worth [EMOTE]smiley-tongue-out.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 6:02 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

I would not label it "paranoia and distrust", more just like a healthy dose of caution. I guess perspective is everything, eh? LOL.

Your essay was good - logically presented. It is just at this moment I have no way of verifying it. I am leaning in the direction you pursue in your essay - but shall suspend judgement for the meantime. It is precisely because we do not have a good knoweldge base, that we perhaps we are not quick to take on board the comments of another teacher. Have patience! :)

You know, it would be of great service if you could actually put together a short essay on the Logos of John 1. I could then send it on to current and former CAI members. It is just one of the stumbling blocks of CAI theology, but an important one. It came about from the 2nd in charge (Michy) having a revelation one day that since Jesus was THE Word, that evertime the Bible referred to Jesus in the epistles, you could substitute the written word instead. It all seemed bizarre to me at the time, but I lacked the knoweldge, time and will to research it further.

It actually would be a big help to ex-CAI people. So, in the words of a certain website, "please consider" this request. :)

Thanks for all of yoour continued good works.

George.

 

 

 

 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 8:42 PMCopy HTML

George,

You might be interested in some of the expositions found at http://bible-truths.com/

Ray is a refreshing change. His writings are clear and precise without religious waffle and verbose terminology.

In particular he has written quite a bit about "tongues", "trinity" and "Which Bible is Best".

Instead of just putting forth his doctrine, he explains why, without the "because I'm qualified" we are used to.

His exhortation in the last few paragraphs of his exposition about "Which Bible is best" is superb.

John
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 9:40 PMCopy HTML

Hi John,

I think you might want to check your sources more carefully. It only took about 15 minutes of reading Ray's sight to work out he teaches the heresay of Arianism = there is no trinity, Jesus was created by God, we can all become "gods", and partake in the family of God, the Holy Spirit is not God.

Pretty toxic stuff there John. That was sorted out at Nicea way back in 325AD and Constantinople in 380AD.

Sorry, but I am going to have to skip Ray. Thanks for the link, but I do need to be discerning about such things.

G.

PS He also teaches that Satan is not Lucifer. That God deliberately created evil. That God created sin. He also teaches that there is no hell. He teaches that there is no free will. He also teaches Univeraslism. Yikes!
whodoyouthinkyouare Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:350
  • Posts:16
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 4:29 PM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 11:13 PMCopy HTML

 That God deliberately created evil.

  • I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
  • Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
  • Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 11:32 PMCopy HTML

George,

You might be interested in some of the expositions found at http://bible-truths.com/

Ray is a refreshing change. His writings are clear and precise without religious waffle and verbose terminology.

In particular he has written quite a bit about "tongues", "trinity" and "Which Bible is Best".

Instead of just putting forth his doctrine, he explains why, without the "because I'm qualified" we are used to.

His exhortation in the last few paragraphs of his exposition about "Which Bible is best" is superb.

John

John,

Wow! It's almost as if you go out of your way to prove me right! [EMOTE]smiley-laughing.gif[/EMOTE] Are there any other heretics that you'd like to commend as 'good' Bible teachers? [EMOTE]smiley-undecided.gif[/EMOTE]

No blessings this time.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 11:40 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

I would not label it "paranoia and distrust", more just like a healthy dose of caution. I guess perspective is everything, eh? LOL.

Your essay was good - logically presented. It is just at this moment I have no way of verifying it. I am leaning in the direction you pursue in your essay - but shall suspend judgement for the meantime. It is precisely because we do not have a good knoweldge base, that we perhaps we are not quick to take on board the comments of another teacher. Have patience! :)

You know, it would be of great service if you could actually put together a short essay on the Logos of John 1. I could then send it on to current and former CAI members. It is just one of the stumbling blocks of CAI theology, but an important one. It came about from the 2nd in charge (Michy) having a revelation one day that since Jesus was THE Word, that evertime the Bible referred to Jesus in the epistles, you could substitute the written word instead. It all seemed bizarre to me at the time, but I lacked the knoweldge, time and will to research it further.

It actually would be a big help to ex-CAI people. So, in the words of a certain website, "please consider" this request. :)

Thanks for all of yoour continued good works.

George.


Good morning, George.

I'll certainly consider your request, but at the moment all my 'spare' time is tied up producing an essay on 1 Corinthians 12 through 14. I suppose it really comes down to getting the most 'bang' for my 'buck', so to speak. You're the only CAI type who asked for a copy of my previous essay, so I'm not overly motivated to invest too much time and energy into producing something that addresses what is an issue for a very, very small group of people; and a group which hasn't shown a great deal of interest in my previous work anyway. Better, perhaps, that I devote my energies targetting the larger centre of Revivalist 'mass': RCI, RF and GRC.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:22/02/2008 11:56 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Yup - I understand. If time permits, I might write it myself. If I do, would you mind if I bounce off you for review?

I would also be interested in reading your 1 Cor 12-14 article once it is ready.

Thanks again,

George.
george-b Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3330
  • Posts:141
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/03/2007 1:11 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:23/02/2008 12:05 AMCopy HTML

In response to "whodoyouthinkyouare". I cut and pasted this from a website. But check out your verses in the NLT;

Isa 45:7 I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

Amos 3:When the ram’s horn blows a warning, shouldn’t the people be alarmed? Does disaster come to a city
      unless the Lord has planned it?

Lam 3:38 Does not the Most High send both calamity and good?


On to the article;




Skeptics love the KJV so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. In addition, the KJV was produced using a limited number of medieval manuscripts that did not represent the earliest Alexandrian set of manuscripts.

What do the modern translations say?


  • The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7, NASB)
  • I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is sha^lo^m,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Ra^?a^h,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."

Amos 3:6

 

  • If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6, NASB)
  • When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6, NIV)

Likewise, Amos 3:6 uses the same word, ra^?a^h, referring to calamity or disaster. the context (a disaster happening to a city) does not refer to moral evil.

Lamentations 3:38

 

  • Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38, NIV)
  • Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth? (Lamentations 3:38, NASB)

The King James Version of Lamentations 3:38 seems to suggest that God speaks both good and evil. However, if one reads the verse in context, the preceding verses indicate that God does not do or approve of evil.4 The verse following indicates that people should not complain in view of their sins.5 What the verse really is saying that God decrees times of good things and times of judgment. Lamentations was written by Jeremiah during a time of judgment, when Judah had gone off into exile. Jeremiah was chosen by God to be the prophet to tell Judah to reform or be judged. The people did not believe Jeremiah, and, therefore, fell under God's judgment. In Lamentations 3:38, the word translated "good" is t?o^b (Strong's H2896).6 The word usually refers to good things5 as opposed to bad things. Again, ra^?a^h3 does not refer to moral evil, but calamities, in this verse. Likewise, the Bible commentaries indicate that the verse refers to God's judgment based upon people's sin.7

Conclusion Top of page

God is not the author of evil.8 However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. Therefore, God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) on those who rebel.9 God will ultimately judge all people, since rebels will not be allowed in the new, perfect creation.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:For SOTT - Bible versions.

Date Posted:23/02/2008 7:04 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Yup - I understand. If time permits, I might write it myself. If I do, would you mind if I bounce off you for review?

I would also be interested in reading your 1 Cor 12-14 article once it is ready.

Thanks again,

George.

George,

I'd be more than happy to cast an eye over whatever you produce. And the Corinthian piece is a ways off yet, but once it's complete I'll send you a copy [EMOTE]smiley-wink.gif[/EMOTE]

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.