There are so many different Bible versions. Could you give me some advise, opinions, insight on which versions remain closest to the original language.

Scott, you cautioned in the "Pre-Millennialism" thread (which I can not seem to find in the archives) to avoid the NIV unless you have access to understanding the Greek. Could you elaborate some more on that for me?

I also use the NRSV, but have found that words are added to be more politically correct...such as sisters when the term brothers is used. What do you think?

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Answers

Connie....

I agree with you!! Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met in the church had neither a college education or a knowledge of Greek. But, they knew their KJV or NASB or NIV intimately.

I feel fortunate to have studied both orginal languages (Greek and Hebrew). And I'm thankful for the times that I can bring some additional light to the Scriptures during times of study with others.

However, like I said, there are plenty of people in the church, without a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew who have much to teach me about the Scripture as well.

So in direct answer to your question.....it is very possible, that wihout a knowledge of the original languages.....the person in the pew, thanks to a number of wonderful translations, has the ability to "test the spirits."

You, nor anyone else, needs to feel intellectually inferior.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Dr. Jon.....

For a Baptist.....I'm really starting to like you!! Ha!!!

Thank you.....thank you...thank you.....thank you......for the following statement you made:

"There is nothing wrong with honest and open investigation, even if it gets heated at times!"

I think those at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 would certainly have agreed with you too Jon.

Thanks again!!!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

To avoid re-typing what I said earlier, I found the post and here it is: "To start with, I would suggest that when doing serious Bible study, avoid the NIV unless you have access to understanding the Greek. Because of their translation(?) method, it lends itself to a great deal of interpretation rather than translation. This may be another good idea for a discussion thread. The NIV does not try to stay close to the original wording of the Greek. They take whats called a dynamic equivalence approach, which means that they tried to communicate the thoughts of the writer rather than his words. This opens itself right up to interpreting by the translators." That's not an exact quote because I corrected some spelling errors.

Translations are a tricky thing. They are all done by uninspired men trying to communicate the original inspired language into modern language. Most are honest attempts at translating, some are done with an agenda. I do not think their was an agenda behind the NIV however it is a weak translation for the reason cited above. It also has, especially in the OT, a Calvinistic slant. No, that's not my bias showing thru, it is just plain fact. Although, I would accept it over most translations.

The NRSV translators had an agenda. It was to be, as you pointed out, politically correct. It fits with what so-much of the main-line denoms are promoting - a non-offensive Gospel.

I prefer the NASB. It has some problems as well, but all in all I consider it to be the most accurate of the modern translations. I know some who prefer the original American Standard (1901) and have good reasons for doing so, but I find it too strenuous to read for very long. The NASB was recently updated (1995) and a lot of the awkward phrasing was removed as well as the King James language in prayers and poetry. It is now a straight modern English translation. There are some things I thought should've been left alone, but all-in- all, it's a job well-done.

The NKJV is a fair translation, although the translators were, in my opinion, more concerned about being true to the original KJV than they were to the Greek text. But dont take what I just said too strongly. I prefer NKJV over the NIV. At the Church I served before Fort Lauderdale we called the NIV the Non-Inspired Version. There will probably be some on this forum who won't appreciate that. It was meant as humor, but of course, all good humor has a bit of truth contained in it. :o)

There are some translations that are a waste of paper, or as Roger Chambers would say, "they would make good bird-cage lining." The "Living Bible" would be classed as one of those. It, of course is not a translation, it is a paraphrase, but it too often gets treated as though it were a translation. Many of the very new translations I am not familiar enough to comment on. Most of the new ones that I have seen have the smell of a publishing house wanting to make a buck. But that's my opinion.

Because of recent events here I will be learning Spanish and will, hopefully soon, be able to comment on the few Spanish translations that are available.

I hope this answers your question. I think this will make an excellent thread.

-- Anonymous, March 21, 2000

Scott:

What is your opinion of the Philips Translation [Paraphrase]?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

I do not own a Philips and only have a little knowledge of it, so I don't think I can make a fair statement about it. I know it has some good points, some bad - what those points are, I couldn't tell you.

I appreciate the credit you folks give me about being knowledgeable in this area, but there are many on this forum who are more "in-the- know" than I am. My nephew/son/brother/friend Michael Demastus is very good with the Greek language (except where the Holy Spirit is involved ;o)) He can add much to this discussion. There are probably others that I am not aware of.

There are also many tools that are available for use to the non-Greek reader. Vine's is good, although not THE authority. A mistake that a lot of people on this forum continue to make is trying to use Strong's Concordance as a Greek dictionary. It wasn't made to be a dictionary. There are a couple of suggested meanings for different words but it falls far short of being even close to an authority. I have books that are twice the size of a Strong's with nothing but Greek definitions that are paragraphs long. How can Strong's have accurate definitions with just 2 or 3 words? It can't. It wasn't intended to be a dictionary which is why it is called a concordance. And, as an English concordance, it is excellent, because it is for that purpose it was made.

D. Lee, you are still a very dear lady!

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Scott:

Could you address the point which D. Lee mentioned inre: 'politically correct'?

Because I had that silly 'proofreading' course, I go by the standard rules. I'm sure I make some errors in that regard. But when the answer determines whether you get an 'A' or a somewhat lower grade, one tends to go with what the book or instructor says, IF IT IS NOT A SIN. (IMHO)

In regard to the use of such 'politically correct' terms as he/she instead of 'he' alone is not a sin, the last I looked. When the Scriptures were translated into English, the use of the masculine 'he' was taken to mean both genders (? people use that instead of 'sexes'). With the rise of feminism (of which I am not one)it offends some that they are 'left out' when the obvious intent is that they are included.

Can you give us a little tutorial on the use of gender-neutral terms as it relates to political correctness (I can think of several, but one is the use of 'person' as opposed to a gender-specific pronoun or noun.

Since Paul 'became all things to all men that he might win some', I do not see anything wrong with taking some women's feelings into account, when they won't even listen to you about the Gospel if you don't.

Now, I know Paul would not become a homosexual to witness to a homosexual, so what did he mean here?

Thank you. And bring Michael Demastus around to help us, too!

Awaiting that Blessed Hope!

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

A couple of informative resources, even if you disagree with the conclusions.

The Debate Over the King James Version by Rick Wade discusses much more than the KJV, delving into the variants of manuscripts available and the debate over them.

Why So Many Versions? by Daniel B. Wallace

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

I would simply add that today, the most accurate (we know there isn't any completely accurate translation available)would be the New American Standard Updated Edition. This is a great translation. Now by mentioning accuracy I simply mean to refer to bias levels of the translating team...not in any way do I imply error.

I have used the NIV and do not preach against with the fervency of my elder(ly) Uncle. Some refer to it as the "Nearly Inspired Version". I think that it has value though. I find that teenagers connect with it much more readily and easily than they do with the NASB.

There is value in most of the translations, as long as you are grounded in the Word and have a basic knowledge of Greek and understand the Canonical process. Some might complain and say that is too much expectation for the average Joe in the pew, but I don't think Jesus cares if you try to learn a little for Him!

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Scott,

Thanks for your insight. The advice on the NIV I had not heard before. There are many I know who use this translation, especially new Christians as it seems easier to understand.

I have heard the NASB is good, in fact our preacher jokes about it being the version Paul used. I have an English/Greek Bible which I would like to ask you about later (we just moved and I haven't found that box yet) I was surprised to find when I started using it that words in our English versions were not found in the Greek version. Of course I have no idea how reliable the Greek version is either. I will try to find it over the next few days.

Connie, as to the political correctness...where will that end? There are times "brothers" is used and we know from the context that both genders is meant, why do we need to change or add words to God's words? If people are so brazen to change God's words in one area, why not another? I have not seen, but have heard there is a version where God is referred to as she. Have any of you heard of this?

Michael Demastus could we entice you to come and join in this discussion?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

When studying, I prefer the NAS, though I consult a whole lot of other translations (NIV, KJV, JNT, CEV, et.al.). I find a variety of translations helps you get the sense of what the original language was trying to convey. I avoid "politically correct" versions: I don't see how rewriting the Bible to fit your own political agenda is any different than rewriting the Bible to fit your own theological agenda, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

When witnessing to cultists, the KJV is best, because most cultists respect it, even if they don't think it's very accurate. By the way, I wrote a paper on the KJV because a friend of mine is a KJV- only Baptist ... you can read it at my church's website (click on my name below, then click on "my opinion on the KJV-only controversy"). If this thread gets into a KJV battle I might post it here for all.

For devotional reading, I used to like the NIV, but lately I have found the CEV (Contemporary English Version) to be far more readable. The NIV's language is often "stilted" imho. Not smoothly flowing and too "stiff."

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Michael,

You beat me to the punch. Thanks for the information.

I have no knowledge of Greek and understand nothing about the Canonical process. Where does the "average Joe in the pew" start?

Does anyone know anything about "The Message"?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

John the CEV lost me when it totally rewrote Acts 22:16, which is one of the passages that I immediately look at when looking over a new translation. I picked it up, looked at about 3 passages and then put it back down trying to avoid the lightning strike :o) So I cannot speak for the whole translation, but what I saw was enough for me.

As far as the PC stuff, I think D. Lee hit the nail on the head. How much changing is too much changing? Just one instance of the NRSV's PCness is I Thess 4:13 where it says, "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about ...." The "and sisters" is not in ANY Greek text anywhere. Legitimate traslations, when adding to the text usually put the additions in italics so that you know they are not part of the original texts. The NIV and NRSV do not, so, to the uninformed (the use of Paul's word is unintentional) there is no way for them to know the difference. Not much time today, but thought I'd at lest say this much for now.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Also, using multiple translations are good only if the translations are good.

D. Lee, F.F. Bruce wrote a very good book called "the Canon of Scripture"

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Could you guys spell out the names of these translations please...for those of us like me...who are completely ignorant of the acronyms for most of the different translations.

John, What is the "JNT"? What is the NAS and is there a difference between that, the NASB and the "New American Standard Updated Edition" that Michael refers to?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Re: The Message

The Message is a heavily paraphrased, highly interpretative version of the Bible done by Eugene Peterson. If you use only one translation, this is NOT the one to use. The only circumstances I can imagine using it in is by someone who is extremely familar with the Bible and is looking to "shake some cobwebs" in their thinking.

The Message reads like a novel, and it may be the most readable version out there. It may also be the most inaccurate translation among the best sellers. If you hated the Living Bible, you will likely organize a book burning or wretch with The Message. [Note for the humor impaired: the book burning comment is said with tongue in cheek]

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Anyone use the NET Bible? What are the thoughts on it?

The NET (New English Translation) Bible apparently is a new translation that is freely distributed via the net (the name is a play on words) and in its online version makes good use of web browser features to enhance its use. The NET was intended for web use, filling voids left due to publishers' copyright concerns.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

This is kind of a disturbing thread here. Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe. Some of you challenged my beliefs based on the Bible, but you don't know from where or how you got the Bible??!! This is an inconsistency that is not good.

The translation process is vitally important. And yes, every translation team (to include KJV) approached it with presuppositions. This is important to understand while using these translations. Unfortunately, no thanks to the "KJV-only" folks who muddied the actual issues, most of the times the facts are not known.

The only book I know of that is the majority unbiased is "The King James Version Debate" by a guy named White, as I recall. (I'm remembering this off the top of my head, so I am not sure. I will look it up when I get home.) Most books I have read (and I have a library of them; it was a required subject im my seminary) are only 50 - 75% correct, with the remainder being conjecture to prove positional bias.

The problem with our English translations is the fact that it is a translation. From everything I have studied, the English translations are no more than about 98% accurate when compared to the original languages anyway. The important part to remember is that these "flaws" are the most part meaningless, having to do with the spelling of names and punctuations. NO IMPORTANT DOCTRINE OR CONCEPT IS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS.

I think it is a mistake to think of one translation as "best." What version works best for your congregation? If you have a very educated, traditional bent congregation, KJV, NKJV or NASB would work for you. If your congregation is less literate, or very young, NIV (and yes, with its accompanying flaws) would probably be appropriate with its 6th - 8th grade reading level. In the 70s, the Living Bible was used very effectively for reaching teens. The Word has to be presented in the vernacular of the hearer (within reason), not the vernacular of the scholar. Otherwise, we come dangerously close to the error of the middle ages, where the Scripture was locked up in the monasteries of the scholars, out of the hands of the people.

My main complaint with these discussions is not the technical aspects of it. And we haven't even GOTTEN to the technical parts yet! Unfortunately what these debates actually lead to is the loss of confidence by the average churchgoer in the trustworthiness of Scripture as being the Word of God. Once this confidence is shaken, so is their faith. If the Bible isn't true, then we have no hope. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and can show it by historical and other evidences. I am confident that Jesus is who He said He was, and that He died for my sins based on my confidence that the scruptural records are totally reliable. Be very careful when you start to take the road that questions reliability of translation. Unless it shows absolute error (like for the New World Translation, which does have deliberate mis-translation), you run the risk of damaging your people's faith.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Jon,

I included two links to some technical discussions.

I agree, Jon, there is no best translation. The points of contention between translation come down to two points:

1) which Greek texts? The Byzantine text family, the Alexandrian, the Caesarean, or the Western? See [1] for a discussion of this.

The KJV is from the Byzantine text family, as is the "family" of translations in the tradition of the KJV (NKJV and "revisions" of the KJV).

2) Formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence:
Formal means word-for-word translation. These are the more literal translation, but anyone familar with more than one language knows the flaws of word-for-word translations in their ability to be understood clearly.
Dynamic equivalence is the attempt to convey meaning from the original language, a phrase for phrase translation. While this method results in more readable translations, this method is open to mis-steps. A translator's or translation team's bias can slip into the text.

No translation is a true formal equivalence, though some are closer to being formal than others. Those closest to being formal equivalences include King James, old American Standard, and NASB. Examples of those that are more of a dynamic equivalence are NLT (New Living Translation), New Century Version, and New English Bible (not NET). The Message is either extreme dynamic equivalence or in its own universe, depending on your opinion. I think that English readers/speakers should all own at least two translations, one more of a formal equivalence and another more of a dynamic equivalence. Probably a dynamic equivalence translation is good for new Christians, so as not to discourage them from reading the Bible, but in time they should add a formal to the mix. As for the text debate, many of the more recent translations recognize both, using one in the main text with footnotes to recognize and explain the differences. Many D.E. translations will also put alternative translations of a phrase in the footnotes. Those links I provided before give more information like this.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

D. Lee:

My point in my question about 'political correctness' is because in TODAY'S writings, it is considered an actual error to not include both sexes in a given account. An error which in a proofreading class will get you a lower grade if you make it.

And the KJV translators were not leaving women out; they were, in most cases, using the accepted ~ for the day ~ form of use. A masculine noun or pronoun was meant to include women. Scholars: Please correct me.

Scott:

In your second paragraph, you ask about 'too much changing'. It seems to me that ALL of the translations are simply to make it more understandable to the reader, unless one has an agenda other than that.

In the I Thess.4:13 passage, the 'brothers and sisters' reference could have been rendered 'brethren, but even that will not satisfy some feminists. (I've thought of 'sistern' but I don't think that will work.) In your opinion, to whom is that passage directed? Is it just to males?

And last, but not least: (As it will be in Heaven)

Dr. Jon:

The danger you mention is real. If everyone knew that NONE of the translations are anything the average 'Joe or Jill' has seen, it might shake their faith. I don't believe if a person has been truly 'born again' that that is a danger.

Among the oldest originals are the 'Dead Sea Scrolls'; the 'Sinaiiticus' and the Viaticanus'. They are buried in Museums, and only a very few scholars have access to them. I learned that many years ago when I was a baby Christian. The 'Viaticanus' is in the Vatican, and the 'Sanaiiticus' is now in the British Museum after having been in St. Petersburg (Leningrad) in the Soviet Union. (My memory is failing, and the previous information is off the top of my head, so it could be that the information is riddled with error. Correct me as necessary.)

There's been some controversy about the release of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' to scholars other than the ones who have had custody since they were discovered.

A missionary in my S.S. class who is setting up a Christian Study department in a Kosovo university at the request of the officials of the university, says there are small pieces of some ancient manuscripts, which are older than the ones just mentioned, at the University of Michigan. I have forgotten those names. (I'll find out.) I can remember what happened forty years ago more than what happened last week.

Dr. Jon:

My personal take is that we can discuss anything if we use respect in addressing our verbal adversary, and speak the truth in love. When it gets into abuse and 'ad hominem' attacks, then it is no longer a discussion; it is an argument.

What say you?

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

F.Y.I.

I just realized that while I've understood the term "ad hominem" for a while now I had never looked it up to see the definition. So for those lurkers who are having a hard time understaninding this terminology I present the following from AOL's On-Line Dictionary:

ad [1] ho*mi*nem (adjective)

[New Latin, literally, to the person]

First appeared 1598

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

As far as I know, there are no New Testament texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they date at around 200 B.C.

There are no "original" manuscripts, or autographs, extant. However we do have copies dating within a century of the autographs, such as the Bodmer II papyrii. Some snippets may date as close as 30 years from the original writings.

As far as P.C. goes, I draw the line when it refers to God as "She" or "He/She" (or worse yet, "It"), as some modern "agendalations" have done.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

sometimes I like ad little hominem for breakfast :^

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Mark is hitting this issue on the head with his reply. Again, my concern is that the "layman" does not understand the Textus Receptus/Hort-Wescott etc debates, and how that has affected the modern English translations. Nor do they fully realize the "dynamic equivalance" method (NIV) or paraphrase (TLB, NEB).

Connie, what you will find is that there are some SERIOUS points of contention to the texts you brought up. The Vaticanus has been attacked for decades. It has a funny history, and wasn't always accepted as reliable. Nor is the Sinaiticus, which is another obscure text. (Both of these, btw, were used for the ASV, and is what is often referred to as "oldest and most reliable texts," which of course is open to debate.) I also have a problem with the Dead Sea Scrolls...not their accuracy so much, but the false conclusions some scholars make from them. The problem isnt that there are these fragments (note the word: fragments, not whole texts) floating about. The question is that are these fragments parts of spurious texts which contain scribal or intentional error or ommission? This is the crux of the KJV only debate, btw. The KJV, being based on the Textus Receptus (or "Received Text," which has been historically accepted by the church since antiquity and verified by greatest number of extant documents), is held by some to be the only "correct" version because of the underlying Greek text. So to mention those other three (which are the only surviving copies) is an arguable point to some.

Mark - I didn't check your links, which was an oversight on my part. But I don't doubt your scholarship here.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Jon,

Above you mentioned "these kind of debates..." I know you are referring to other places where this stuff gets heated, but so far, this has been a simple discussion concerning translations.

If the "layman" does not understand the issues, could that mean that the Churches are not teasching the right things? I believe it does. Everytime I have started in a new ministry I have gone thru a class on how to understand the Bible and part of that class is how the Bible came to be. I also have a Basic Bible Class in which I have the class actually translate 3 verses from the Greek. That is the best way I know to explain to them how so many translations are possible.

I do not see how our being honest about the issues would/should weaken anyone's faith. When people ask me what translation I use I tell them and tell them why. I do not apologize for believing that one translation is better than another. If someone shows me another translation that is better than the NASB (D. Lee, that's the New American Standard Bible) I will lose the NASB that minute and go get the better one. And then I'll tell people that the new one is the best, and why.

Oh well, I have a class to teach.

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

All:

I would like your opinions of 'The Amplified Bible" with an opinion of the differences in scholarship in the old and new testaments in that version; also, your opinion of the RSV. (Especially the RSV.)

I had mentioned getting the NIV, which I have now had time to look over. The one I have, 'though, is the 'Interlinear NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English' (which will come in handy when I start my new class); I purchased, at the same time, a Comparative Sudy Bible, a parallel with the NIV, the NASB, the Amplified, and the KJV side-by-side.

This is a particularly good one for novices, because it shows on one page four different versions. (D. Lee ~ this is a good one.)

When we were new Christians, we spent about three years just reading the N.T. over and over again, and getting any information we could about meanings. We made use of Kenneth Wuest's Bible Studies and were reading 'The God who is There'; 'Death in the City'; 'How Should We Then Live?'; (Francis Schafer); 'Mere Christianity', and others of CS Lewis' books ~ I think 'The Hound of Heaven' was his, and of course, 'The Screwtape Letters'.

My favorite for its beautiful, poetic way of expressing things was the KJV; my favorite study Bible was the Amplified. My husband's favorite was the 'Philips Translation' ~ Paraphrase. He also studied a KJV with the addition in brackets of the 'more correct renderings of the ASV (1901)'. This one was published by the John A. Dickson Publishing Company of Chicago (1996 printing, originally copyrighted in 1931, again in 1938, 1941, 1947, 1950, and 1964.

It is the one I have been using until I bought the aforementioned ones more recently. It has a great concordance but I go to the Strong's if I can't find a word I'm looking for.

On an earlier thread I had said that if congregants know the Scriptures, even though they may not be highly educated, they can know if their pastor is in error or not, provided they also stay awake. Does anyone disagree with that statement? Please enumerate the reasons why you feel that is not true.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 22, 2000

Scott - yes, you are correct in that I do think that most (painted with a really wide brush) churches do not teach what the people need to know. That is why I started a ministry to teach this type of thing. I watch in my particular persuasion (Baptist of all shades) numerous forms of error being brought forth which is purely based on a lack of knowledge. Baptists 'claim' that charismatic teachings are in error, yet the people in the pews teach and disseminate the charismatic view because it is the popular view on TV or the radio. They do not know the actual biblical reasonings behind the 'why,' they just regurgitate what they heard. Independent Baptists are particularly 'bad' about their KJV-only arguments, but only hear what their preacher or 'some book' says, and not the whole issue.

Oh, and the comment about "debates" was generic, nothing in specific. It was just the term I came up with at the time. No, there is nothing wrong with honest and open investigation, even if it gets heated at times!

As far as the weakening of someone's faith, I have to stand by that with some clarification. What normally is heard is "the original autographs do not exist" or "the best manuscripts" or "the oldest manuscripts" or something of that nature. Think about it. Unless it is made clear up front that the differences in manuscripts do not change any essential doctrine for salvation, and that the evidence supports a reliable document which is fully trustworthy, then what we are saying is that there is no way to know that we really have the Word of God. When they open the NIV or NASB and see "some manuscripts do not have" (Mark 14:72, 15:39) or "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9- 20" it will create doubt in the Bible. The person in the pew doesnt know that these "reliable early manuscripts" are themselves in dispute, and does not know the history behind them or their translators.

Anyway, I am starting to digress. My ministry teaches a 3 hour workshop on the Authority and Trustworthiness of Scripture. (Not an advertisement, just a statement of fact!) When I have presented this material, the look on people's faces is astonishing...because they have never heard about this stuff. We in the church need to teach it. Scott, you are to be commended for doing what you are doing (seriously). If I was a pastor/minister, I would want to be doing the same thing. You are making them think, and teaching the background behind the "why" of what they are supposed to believe, which is vital. Unfortunately, it is also usually lacking in modern churches.

Anyway, here is some more fuel for the fire I found in my library, if anyone wants some research to do:

About the inerrancy question:

"The Battle for the Bible", Harold Lindsell

(This is vital in my opinion. The "Is the Bible God's Word?" question is most of the time the heart of why a church or denomination leaves the historic Christian faith. And he gives actual, specific examples of who, how and why. Ever wonder how a Bible College or Seminary becomes liberal? He shows how, from the history of specific institutions.)

A fairly 'neutral' look at the whole KJV Only argument:

"The King James Only Controversy", James R. White

(There is a large section on the personalities of the KJV-only debate, which is important in understanding how this issue got so messed up, and why it has cultic-like overtones.)

And for the other side (laffs), the pro-KJV side (I have to warn you...these are very biased, but are about 75% excellent for their history of manuscripts):

"Which Bible?", David Otis Fuller

"King James Version Defended", Edward F. Hills (This is a 'standard' work in the area, and is highly quoted by KJV-only-ers)

And for those who like the KJV, but have problems with the ancient English language:

"The King James Bible Word Book", Nelson Publishers (This is a dictionary of all those archaic terms and words whose meaning has changed over the centuries. I recommend it.)

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny -

Does that mean you're gonna ask me to do a workshop for you? ::laffs::

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Responding to an earlier question: JNT: The Jewish New Testament, by David Stern. I use it when I want to get some Jewish insight into the meaning of a particular passage. It has really opened my eyes to some of the more obscure passages. For instance, when Jesus says in the middle of a passage on storing up treasures in heaven, "If your eyes are good ..." Like, what the heck does that have to do with anything? Turns out that having or "bad eyes" is a Jewish idiom for being stingy. Once you know that, the whole passage makes much more sense.

But I do take exception to some of his translation methods (for instance, in the interest of "not offending" the Jewish reader, he always translates the word "stauros" as "stake" rather than "cross." I am sure the JW's have picked up on that by now!).

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Danny!

God Bless you!

That was a very kind response and I appreciate it very much.

Because we studied different versions so much, and were in a Bible class with people from several denominations; and then found our present church with people from so many different denominations; and our school with the same sort of make-up, denominations have never meant much to me.

I could see in my own case that my own Baptist denomination (Northern, now American Baptist ~ my mother was from the Southern Baptists ~) had made some error: for example, baptizing me before I was a believer, which simply met their traditions. I love them, though, and there are many Christians still in Baptist churches (witness Dr. Jon!)

By the way, when you are all on your 'hog-hunt, I will be praying for you. Will you be anywhere near Ocala? That was my mother's home for the first 16 years of her life. Beautiful spot.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Dr. Jon:

You have said:

This is kind of a disturbing thread here. Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe. Some of you challenged my beliefs based on the Bible, but you don't know from where or how you got the Bible??!! This is an inconsistency that is not good.

I agree with you that those who have not studied from where or how we came to have the word of God should stop right now and go find out! Especially they should certainly do this before they begin to talk, as if they know what they are talking about, concerning which translation of the scriptures is trustworthy.

I do object, however, to what appears to be an implication in your words that those of us who have challenged your beliefs in this forum dont know from where or how we got our Bible. Now, just because you assert such a thing does not prove it to be true, now does it? I do not recollect any discussion in this forum concerning how we got the Bible so I cannot understand just how you are able to have any evidence whatsoever of whether we know where or how we got our Bible since you do not know just what we have all studied and how much we have learned about this subject. I have challenged your beliefs on occasion in this forum and I can tell you that I do know how and where we got our Bible and I can discuss it in intricate detail should anyone be interested. However, it cannot be discussed properly with short, brief, unsubstantiated assertions that are no longer than a paragraph in length as those that we see most often in this forum.

Now one of the things that I particularly like about discussing things with you is your honesty and your willingness to offer evidence to support your assertions when asked. Your ability to reason and willingness to do so is refreshing to me. Your integrity in admitting when an argument makes sense and is reasonable and then offer your good reason for still disagreeing is a beautiful display of fairness and sincerity in discussion. For that reason, I sincerely do not believe that you honestly mean to say that those of us who have challenged your beliefs in this forum do not know where we got our Bible. It may be the case with some who have challenged you but I do not know that it is because you have presented no evidence to support that claim. But I do know, and can demonstrate should you like to have me take the time to write concerning this matter, just where and how we got the word of God. I know that if I do not know anything else.

As far as any challenges concerning your beliefs, those who see a conflict between your words, indicating your beliefs, and the word of God, properly challenge those beliefs. Any person can challenge your beliefs even if they cannot tell you where and how they got their Bibles. For there are many honest souls who have never had the education and opportunity to learn the intricate details of this subject. They believed the Bible to be the word of God based upon the internal evidence within its pages that they diligently and prayerfully studied every single day of their earthly lives and they served the Lord and stood for the truth as best they could. I do not believe that you intended by your words to indicate that faithful Christians such as I have described could never justly challenge your beliefs as far as those beliefs concern something written in what both you and they agree to be the very word of God. You have never struck me as the kind of man who would be so unjust in presenting an argument. I can only think that you are trying to make us all realize, especially today, when our faith is being challenged by attacks upon the Holy Scriptures from the so-called educated- elite who have sought to undermine the inspiration of the scriptures by inaccurate arguments concerning how we got our Bible that we should be knowledgeable in these matters so that we can meet these arguments as well.

You also correctly point out that these discussions concerning translations can cause the unlearned to begin to doubt their faith in the scriptures. This is a favorite tactic of our adversary, Satan. For our God is one God and he revealed himself to be one God so the devil influenced men to have many counterfeit gods so that the most honest and sincere person would have a difficult time finding the true and living god! The Lord established only one Church. (Matthew 16:16; Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:24; Eph. 4:4) and Satan has caused men to be confused and has created denominationalism and sectarianism to counterfeit the true Church of Christ so that the most honest and sincere would have great difficulty in finding it. Then God has given us His word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in written form and Satan has sought to counterfeit by many different versions and paraphrases and amplifications etc, the very word of God as well so that today even the most honest and sincere men must seek diligently to find it. The apostles did not have the problem of massive sectarianism and denominationalism that we must face today. They were dealing with Judaism and many false gods that caused thousands upon thousand of sincere people to lose their souls believing a lie. Just as when Moses cast his rod down before pharaoh to show that God was with him in what he said and the Egyptian magicians cast down their rods and they turn into snakes, God has given us his word and Satan has cast down numerous doctrinally biased and deliberately deceptive and politically correct versions that are spiritually incorrect to deceive and detract our attention away from the truth.

Therefore we live in the most dangerous of times for our souls and only those who are strong in the faith and hold to God through Christ and His word will survive. Today we have the culmination of all of the counterfeits of Satan before us and we must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves in approaching these subjects. Therefore, in the main I agree with you that we must be careful with this subject lest we assume that everyone knows where and how we got our Bible but I do not accept your unproven assertion that those of us who have challenged your beliefs do not know how and where we got our Bible. Neither do I accept the idea that those honest souls who believe the Bible to be the word of God, as you also most certainly believe, cannot justly challenge anything you believe about the teaching of the Bible unless they can first of all demonstrate to you that they know where and how we got the Bible in the first place. That may be the case if you did not accept the Bible as Gods word but when both of you agree that it is Gods word there is absolutely no reason they cannot challenge your beliefs even though they do not have your knowledge of where and how we got our Bible.

For Christ and the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Lee -

First let me say that my remark was not meant as a judgment or a rebuke. It was an initial observation. So if I offended you, I do ask for your forgiveness. That goes for anyone else who read, and was offended. That was NOT the intent. And I genuinely am sorry about that too.

What I said was:

"Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe. Some of you challenged my beliefs based on the Bible, but you don't know from where or how you got the Bible??!! This is an inconsistency that is not good."

The emphasis on this passage is "SOME" (not all), and the last sentence "This is an inconsistency that is not good."

As in all things that I write/teach/etc, I want to be saying BALANCE. This goes into the areas of Scripture too. While I do agree that much must be taken on faith with the Scriptures, our learning about our faith must be balanced, and will encompass more than that.

I am to lead a prayer meeting soon, so I have to go. More soon. But please accept my apologies.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Dr. Jon:

You said:

"The emphasis on this passage is "SOME" (not all), and the last sentence "This is an inconsistency that is not good."

You did not offer evidence to prove that ANY who had challeged your beliefs did not "know where or how we got our Bible". I was not offended by what you had said I only objected because it was an assertion without proof. Having been one of those who "challenged" your beliefs on occassion I was sure that I know where and how we got our Bible so I questioned your assertion that "some" of the others who also "challenged" you beliefs did not know "where and how we got our Bibles". For, in my mind, if you were wrong in my case then it is possible you are incorrect in your assertion that anyone who "challenged" your beliefs did not know "where and how we got our Bibles".

I know that you said "some" and did not say "all" who "challenged" your beliefs did not know "where and how we got our Bibles". But you did not specify who nor did you give any evidence that ANY of those who "challenged" your beliefs "did not know where and how we got our Bibles". Therefore your assertion remains unproven and thus unbelievable until the proof is given that some who have "challenged" your beliefs in this forum do not know "where and how we got our Bibles".

Now I have said that you are a fair man and honorable and that your arguments are normally reasonable. But it does appear in this case that you have stated something that you at least have not yet proven to be true, now doesn't it? I believe that you will agree that at least up to this point you have not proven that ANY who have "challenged" your beliefs do not "know where and how we got our Bibles". I admit that such MAY BE the case with some as you have said. I know that is certianly is NOT TRUE of ALL who have challenged your beliefs but you have not proven it to be true in the case of ANYONE who has challenged your beliefs, now have you?

I am not objecting because I am offended or that I think anyone else should be offended by what you have said. For if your statement is true it should cause us to correct ourselves instead of being offened. If what you have said is true of anyone they should thank you for bringing it to their attention. But the problem, Dr. Jon, is that we just do not know if it is true because you have not given evidence to establish that is it true.

I hope that you understand what I am saying and why I say it. You have never been one to assert without proof and if you did ever do such, for we all do so at times, when asked for the evidence you are always willing to provide it. I am merely saying that you have thus far only asserted that such is the case with some who have challenged you but you have not yet given any proof that it is true, of anyone who has challenged your beliefs. I am simply asking for the proof or the admission that you are not really sure of your words in this matter.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Since it was mentioned on the 'Are you really depressed?' thread, I thought I should put this there, but it seems to fit better here.

The Amplified is a Translation and this is what it says in its Preface and Foreword: (Condensed)

Published 1958; Lockman Foundation; Zondervan [N.T.] " 1962; first half; 1964; second half.

1. It should be true to the original languages 2. It should be grammatically correct 3. It should be understandable to the masses 4. It should give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place which the Word gives Him. No work will be personalized.

Since the original release of 'The Amplified New Testament', and the two volumes of 'The Amplified Old Testament, the entire text has been reexamined carefully with the appropriate modification incorporated to insure the highest degree of accuracy. THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

EXPLANATION OF ARBITRARY PUNCTUATION

Parentheses ( ) and dashes _ _: signify additional phrases of meaning included in the original word, phrase or clause of the original language.

Titles of Deity: are set off, however, only with commas.

Brackets [ ]: contain justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate original text.

Italics: point out certain familiar passages now recognized as not adequately supported by the original manuscript: Also,'and', 'or', and other connectives in italics indicatr that the word itself is not in the original text, but it is used to connect additional English words indicated in the same original word.

Capitals: are used in names and personal pronouns referring to Deity, but sparingly elasewhere.

References: (Scripture references at the end of a verse); are intended to cover any part of the preceding verse to which they apply.

Synonyms: are limited to what the text seems to warrant, both as to warrant, both as to number and wording.

For example, the translation of Acts 16:31: (Amplified)

"And they answered, believe in and on the Lord Jesus Christ,--that is, give yourself up to Him, take yourself out of your own keeping, aqnd you will be saved; [and this applies both to] you and your household as well. thou shalt be saved."

What does 'believe' mean?: Webster defines it: "to place credence,...apart from personal knowledge; to expect or hope...to be more or less firmly persuaded of the truth of anything; to think or suppose".

But this is by no means the meaning of the Greek word which twenty- two N.T. versions out of twenty-four consulted render 'believe'. They do so because there is no one English word that adequately conveys the intended meaning. Actually, the Greek word used here is 'pistueo'.

It means 'to adhere to, cleave to; to trust, to have faith in; to rely on'. Consequently, the words, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ'....really mean to have an absolute personal reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

When studying the Amplified , one of course needs to take the clarifying marks into account. Also, I (Connie) cannot key the italics in. The only words italicized in this passage are 'and' and 'Christ'.

Following is the same passage in the NAS:(Also THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION)

Acts 16:31:

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.

The Amplified is unwieldy, but it gives each possible meaning of each phrase.

By the way, Lee: What you pointed out is why I very obviously set off my opinion in special brackets; so that no one would mis- understand and think that they were my words.

Are you one of those who accepts only the KJV? Just wondering.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Dr. Jon; I have reread your statement that I have objected to because you have established a reputation of being reasonable in this forum and I just cannot believe that you meant it in the way in which it comes acroos to me. Therefore I will ask you if my following concept of what you have said is possibly what youo meant to convey.

It may be that you are not trying to say that any of us who have challenged your beliefs actually do not know where we got our Bibles but rather that it would be a terrible inconsistency for us to "challenge" your beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) on the basis that the Bible is the word of God if we do not know "where and how we got our Bibles". I believe that I could agree with this, if that is what you meant, except when the one whose beliefs are being challenged also accepts the Bible as the word of God. It seems to me that in such a case it is perfectly appropriate to "challenge" their beliefs even if you do not know all of the intricate details of "where and how we got our Bible". For the discussion is between two people that believe that the Bible as they have it came from God as he intended that they receive it even though they do not know just how he brought it to us.

Now in saying this I do not disagree with what you have said about our desperate need in our times especially to diligently study this subject. Because we are face today with many who have been taught that the Bible is not the word of God and we must be "ready always to give an answer" to them concerning the "hope that is in us with meekness and fear".

I am not sure that you meant what you said as I have described above but it is possible in which case I agree with you with the exception that I have stated above.

Your Christian Friend,

E.Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

I must correct my typos, especially the ones in the Biblical quotation:

indicate, not indicatr

elsewhere ,elasewhere

doubled 'both as to warrant'

In the quotation: and, not aqnd; ...'take yourself out of your own keeping and intrust yourself into His keeping,and you will be saved...'

This was from the Foreword and my words started at the paragraph:...'When studying the...', so that I give proper credit.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Connie:

You said:

"By the way, Lee: What you pointed out is why I very obviously set off my opinion in special brackets; so that no one would mis- understand and think that they were my words."

Connie, are you saying that yo\ur opinion, which you set off in special brackets was your opinion but they were not your words?

Connie, the important thing for you to notice is that they were NOT THE WORDS OF GOD. Your words and the opinions of others found in the so-called "amplified version" are just that Connie. They are the opinions of Men that are contrary to the very WORD OF GOD. THose opinions please you because they fit your false doctrine but they are not God's word and therefore do not teach the truth.

You ask if I am one of those that accepts only the KJV. No I am not. I read my Greek New Testament for myself in the original language. And if I have a preferred version it would be the American Standard version. But I know the original Greek language and can examine the accuracy of any version for myself and draw my own conclusions about it. But I would not recommend any and all versions for those with little background in the original languages so that they can at least be able to examine the accuracy of the translation. Those who use nothing but the KJV are far safer that those who go rambling through all of the versions with out enough background to decide which are true and which are false. It is a mess today when preachers stand to preach Christ and their audience has at least 15 different versions in hand many of which contradict themselves and all of which contradict each other. If we are going to have all of these versions floating around to confuse people then we ought to teach Greek in our Congregations so that everyone can have the ability to by-pass all of these erroneous versions and read the original for themselves. It would not be that hard to teach the entire congregation to read Greek if we were determined to do so. Now doing that would nullify that deceptive effect that Satan has sought to bring about by the spead of so many devious and biased versions of the scriptures.

So I am a GREEK TEXT ONLY person. How about that! If you do not want to read the Greek text then you had better be safe and stick with the King JAMES VERSION or the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION. All of the rest are dangerous to those with little knowledge of the original languages and the ability to judge the accuracy of the translations. Especially those who are so ignorant that they do not know that the "amplified Bible" and the LIVING BIBLE are not translations but are "paraphrases". They do not even claim to be the word of God. I do not advize flooding the churches with all of these versions as if there is no harm in any of them. But for those who are not Christians and have no desire to understand the very truth of God any version will do. For those seeking to find hope for their false teaching today they can not only find a preacher that preaches it and a church that practices it they now can find a version of the "Bible" that says it. What a great day to be false teachers! Satan must be dancing in the parched streets of hell and rolling on the ground with a large "belly laugh". How stupid can we be to fall for such obvious deception?

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Thank you, Lee: That was a typo I missed. I guess I wrote that too quickly. It should read:

...'so that no one would misunderstand and TO KNOW that they were my words.'

What I erroneously said:

By the way, Lee: What you pointed out is why I very obviously set off my opinion in special brackets; so that no one would misunderstand and THINK that they were my words.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Lee & Jon,

All right already I fess up (LOL).

Jon could have me in mind when he states - "Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe. Some of you challenged my beliefs based on the Bible, but you don't know from where or how you got the Bible??!! This is an inconsistency that is not good."

I did say, "I have no knowledge of Greek and understand nothing about the Canonical process. Where does the 'average Joe in the pew' start?"

-- D. Lee Muse (dleemuse@yahoo.com), March 22, 2000

I have read some books on this subject (most of it has left me), but most of my knowledge is straight from the Book itself. I have little extra time. My first goal is to learn as much of the Bible itself as I can, so am currently taking a correspondence course and working on the Bachelors diploma in the course.

Lee, I for one would be thankful for what you could teach me on the subject of "Where and how we got the Bible"!

Jon, I have challenged your beliefs based on the Bible, that was because I considered myself to have some knowledge in the area that we were discussing. I have studied that area now for several years. I hope that we can continue to discuss.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2000

Dr Jon:

I am going to copy something you said above, and I wonder if you could enlarge on it:

Think about it. Unless it is made clear up front that the differences in manuscripts do not change any essential doctrine for salvation, and that the evidence supports a reliable document which is fully trustworthy, then what we are saying is that there is no way to know that we really have the Word of God.

Does this include the Amplified, and how would you personally evaluate it?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Lee,

You say you read the Greek text. Which Greek text? There are many manuscripts, and scholars categorize them in four families.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Yes, Lee:

It takes years to be able to read in Greek. My son has a Phd. in classical languages (Greek and Latin) and you don't read in Greek without a LOT of training. I took a year of Greek on Saturdays and, as I've said, I got to alpha, beta, gamma, delta, plus a few vocabulary meanings, (actually quite a few of those).

I'm not doubting your word, and wouldn't have even noticed it except for what Mark W. just said. Where did you get your training, if I may ask?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Mark:

Actually, I simply referring to my Greek New Testament that is just like most of the one's that are easy to access. It is the Westcott and Hort Text, though I do have a copy of the Texus Receptus. I did not mean that I read the Actual manuscripts such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Whashington, or Alexandrian, all of which are from the fourth century. I assumed that all would undeerstand that such was my meaning.

I understand what you mean and your point is well taken but my concern is similar to Jon's, that we be careful not to leave the false impression that we do not have a reliable text of the Scriptures for we most certianly do. The discussion of that subject is very lengthy and complex and worthy of our attention but we cannot do it in the short, interupped, and often disorganized format in which we discuss things here in this forum.

I do believe that we should teach these things to the church so that everyone has an understanding of these matters. I do not believe that flooding the church with numerous versions that are self contradictory and often are not even versions at all is helpful to the cause of Christ.

I am aware that it is imposible to avoid translation for even when we read the Greek text of Westcott and Hort or the Texus Receptus we must translate it our selves and are just as suceptible to human error and bias as those who have translated from those text for us. But we should be able to judge these things in our day of multiple versions.

I also like The "Living Oracles" translation which many know nothing about! The idea that we should have a version that we can trust is not a bad idea, now is it? I believe that the KJV gets entirely too much unjust Criticism. It is true that it has mistakes and errors but it does not contradict itself as some versions do and it is not really any more difficult to understand than some of the modern versions that I have read and it was subject to some bias but not as much bias as some of the modern versions. The harsh criticisms that I have seen of the KJV are not all reasonable. The Idea that anyone who likes or prefers the KJV is an ignorant buffoon who thinks that it was the version that was read by the apostles is extremely unjust. While there are some poor souls that are so ignorant as to think such it is far from true that all who prefer the KJV do so from pure ignorance. While, as I told Connie, I am not a KJV only man, I do have much respect for the great influence of the KJV and the fact that multitudes have learned the gospel from it and that it has a great deal of merit and that the scolarship of those who translated it equals if not surpasses that of those who translated our modern versions. The bias of those who translated the KJV was of a diferent sort from that of many modern versions in that some mordern versions have no greater purpose for their existance than to promote a "politically correct" version that is "non offensive" to the sprirt of our materialistic age. The way that handled their bias was far different. They made no effort to force their bias on the translation as many modern versions do. I do not want to go into all of these details only to assert, without offering proof which is detailed and lengthy but the KJV has merit for those who will honestly give it a fair hearing.

I am against the idea that no one can learn the truth of the gospel today unless he or she becomes a scholar and goes back through all of the "families" of manuscripts to construct a reliable text and reads from the Greek New Testament. I was being facicious when I said that I am a greek text only man in order to point to the absurdity of the insultive question that is often ask of others "are you one of those KJV only people. If a person has chosen the KJV and is able to read and understand it and prefers it as a version that he will study from and no other he is not in any less danger than those who can not settle on a version and are always jumping from one to the other with no settled conviction concerning what is right.

Now I know that some will not be able to resist tellig me of the poor soul that they meet who said the KJV was good enough for the apostles it is good enough for me. But that story is a bit worn and it is not possible that so many have actually met persons who Are that ignorant. I know of a few but most of the people I know who prefer the KJV can give you some very good reasons for their doing so. So the idea that all who perfer the KJV are ignorant buffoons is absurd and completely unprovable and without any decent purpose.

Now I have said that I use the American Standard version. I perfer it. But the KJV has merit as an English translation and those who think otherwise have not given its many good points fair consideration.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

From its Foreword the Amplified says of itself:

'The Amplified Bible is not an attempt to duplicate what has already been achieved. Rather, its intent is to progress beyond the point where others have stopped. Its purpose is to reveal, together with the 'single word' English equivalent to each key Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of translation.

Now, possibly for the first time the full meaning of the key words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible.

This concept is fully justified and supported by the countless acknowledements of Bible translators as to the inadequacy of the customary method. Martin Luther, whose translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into German in A.D. 1534 'spiritualized Germany and made the German language', stated it plainly: "The words of the Hebrew tongue have a peculiar energy. It is impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. To render them intelligibly we must not attempt to give word-for-word translations, but only aim at the sense and the original Author's idea. [Table Talk]

'This is precisely what the Apostle Paul and ministers, teachers, and commentators of every generation have attempted to do. But, unfortunately, there is a traditional reluctance to increase the number of English words used lest one 'add to' the inspired text. On the other hand, by refusing to consider all the shades of meaning intended in the original language, we have unintentionally diobeyed the admonition not to 'take from' God's Holy Word. In a sense, amplification merely helps the English reader comprehend what the Hebrew and Greek listener understood as a matter of course.'

THE PUBLISHERS

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

A subtopic has been touched on several times in this thread, most recently by Lee, is the one of "with all the manuscripts, with all the translations, how do we determine the truth". The bottom line answer has been mentioned, but for those of you "laity" looking for a documentation to such questions and others, let me suggest a couple of books written for non-scholars that I have found helpful.

The first of these is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Actually two volumes (the second one may be called "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict", I'm not sure) , it outlines (literally, outlines) several apologetic arguments, including the ones brought up in this thread. There is a one volume update of these two that I forget the exact name of, but glancing at in the bookstore it looks much more readable. McDowell has a bit of a scientist in him, and his logic shows it.

An extremely readable, even mildly entertaining, is Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". Strobel is a law school graduate and a former legal journalist, so the style and the logic of "Case" is very reflective of that.

For the more scholarly, I prophesize that this thread is about to be bombarded with alternative suggestions to those books.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Connie: You have said:

Yes, Lee: It takes years to be able to read in Greek. My son has a Phd. in classical languages (Greek and Latin) and you don't read in Greek without a LOT of training. I took a year of Greek on Saturdays and, as I've said, I got to alpha, beta, gamma, delta, plus a few vocabulary meanings, (actually quite a few of those). I'm not doubting your word, and wouldn't have even noticed it except for what Mark W. just said. Where did you get your training, if I may ask?

As far as your believing that I read Greek, I could care less. I only mentioned it to answer your question are you one of those KJV only persons? I am not because I read from the Westcott and Hort Greek text. Sometimes I even read from my wifes Chinese version. Therefore I am not just a KJV only person. Now that is the truth but whether you believe it is meaningless to me. I merely answered your question and that is all that I intended to do with that information. You see, Connie, a person must be careful how much personal information he reveals to you, doesnt he?

It seems that you are trying to say that the task of learning to read Greek is too daunting for the average Christian to even attempt to learn. Now that is simply not true. Even you admit that it took a year of Greek on Saturdays for your son to learn to read Greek. We lets see, that is 52 Saturdays, right? So your son learned to read Greek in 52 lessons. If you include his sessions at school, if it was a daily lesson the he had 312 lessons. In any case, he learned to read the Greek in one year. That is not in harmony with your statement that it takes years to be able to read in Greek. According to you your son learned to do so in one year. Now I said that if we are determined to learn to read Greek we could do so. Ordinary people by the thousands in history have done so. There are many preachers in the 18th century who learned to read Greek without a formal school or instruction. Learning another language is not such a daunting task for one determined to do so. All of this talk of it being so difficult to do is only going to discourage the average person from even trying.

Anyone can learn to read Greek if he or she is determined to do so. I encourage all who have not tried to learn because you have heard that it takes years and that it is so hard to just give it a try. You will find that it is not so hard and it is extremely enjoyable and for those who love the word of God it is very profitable. Just look, Connies very bright and talented son learned to read Greek in only one year. It may take others two years or even three. So what? Why be lazy. Get busy and three years will pass quickly and you will be reading the Greek New Testament for yourself. Wouldnt that be great? Then you can think for yourself about these versions, Cant you?

I do read Greek, Connie, and Marks question to me did not in any way imply, as you have done that I do not read Greek. He simply was pointing out that when I said that I read the Greek text I left the impression, unintentionally, that there is only one such text and that there is no conflict about which text is correct. I did not mean to leave that impression and I think he knows that I did not mean to leave such an impression.

I do not know why you are so concerned about where I got my training. As I have told you once before, if you can give me a good reason for why you ask other than your mere curiosity I will be happy to tell you where I got my training. But I just do not know what that has to do with the price of rice in China. You are very concerned about that matter, now arent you? You can search through the archives and find where I have given that information to those who ask for it but they had good reason. You tell me your reason for asking and if it is a good one I will tell you where I got my training. Fair enough?

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Connie:

I apologize to you for I have reread your post to which I responded and I see that you did not say that it took your son a year to read Greek by studing on saturdays. You said, "I took a year of Greek on Saturdays and, as I've said, I got to alpha, beta, gamma, delta, plus a few vocabulary meanings, (actually quite a few of those)." I thought you said "IT" took a year of greek on saturadays for your son to learn Greek and that you were learning with him.

I completely misread your words and I apologize. Therefore my argument based upon the mistaken notion that it took your son only one year to learn to read Greek is all wrong because of this mistake. I therefore withdraw that argument because it is not based in fact.

However, I still contend that it does not take so many "years" to learn to read Greek. It takes detemination and lots of study but it is not as difficult as many want to believe that it is. It was no so difficult for me and I have known others who learned to read Greek competently in a little over a year. It took them another couple of years to become very fluent in reading it but it still is not too hard to do if it is important to you.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Ok, let me explain myself here.

First, let me state again that nothing that I stated previously was meant to be a value judgment. I consider absolutely nothing wrong with a challenge to my beliefs. At best, it corrects my misunderstanding, and at least, it forces me to clarify my own thinking on a subject. So nobody loses when that happens.

Now, let me explain my statement and the background behind it. There are several issues revolving around me that color my statements, and it is important to understand these.

1) My ministry is educational in nature. I interpret life situations through the sieve of being an educator. One of my presuppositions when I approach a forum like this is What is the problem? and How can I help solve it?

2) Over the last 5 + years I have noticed a downward trend in knowledge about areas which I consider vital to personal survival as a Christian. These areas are in apologetics: biblical evidences, historical evidences, difference between creation and evolution. I have observed that while the individual Christian is inherently intelligent, and wants a challenge, the churches rarely deliver it for a variety of reasons. As a result, the individual believer gets buffeted and bruised when thrust into certain situations, like going to a secular college. The falling away of our teens when they attend college does not surprise me. Just attending church does not prepare them for the challenges of life. Discipleship means training in every sense of the word just like preparing for a trade. (Im digressing here, but I think you can get the gist of my frustration.)

3) I have reached the conclusion that to be a Christian in the 21st century and beyond, the knowledge base of each individual must be more than just the Bible. While a thorough knowledge of what is on the pages is vital, what is also important is understanding of the history of it and of Christian thought. It is my contention that God created us with an intellect, which He expects us to use. I have a presupposition to reject and react to anti-intellectual Christianity. I predominantly see this when dealing with more of the charismatic in persuasion, but it shows itself all over.

Lee, you stated:

It may be that you are not trying to say that any of us who have challenged your beliefs actually do not know where we got our Bibles but rather that it would be a terrible inconsistency for us to "challenge" your beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) on the basis that the Bible is the word of God if we do not know "where and how we got our Bibles".

Yes, that is more in line with what I WANTED to say, but didnt state clearly. Also, the statement was partly an emotional reaction to the lack of knowledge that I keep bumping into irl. Actually, I did have Mrs. Muse and one other in mind when I wrote that. Not because of anything negative though. It was more of surprise than criticism, because (unbeknown to you all) we have corresponded and I hold her in high esteem and have found her level of biblical knowledge to be very high.

So, before I dig myself into any more holes, that is what I meant: it is not a good thing in my estimation to not have the additional background knowledge in the how and why of the Bible when attempting to present a challenge to anothers views. The history IS important and necessary to present an informed reasoning.

Before anyone accuses me of not believing in the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for our faith and practice, I absolutely do. The context of the statements above has to do with education, not with anything to do with faith or doctrine. In all matters of faith and doctrine the Bible alone is the ultimate authority. To produce a well rounded, total Christian, education in all aspects of Christian knowledge is essential. Ours is a post-Christian society. Christian concepts and values will not be caught from the society, so they must be deliberately taught and reinforced in our churches.

As I look back, my comments in that first paragraph were not in context and inappropriate for the subject at hand, and should have been omitted before I sent the post.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Dr. Jon:

I appreciate very much your clarifications and must admit that I agree with you completely about this matter. As I suspected, you are an honorable man with a willingness to consider evidence when presented and offer it when it is requested of you. We do need to be learning these important things in what you call the "post Christian era".

I am happy to know that you are trying to help others understand these important subjects.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Oh......Dr. Jon

Points 2 & 3 of your last post brought tears to my eyes.

If more preachers shared your insight and spirit, I shudder to imagine what could be done for (and in) the Kingdom of God.

Thanks so very much.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Funny, Dr. Jon's third point is exactly what I wrote my column about this week. (Cue that Twilight Zone music again.) If you don't mind too much, I'll post it here.

---

"Spirituality" vs. "Intellectualism"

The classic dystopian novel 1984 describes a futuristic society where relativism reigns supreme. There is no such thing as absolute truth; whatever the Party says is reality becomes reality. If the Party says that two plus two is five, then it is five, or three, or whatever else the Party wishes it to be. The hero works in a government office that daily changes history to fit the current "facts." The country is always at war with Eastasia. If tomorrow it is announced that the country is instead at war with Eurasia, then it has always been at war with Eurasia, and the history would be altered to fit the "facts." Since everything is relative anyway, the people blindly accept whatever nonsense they are fed as truth and go about their merry ways.

We haven't gotten quite that far in real life, thank God. But today's leading philosophy is indeed Relativism. There are no absolutes. My "truth" may not be the same as your "truth," they may even be contradictory, but who cares? Since there is not such thing as "absolute truth," my truth is just as valid as yours. What counts is that I feel it is true for me.

Unfortunately this kind of muddle-headed thinking has insidiously wormed its way into the Church as well. Once relegated to the outer fringes of "charis-mania," the pursuit of "Spirituality," or rather "spiritual" or ecstatic experiences, has become the main emphasis in the lives of a growing number of believers. From barking like dogs to believing their fillings are turning to gold, people in the Church are ever running to the next "move of the Spirit."

There is no discernment. Anecdote becomes reality. It happened to me, or brother or sister so-and-so, so it must be true. Pastors channel "Jesus" and deacons meet in occultic prayer circles and lead through guided imagery. Since the experience is "real," simply meaning that the person has experienced it, then it must be true. And heaven help the one who dares challenge it! Detractors are accused of "quenching the Spirit." Speak against a false teacher and you are quoted, "touch not God's annointed" and branded a "heretic hunter." Reason soundly from the Scriptures and you are just "being too intellectual."

As if being intellectual is a bad thing! The Bible clearly says that in the last days many would abandon the faith for fables (1 Timothy 4:1,7). They would turn away from sound doctrine (teaching, instruction, which is obtained by using the intellect) and would gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to strange stories (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Those days, my friends, are here.

We are commanded ... COMMANDED! ... to be disciples (those who engage in disciplined study: 2 Timothy 2:15). And we are COMMANDED to test any and all teachings against the Word of God, the Absolute standard of Truth. "To the Law and the Testimony (i.e. the Scripture)! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

We Christians are already a laughing stock in this world without becoming spiritually wierd and giving the world ammunition! Let us grow up and start using the mind God gave us in the manner in which he intended, and stop mistaking the false "spirituality" of emotionalism and ecstatic experience for true spirituality, loving "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (Matthew 22:37)."

Do you think?

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

PREACH IT Caped Crusader!!!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Brother John:

Excellent! AMEN AND AMEN! For you have surely spoken the truth!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Lee:

Please stop saying you are my friend. You are no more my friend than Satan is.

As I'm typing on the other subject, and I'll get all my anger in one post:

If I need a parrot, I'll buy one.

'Bye for now; I'm re-loading.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

John:

Partly the reason we are such a laughing stock is because we don't exhibit the Fruit of the Spirit (I include myself in that ~ I am re- reading everything Lee has said to me since he first introduced himself to me, and while I had forgotten most of it, the part I had put into the recesses of my mind for Jesus to handle are what are making me angry as I re-read them. To answer them, however I had to go over them. It is painful.)

Yes, the cultists who set dates also make the world laugh. If Christians read ALL of what the Scriptures say, and believe and do what it says, however, we will still be thought a peculiar people, and that is why we are afraid to get out there in the world and preach the Gospel.

I have come out of my 'fortress church' to get the 'Good News' out.

No outsider who happens by here accidentally will ever be able to say: "See how they love one another".

As soon as I answer Lee's charges, the subject of salvation (as opposed to baptism, which is also VERY IMPORTANT) will again take preeminence in my responses. If my mother had not taught me to carry through on my commitments, I would just ignore him; but no, I feel a necessity to answer, because I said I would.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Connie:

You have said the following:

Lee:

Please stop saying you are my friend. You are no more my friend than Satan is.

As I'm typing on the other subject, and I'll get all my anger in one post:

If I need a parrot, I'll buy one.

'Bye for now; I'm re-loading. I will decide whether I think of you as my friend, Connie. You are welcome to think of me as an enemy if you must. It is entirely up to you whether you would like to be my friend. But whether I choose to consider you a friend that I care about is my decision not yours. Therefore it is my choice whether I will call you my friend. You may be right however. I may not want to be calling a servant of Satan who deliberately lies to avoid the truth a friend. But I have continued to call you a friend because I do not want you to be lost and I care about your eternal soul. But there will probably come a time when I will not think of you as a friend but rather an enemy of all righteousness and one who is ever perverting the right ways of the Lord. In which case I will comply with your request and call you the enemy of all righteousness instead. But for now, I shall continue to call you friend and pray for you, even if you do not particularly like it.

Satan is not your friend, Connie. Because of the deliberate lies and deception that I have shown you to be guilty of perpetrating in this forum Satan is your father (John 6:44) and not your friend. Teaching false doctrine contrary to the word of God is a work of your master Satan and he is using you to do these things.

When Christ says: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16.

And Connie says: Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

It is your father Satan that causes you to directly contradict our Lord.

When Christ through Paul said we are saved by: Grace through faith. (Eph. 2:8,9).

And Connie says: We are saved by grace through faith ALONE.

It is Satan that leads you to contradict the Lord.

When Christ through Peter said: the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us (1 Peter 3:21)

And Connie comes along and says: baptism doeth NOT ALSO NOW SAVE US

It is Satan that causes the direct contradiction of our Lord.

When the Lord through Ananius to Saul: And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

And Connie comes along and says: Arise and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the lord and be baptized to obey God.

It is Satan that causes this direct perversion of the word of God.

I tell you the truth and your anger builds. It is Satan that causes this reaction to the truth.

No, Connie. You do not need to buy a parrot for you are a parrot for your father Satan who leads you to deny the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, I do not expect Satan to help you see that I am your friend because I have pointed to the truth of Gods word that you desperately need to see so that you can be saved from your sins by grace through faith. That is a faith that causes you to humbly obey Gods words exactly as they are given without contradicting what they clearly and plainly say.

Now I know that it is your intent to gain sympathy from those in this forum who shutter at this kind of controversy and do not think it to be Christian. But we have covered that subject many times now and there is no need to repeat it. It is right to resist false teaching and deliberate lies. I do not care how much sympathy you get from anyone. You are still perverting the truth and I will continue to expose your contradictions of the doctrine of Christ. Those who give you God speed" are partakers of your evil deeds. (2 John 9-11).

I do fervently pray for you Connie that God will grant that your eyes will be open and you can see the lies that Satan has lead you into and that you will turn from them and receive the engrafted word which is able to save your soul.

Your friend because I tell you the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 24, 2000

Lee,

As I said on my new thread, I forgive you. I realize you have no understanding of me, so I pray God will have mercy on you.

I am over my anger, and I pray that God will enlighten you to fact. But please do stop calling yourself my friend, when your words and attitude belie that.

In Jesus,

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Hi Connie,

The comments on the various Bible translations were balanced and for the most part accurate, in my opinion. I would add that in my opinion again, the Revised Standard Version is the most accurate translation when it comes to end-times prophecy. Without the RSV I would not have been able to understand some of the end-times prophecies.

Chuck

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Connie:

You said the following:

Lee, As I said on my new thread, I forgive you. I realize you have no understanding of me, so I pray God will have mercy on you. I am over my anger, and I pray that God will enlighten you to fact. But please do stop calling yourself my friend, when your words and attitude belie that.

Now Connie I did not ask for nor do I need your forgiveness for telling you the truth of the gospel of Christ. You do not like the truth and therefore resist it but I have done nothing to need your forgiveness in telling you the truth.

You say you are over my anger. You seem to be getting over it so often that you sound like the alcoholic who is ever recovering but still getting drunk. You will not really get over your anger until you genuinely submit to Christ for you cannot resist Him and the Holy Spirit as you do when you deliberately resist His words which teach, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16) and not be angry. For you do not like those word but they are there and you will meet them every time you teach your false doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE.

I call you my friend because I care enough about you to spend the time writing to tell you these truths. My calling you a friend and telling you truths which you do not want to hear does not in any way belie that I am your friend. Those who comfort you as you resist the very words of the Holy Spirit in the word of God are your true enemies Connie but they pretend to be your friends and speak only what they know you so much want to hear. But Connie they are your enemies.

Now I know you cannot see this but I do and therefore will continue to call you my friend. That is my choice and you have nothing to do with it.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Good morning, All.

'Blessed are the peacemakers'.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34

A Christian,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Matthew 26:52 {AMPLIFIED]

'Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place because all who draw the sword will die by the sword".

The figurative account of the sword separating believers from unbelivers is informative. (I have often referred to those very verses myself, because I have family members who are not believers.)

Matthew 5:7,11,12,13,14: [AMPLIFIED] (Jesus' words)

7: "Blessed -- happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous [that is, with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions] -- are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

11: "Blessed -- happy, to be envied and spiritually prosperous [that is, with life-joy and satisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of your outward conditions} -- are you when people revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely on My account."

12: "Be glad and supremely joyful, for your reward in Heaven is great (strong and intense), for in this same way people persecuted the prophets which were before you."

13: "You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its taste -- its strength, its quality -- how can its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer but to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men."

14: "You are the light of the world; A city set on a hill cannot be hid."

In the all-sufficient shed blood of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

" And take the Helment of Salvation, and the SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the word of God:" Ephesians 5:17.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Forget the helmet ... I think we need a bomb shelter in here! Incoming!!!

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Hmmm, it looks like this thread has strayed badly.

Is it too late to get back to original topic? It was an interesting one even without fireworks. Looks like there was somewhat of a contribution to that topic on the 25th.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

I think Lee must have a crush on me. He keeps following me around and putting my hair in the inkwell! ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

I have put my sandals back on. I may, in exasperation, shake the dust again, but for now I will walk in them.

Now, how many of you, after I made that statement think I am actually putting on sandals?

If so, it is my opinion that you are 'figurative-reality' challenged, because I am speaking figuratively, and am still sitting here in my slippers.

Now why would we use figurative speech? We can say it in a way that would give the facts, but it make it less interesting.

But Jesus was our example in this, and used parables to convict.

Jesus is the one who said to shake the dust from our feet and go on, but He was referring to real dust and real feet; when we use that expression, we simply mean to drop what we have been doing and go on.

But then He adds, 'It will be worse for those who will not listen than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.' [Paraphrased]

Now, Lee has said that I am a liar, unsaved, satanic, and not a Christian.

And very few have come to my defense, so you all must agree with him. 'If God be for us, then who can be against us?'

None of what he has said of me is true, because he is operating from a faulty premise: That I am not a Christian. But I am a Christian, so would some of you please give me some help in communicating with Lee?

The reason I usually use just Scripture is because it IS sharper than any two-edged sword. Are we to use real swords? NO! He told Peter to put up his sword, and then physically healed the one whose ear Peter cut off.

He said we war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in high places.

If you will notice, he met their physical needs before He started giving them the information to save them eternally. He fed them; He healed them; he comforted them. Talk about a compassionate conservative!

He used a lot of allegory and spoke in parables. Of course, the unregenerate of that day didn't understand them, either, so he had to continually explain. But he was willing to take the time, and make the effort. He didn't get His feelings hurt by their rejection of Him and His words. And he is to be our example.

To copy and paste Lee's passage:

" And take the Helment of Salvation, and the SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the word of God:" Ephesians 5:17.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon@mindspring.com), March 27, 2000.

I think I know part of what our problem is.

Lee, do you know what 'figures of speech' are, or what 'figurative' is?

For example, in the above quoted verses, is it your opinion that it is a REAL helmet and a REAL sword spoken of here?

The REAL meaning of the words are:

Helmet=Salvation Sword==Word of God

In other words, we are NOT talking about a helmet and a sword. We are talking about salvation and the word of God ~ the Bible, which we are to use INSTEAD OF A HELMET AND A SWORD.

People use these verses in support of physical weapons, when in reality, it is telling us what our weapons should be ~ spiritual weapons.

And the verses on baptism have a lot of symbolism. It is not ALL symbolism, I realize, but an awful lot is.

No criticism is intended, and I agree that the MESSAGE is a literal message, but even the most conservative scholars state that much is 'figurative'. WE have to be discerning and try to figure out which is which in each case.

Unless each of us begins to look at this from a new perspective (we are who must change ~ the message will never change ~) we will never be able to come to an understanding. You have heard of the definition of insanity?: 'Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.'

If we keep doing the same thing over and over, we will get the same result, and it is insane!

Also, falsely saying that I am not a Christian or that I am lying or that I am ignoring what the Bible says is in itself a lie. It is bearing false witness against me.

So you can batter me with repetitious haranguing ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) but unless you come at me in a different way, nothing will change.

And I have to find out how I can communicate with you, because the clear word of God apparently is not working. We are not communicating.

Galatians 4-8: [AMPLIFIED]

EVERY INSTANCE IN THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS WHERE THESE MARKS {} ARE INSERTED TO SET OFF A STATEMENT, IT IS MY INTERPRETATION, AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED ANYTHING BUT THAT. THE OTHER ONES: (); AND [] ARE IN THE AMPLIFIED.

4. But when the proper time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

5. To purchase the freedom of (to ransom, to atone for) those who were subject to the Law, that we might be adopted and have sonship conferred on upon us -- be recognized as [God's] sons.

{Here, the male gender noun means everyone, both males and females, as was the custom of translation of the time ~ to avoid the unwieldy way it is now done ~ sons/daughters, male/female, he/she, etc.; if it doesn't mean both, does that mean women cannot become children of God?} Of course, the people who are specifically mentioned as being male or female are not both. (Especially God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ~ but God does have some female attributes ~ the account of His wanting to gather us as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but we WOULD NOT. That was the one about the stoning of the prophets, i think, but they weren't the FALSE prophets they stoned; they were the ones who told the truth. (~They also stoned false prophets, I know)~}

6. And because you [really] are (His) sons {children}, God has sent the (Holy) Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying 'Abba!', (Father)

7. Therefore you are no longer a slave (bond servant) but a son; {child} and if a son {child} then [it follows that you are] an heir by the aid of God, through Christ.

8. But at that previous time, when you had not come to be acquainted with and understand and know the true God, you [Gentiles] were in bondage to gods that by their very nature could not be gods at all -- gods that really did not exist.

It goes on to say (in vs. 9-12 and on) to say that we are not to return to elementary things where we insist on legalisms, which we have been freed from, enumerating some of them. We are free in Christ! His Spirit, if we are in Him, is in our hearts.

We don't have a dead Gospel, where everything has already been revealed; it's just that what has been revealed and will be revealed has to agree with what is written in God's word.

I pray we can start listening to each other, and hearing each other.

Having been gifted with Eternal Life, and that life is in His Son, and God the Father has gifted me with the Holy Spirit of His Son into my heart. May He do the same for you. Praise His Holy Name.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Back to the subject at hand. Readers of the various renditions of Holy writ do indeed have to be careful. Satan has indeed had a field day in many of them. One should keep in mind key subjects of scripture which are under attack and in which other words are used in place of the direct translation of the Text. I will list a few and I am sure there are others which could add to the list. For example the word death to replace blood. Words relative to the "propitiation", The Virgin Birth of Christ. Anyone else run into this that New Christians should be warned about?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

John:

You said:

Forget the helmet ... I think we need a bomb shelter in here! Incoming!!!

Please! I can do without the flashbacks! Ha!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Repost to comment:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Connie.... I agree with you!! Some of the most intelligent people I have ever met in the church had neither a college education or a knowledge of Greek. But, they knew their KJV or NASB or NIV intimately.

I feel fortunate to have studied both orginal languages (Greek and Hebrew). And I'm thankful for the times that I can bring some additional light to the Scriptures during times of study with others.

However, like I said, there are plenty of people in the church, without a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew who have much to teach me about the Scripture as well.

So in direct answer to your question.....it is very possible, that wihout a knowledge of the original languages.....the person in the pew, thanks to a number of wonderful translations, has the ability to "test the spirits."

You, nor anyone else, needs to feel intellectually inferior.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), March 23, 2000.

**************

Just thought it would be good to note that Danny is fair minded...he calls Connie intelligent when it suits his purpose and stupid when that suits his purpose.

As far as the NRSV having an agenda...not so. The phrase "brothers ans sisters" occurs when the Greek is ADEPHOI-neuter, meaning both genders. I think it is the best we now have available.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Hi, CG.

Thanks for bringing this out of the archives.

See what a nice discussion we were having until someone started lobbing personal attacks?

Oh, well.

If God can't change them, who can?

Affectionately in Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

CG,

Of course the NRSV had an agenda. It is not surprising that those who deny inerrancy (as you have said that you do) are the largest group of NRSV users.

They used the original RSV's trick of making sure Mary was not a virgin, as well as other slight misleadings. Yes, making her a "young woman" is a possible translation of "almah", but certainly not the intent of the word. For Is. 7:14 says that this woman being with child would be a sign from God. My wife was pretty young when she was pregnant, however, that was no sign that my daughter was the Messiah. Besides, the word used there has the intended meaning that she was young enough to be a virgin. In Mt. 1:23 they had no problem translating the Greek word "parthenos" as "virgin", which also means "a young woman."

How about Gen 1:2 where it is not the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the deep but according to the NRSV God only made a wind upon it. This certainly deviates from the intended meaning.

The NRSV is the major translation of Liberal theology. That's not name-calling, I mean Liberal theology under it's actual definition. It is the "official" translation of just about all the dead and dying denoms (check it out for yourself).

I am no expert on the NRSV but this I remember off the top of my head.

Gotta go eat. Later

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Scott

You are incorrect on two things. (1) I did not deny inerrancy, I only denied a certain definition of it.

(2) You are incorrect about the NRSV. Someone above mentioned Harold Lindsell and "The Battle for the Bible"--Lindsell is also the general editor of the NRSV Harper Study Bible, which I use, which is a revision of the RSV Harper Study Bible. Lindsell, who is a major inerrantist, did this revision in 1991 after the NRSV came out in 1990.

I recommend the NRSV Harper Study Bible because it has annotations from a conservative/evangelical viewpoint combined with the NRSV text.

Actually, authors like Doug Moo and Grant Osborne and Tom Schreiner, and Bob Stein (all conservatives--literalists in fact--far more than myself--and the latter two of whom I studied under, have recommended the NRSV.)

Don Carson called it a "non-tendentuous translation."

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

(Isa 7:14-17 NRSV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. {15} He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. {16} For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. {17} The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah--the king of Assyria."

Just a note on the translation of the Hebrew "almah". It can be "virgin" or "young woman." Matthew refrences this in Matthew 1:23. I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND HERE--I ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCABLY AND COMPLETELY BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST. And I believe Matthew appropriately referred to this passage and it is consistent with what we call the "pattern of meaning" of the text quoted.

HOWEVER--That does not mean it is erroneuos to translate Isa 7:14 as young woman. Look at the context. God sends Isaiah to Ahaz with a message--a young woman will bear a child and before he knows how to choose between good and evil the people of Judah will be conquered. God had promised in Isa. 7:3-9 there would be a remnant to return, but this judgment came because of Ahaz's wickedness.

Now, that being so, even if there is a valid application of the of Isa 7:14 to the Virgin Birth (which there is) it is still appropriate to use the term "young woman" for this is h ow Isaiah's hearers would hear this and would in fact been the message Isaiah was intending to convey. For sure, God was conveying more, and we see that. But either translation of "almah" is acceptable and it is not a test of orthodoxy.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

I thought I would add that I do not EXCLUSIVELY use NRSV. I also use NIV, RSV, NASB, and NLT.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

It's getting scarier CG,

I agree with your interpretation Of Isa chapter 7. It is Absolutely a Messianic Prophecy of the Virgin birth of Christ.

But like most all Old Testamant Prophecies it had a more immediate meaning. The beseiged king that Isaiah spoke these words to could have cared less about a Messiah at that point. He needed immediate help & immediate encouragement and I think this prophecy provided that - as the "young woman" referred to was probably Isaiah's wife who gave birth in the next chapter.

But when the Gospels start, "virgin" is the appropriate translation to use.....using "young woman" or "maiden" here is misleading - and probably a deliberate attempt to sway people's idea on the virgin birth. Words mean things and when a group of people (like a translation team) decide on certain terminologies - I have to question why. That's what the Bereans did.

I use the NASB 90% of the time as I think that translation team had fewer "axes to grind". They stick more with actual, literal translations and leave the interpretation to the reader...as it should be. The NIV, by using a more interpretative method of translation, takes away too many good points that are left in the NASB & even the KJV.

An example of this is the NIV's removal of the word "propitiation" from it's texts. "Propitiation" is a great word. Defined, it means, "A sacrifice that takes away God's wrath". Jesus, were told is our propitiation. His sacrifice takes God's wrath off of us so that we can enter into His rest. This is a great picture of God, His indignation toward sin and why we need Christ as our Redeemer.

Now, the NIV uses the phrase, "atoning sacrifice" instead of "propitiation". While "atoning sacrifice" is not inaccurate, it just does not portray God, sin, wrath, & redemption was well as "Propitiation" does.

And why was "atoning sacrifice" used?..........because of the current shift toward the "God is Love" movement. God is love, but he is so very much more - including wrathful and avenging. But the more liberal (there's that awful word again) theology becomes, the more the Translators shift to the "Love & Faith Only" Camp - which is were the NIV translators are at now.

Give me a NASB under 1 arm and a "King Jimmy" under the other, and a few Hebrew & Greek Lexicons in the library & I'm set to go preach.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark

You are correct and I think "virgin" is preferrable, but I was only saying "young woman" is acceptable too.

BTW: What is getting scarier? I am not trying to scare anybody, honest. :)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001