jasd Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Quote: Quote:jasd Which Bible? Doesn’t the same author referenced above adjure her readers to understand the Apocrypha? >>No she dosn't.<< Actually she more specifically addressed the wise – I was a bit more generic when referencing her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 But under the impact of higher-critical assumptions the Bible's role as the sole source of authority for Christian faith and lifestyle is being challenged. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It is late on the east coast. I think I will retire. Have a good evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 >>It was Jesus who said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." OK, what are the fruits of Bart's views of the NT?<< Those of the .Org might want to think twice before putting a “By their fruits...” argument on the table. I’ve seldom encountered such stultifyingly, repetitive charges against others of the body of Jesus Christ as those advanced by the aforementioned .Org. There are fruits and there are fruits. I think that this or that ‘fruit’ is as disturbing as the other. >>Once a person starts down the slippery slope of questioning virtually everything in the Scriptures,<< ...as good hermeneutics require. >>...and rejecting a good portion of the NT, if he is consistent, he will go ahead and question all of it, including the trustworthiness of the Gospels of John and Matthew.<< Indeed, if the HS leads, one ought to question. Ones’ death is a very personal and private matter, as is one’s salvation. >>Once that is done, the book of Revelation is certainly questionable also.<< Questionable? moreso, than any other book of the NT – in the sense that it requires the most intensive discernment. >>There's no valid, logical reason to exempt John's Gospel. It's like a last straw.<< Acts 4:13 apprises us that Peter and John were both unlearned/illiterate; to wit: “and perceived that they were unlearned (#62 agrammatos – illiterate) and ignorant men, ...” One notes that it was St Luke who wrote the book of Acts; perhaps, it is the above which lends to the fact that the Apostles were so distinguishable as being Galileans. Then again, the St Luke’s inclusion of the spectator’s observation that St Peter and St John were illiterate may have been wrong; or, it may have been as it was with Jeremiah – whose writings were scribed by his servant. However, as the writings of St Peter and St John were not put forward as having been dictated – what must one take away from Writ re their ‘writings’? Faith is good. >>He speaks positively of the Westcott and Hort Greek NT. What do you have against the WH text?<< What do you think of their ‘ghostbusting’ escapades? ...puts to mind flirtations with occultism, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 >>"Ye shall not surely die" is not presented as truth in the OT. It is shown as being excactly what it is. A lie. It is late on the east coast.<< Indeed, 1:00 AM is late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor29 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 "Ye shall not surely die" is not presented as truth in the OT. It is shown as being excactly what it is. A lie. It is presented as a lie, but think about it. There is only one person I can think of who has really died the second death, Jesus. And He died for us, so we wouldn't have to die. So, as in several other instances, when Satan thought he was telling lie, he was actually telling the truth. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 oldsailor, there are many, many, who will die the second death. So how is "Ye shall not surely die" the truth? Oh that's right, you don't believe God when he says he will destroy the wicked. I forgot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 >>He speaks positively of the Westcott and Hort Greek NT. What do you have against the WH text?<< What do you think of their ‘ghostbusting’ escapades? ...puts to mind flirtations with occultism, yes? Except for the New King James Version, all modern translations are basically translations of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That includes the New American Standard Version and the English Standard Version. The Critical Text is really just an updated edition of the WH Text. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 There is only one person I can think of who has really died the second death, Jesus. And He died for us, so we wouldn't have to die. It's true that we don't have to die the second death. Yet, tragically, the way it is presented in both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White, the majority of people who've ever lived will eventually die the second death. Ellen White says this directly. She says that relatively few will be saved. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 >>For Ellen White, [...] She left no doubt that the Bible is "an unerring counselor and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "a unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."<< That is largely so; however, of all the examples that might suffice, one need only refer to the Comma Johanneum. It may be that we ought approach Writ as ‘sufficient’ – leading unto salvation. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5: 7) may or may not be part of the original text-- I tend to think it wasn't-- but the important point is that it doesn't teach false doctrine. There are other verses-- for instance, John 5: 4-- that are not genuine but they also aren't of such a nature as to lead people into false doctrines. There are thousands of variants in the ancient Greek manuscripts, but again none of them affect or change doctrine. In fact, most of the variants don't even affect the translation, and many more do not change the overall meaning of the text. I believe it's evidence that God has protected and kept the message of salvation free from significant error. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 As far as Bart Ehrman, I understand why he became an Agnostic... He does not believe or understand that God will preserve the truth for those who search and research for it. I do believe.... Yes, we do agree there. But since God preserved the truth-- which we both agree He did in the Old Testament Scriptures that He inspired BEFORE the coming of Christ-- why would this unchanging "God of truth" not do the same with the Scriptures that were written AFTER the coming of Christ? The Scriptures written after the first coming explain why He came and what He accomplished. These Scriptures also proclaim His Second Coming. His Second Coming is even more important than His first coming in terms of the urgency of being ready for it and having true knowledge concerning it. It is written for the entire world-- billions of lives are at stake. The Old Testament Scriptures, by contrast, were generally read only by the Jews, a relatively small nation. Therefore it seems to me to be contrary to both reason and Bible evidence to believe that God would allow Satan to mix his errors in among the truth about Christ in the NT when we know God didn't allow Satan to do that before the first coming of the Messiah. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 John, So where did the NKJV come from, and what about KJ2000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 The King James Version was translated from Erasmus' Greek Text (1519). It's known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and is similar to the Majority Text. Both are based on the Byzantine text-type. His Greek Text was based on a collation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, none of which were dated to before the 12th century. But we know today that those manuscripts were representative of the the vast majority of Greek manuscripts being used in the Christian church. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type The KJV2000 is based on the same texts as the KJV, since the editors of the KJV2000 didn't take manuscript evidence into account in their updating of the vocabulary. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Ok you answered my question about the KJ2000, but my main question was about the New King James Version. NKJV. You said that was different somehow. How is it different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 26, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 26, 2009 Is this the statement you have reference to-- ""Except for the New King James Version, all modern translations are basically translations of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text"? If so, I'm distinguishing the New King James Version from all other modern translations because all others are either eclectic or are translations of the Critical Text, whereas the NKJV is based on the Received Text, of which there are several editions. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 So it's in the same boat with KJ2000. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Quote: Quote: Quote:John317 Do you believe that the God of truth allowed the lies of Satan to enter into the Old Testament? Quote:jasd “Ye shall not surely die.” Quote:Richard Holbrook "Ye shall not surely die" is not presented as truth in the OT. It is shown as being excactly what it is. A lie. Truths or lies, in this instance – it matters little, as I simply addressed the point that the statement originated with Satan and “entered” into the OT. That said, and still dwelling upon the matter of “the lies of Satan” entering into the OT – what are we to make of the following by the prophet Jeremiah? Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Is it possible to overparse the text and focus on “the day as meaning a 24-hour evening and morning sequence that I brought them out of the land of Egypt”? Maybe, however it is doubtful. Anyway, had not Gd already instituted the Pasch? with the Tabernacle rituals following shortly thereafter? Is it possible that the text is to be read as Gd commanding burnt offerings and/or sacrifices because... Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not... Jer 7:26 Yet they hearkened not... ?? Or, was there perhaps, another who commanded the ritual of burnt offerings and/or sacrifices? ...another who was the god of this world – to whom had been given the authority due a god of the entire world? One called the deceiver... There, seemingly, exists a burden of discernment, which attends study of the OT – as well the NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 >>It is late on the east coast.<< Indeed, 1:00 AM is late. Actually it was 2:00 AM when I said that. There's 3 hours between us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted October 26, 2009 Administrators Share Posted October 26, 2009 I feel somewhat honoured that you have chosen to spend your hours here!! :) Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Yeah, well I haven't been able to sleep good lately. I'm turned around backwards. I'm going to try to get back on the right track tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted October 27, 2009 Administrators Share Posted October 27, 2009 Doesn't Mr. Murphy give good backrubs? That would put me to sleep! Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Quote: Quote: Quote:John317 He speaks positively of the Westcott and Hort Greek NT. What do you have against the WH text? Quote:jasd What do you think of their ‘ghostbusting’ escapades? ...puts to mind flirtations with occultism, yes? >>Except for the New King James Version, all modern translations are basically translations of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That includes the New American Standard Version and the English Standard Version.<< Exactly, which brings to mind the words found in the KJV NT, “What communion hath light with darkness.”? I suggest that that proves indicting for a couple of ghostbusting occultists, yes? On the very face of it, practicing occultism ought to detract and/or otherwise diminish one’s estimation of the supposedly substantive work of Westcott and Hort? It is for that detraction – I prefer the KJV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 27, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 27, 2009 So it's in the same boat with KJ2000. Right? Yes, all three-- the KJV, the NKJV, and the KJV2000-- are all in the boat as far as the manuscript evidence is concerned. All are based on the TR. Some words-- relatively few-- have no basis in the Greek Mss. Most editions of the NKJV will show in the notes how it differs from the Majority Text and the Critical Text. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 >>Actually it was 2:00 AM when I said that. There's 3 hours between us<< My mistake, my 'puter clock had already switched to daylight savings. I logged out shortly after and per my custom - left for supper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 27, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 27, 2009 Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.