Professor wants all to read one Bible

indystar/religion news service ^ | 012404 | Douglas Todd

[cpforlife.org]

Great points.

[joesbucks]

It is confusing, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try.

The question is does God give you credit for the attempt, even if in the wrong direction, or the execution of the correct way?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Y'alls cheese has slid off your cracker.

[DallasMike]

The simple fact of the matter is that denominations exist because we don't agree completely.

True, but I would argue that this isn't a bad thing. There were various sects of Judaism during the days of Jesus and He never made a judgment on which one was the "right" one. Different denominations have different purposes -- Baptists are good at reading the Bible and evangelizing, Pentecostals are good at praise and worship, Greek Orthodox are good on the mystic aspects of Christianity, and Roman Catholics are good at Inquisitions (just kidding on that one, Black Elk!!!!!). I don't think that God cares too much about our denominations.

[TigersEye]

Achieving balance is a lifelong discipline. A good snack tray is helpful.

[sasportas]

For some reason no one has brought up a chief reason why many of us stick with the KJV. It goes back to the text most modern versions are based on. They are "versions" of the conflated text of Wescott and Hort of England. All versions other than those based on the KJV are based on the work of Westcott and Hort of England.

They were liberal/gnostic/occultists. What they did is comparable to having Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton rewrite the constitution for us. The liberals think its great. We manuscriptural conservatives think otherwise.

I wonder has anyone taken the time to list the things that arose out of merry old 19th century England? By that time its spirituality had degenerated considerably from its traditional Christian heritage. An evil brew was perculating, a revolutionist gnostic/occultic brew, a corrupt melange that has cursed the world with such things as:

1. Occultism. Britain was rife with it. Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, etc. New Age and Feminism's roots are with these people.

2. Freemasonry. Both York and Scottish rites originated here. And from the same occultic melange as Blavatsky and New Age.

3. Socialism/Communism. Marx and Engels produced their manifesto here. Its roots are the same. Occultists of Germany took their lead here, eventually to produce Nazism. Hitler was a fan of Blavatsky.

4. Evolution Theory. Darwin's theories arose in the same area and time.

5. Dispensationalist/pretrib rapture theology. It started here... in the same area and time frame. People in Irving's movement were influenced by occultic and Kabbalistic notions around them. John Darby formulated it into a theological system that has captivated the minds of evangelicals ever since.

6. And yes, Westcott and Hort. Part and parcel of the same. The damage they did is probably on a scale greater than the above for their field of expertise was the scripture itself. Check out their occultic associations in merry old England. They mixed gnostic manuscript traditions in with the true producing a conflated text.

Jesus said beware, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

The KJV is not perfect by no means, but I'll take it, warts and all, thee's and thou's included, over one of such questionable origins as Westcott and Hort, arising in such a melange as listed above.

[King Prout]

You are an apostate, heretical, a blasphemer.

Monterrey Jack is the Pankrator... the Whey, the Culture, and the Blend... the Alpha and Omega of Cheeze.

Velveeta is the devil's work, and brie the love of those dead in sin... and the French.

Kneel before Jack, heretic!

[Sloth]

The Jews in the O.T. never had a "different version"

And in the N.T. they (including Jesus) used a Greek translation (the Septuagint).

[DallasMike]

e-Sword is a great free Bible software compilation. It has almost everything that a Christian could ask for -- multiple translations, concordances, commentaries, great books of faith, note-taking, searching, and parallel reading capabilities.

[billbears]

I find the people who don't understand it, are usually just unhappy with what it says, and are looking to change it to fit their own beliefs!

I disagree to an extent. I grew up reading the KJV, love listening to the KJV on CD, but in the past few months I've found in rereading the same words in NKJV or NIV, I've noticed there's been things I've missed or didn't fully grasp. No difference in meaning between the KJV and the other, because I've gone back and looked at the same verse in KJV. And the intent stayed the same, it just opened up God's word a little better to me

[DallasMike]

The KJV is not perfect by no means, but I'll take it, warts and all, thee's and thou's included, over one of such questionable origins as Westcott and Hort, arising in such a melange as listed above.

The KJV is fine if that speaks to you the best but I believe that a little research would show you that more recent translations are not based on the translations of Westcott and Hort.

Even if what you said were true, the fact that some bad things were happening in England at the same time Westcott and Hort were alive means absolutely nothing. You might as well say that Ronald Reagan is a bad person because Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all lived during the same century that he did. Besides, 19th century England and Scotland was also the birthplace of the modern missionary movement and I don't think that you can argue against that.

[P.O.E.]

January 20th has come & gone, and I still haven't sent out my Cheese Day Greeting Cards.

"Cheese Day, it's like Christmas, only Cheddar"

[Verginius Rufus]

Another problem comes from the fact that manuscripts were copied by hand over the centuries and copyists' errors inevitably crept in. Take the difference between the Protestant and Catholic versions of Luke 2.14:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (KJV)

"Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis" (Vulgate) = "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will" (or "on whom his favor rests": NAB for Catholics).

The difference between the two versions goes back to a single letter: some manuscripts read "eudokias" and others read "eudokia." The Protestant translations (and the Greek Orthodox) follow the reading "eudokia," the Catholic translations "eudokias." Both readings make sense; who is to say which is the correct reading?

By the way, the Greek word translated "men" means "human beings" (of either sex), so this is a case where a gender-neutral rendition would be accurate (although there is nothing wrong with the translation "men").

[TigersEye]

Merry Cheesemas, brother, and Hollandaise Greetings to you!
May the love of Cheddar be with you.

[joesbucks]

I disagree. Jesus did make a statement as to what was right. He claimed he was and the Jews of the time were in error not recognizing Him for what He was.

As for the other demominations you mention, Jesus said there was one way, not the Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal or Methodist way. One way. Which of the above do not follow his way to the letter.

[sasportas]

You remind me the Democrats, Dallas. You may be conservative politically, I would think so, most on this board are, I sure am, but when it comes to the scripture, you are a liberal, I'm a conservative.

I don't know about cheese, but when it comes to butter, I'll take real butter, thank you. Don't care for margarine.

[4himinct]

And in the N.T. they (including Jesus) used a Greek translation (the Septuagint).

Uh, no they did not. Nor did God....nor does He now. Nor will HE ever use it.it is worthless.

Doc Holland's class. Also Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones wrote an excellent work exposing the LXX as what it is, an imposter of the Word of God. That is here

This is all not a matter of my opinion.

If you think it is, then that is your opinion. God keeps His promises.

His,
Bob Z.

[Marathoner]

The ESV is a fine translation. I just don't see, however, how it is a significant improvement over the Updated NASB, which is my primary Bible. If the NASB had not been updated in 1995 (clarity improved, Old English words changed to modern equivalents) I would be using the ESV.

The one problem I have with the ESV is that the quality of printed Bibles available to date from its publisher, Crossway, for the most part is poor and disappointing, IMHO.

[scripter]

Here's something you may find informative: Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?