Such little understanding, Translation once again isn't the PROBLEM, its the missing verses and complete changing of verses, myself and others on here have provided countless facts, not dribbled up garbage and quotes from this one or that, Jim Lincoln....
You have to realize that Jim the troll's been beating that drum for so long that he's convinced by his own lies. Maybe the Lord has given him over to his own blindness for a reason.
Main thing is to continue to issue the evidence for the Ecclesiastical text and how the Lord preserved his Word through the Church down the centuries so that no one will buy into Jim's fabrications and lies, or the lies of the rationalistic liberal text perverters to whom Jim turns to confirm his stance.
At least we can know for certain that we have God's preserved Word, even if blind idiots are still searching for it!
pennned wrote: Observer, at least you have the grace to call me a Christian. I'll call that a victory...Greek and Hebrew...
Penny - I do believe you are a Christian.
You're not reading the thread with any care and that troubles me. The issue is not the English translation of the KJV. That definitely could do with updating and modernizing probably not to the extent that Jim thinks because he tries to make out that it's not even English!!
The issue really is whether God has preserved his word historically or whether the Churches have had to wait for 1850 years to discover the true Bible text (yes the Greek and Hebrew if you like). You and the bible perverters think that this is the case, I don't doubt my God preserved his Word from error down the centuries and that he used the true churches to preserve them and to discard all scripts that were perverted by heretics.
Just because we have a few texts which are supposedly older does not make them more reliable, otherwise recognizing their reliability they would have been copied hundreds of times and we would have substantially more texts supporting them, which we don't. Why do you suppose that the churches neglected these texts? Because they were concerned to be faithful to the originals!
B. McCausland wrote: A man can be better judged for what he does not say, than for what he actually says. .... Man's antagonistic nature against truth will see to this.
Even though I've never taken to him, it is sad to me that a man like MacArthur has become compromised. Some years ago he wrote an excellent book on the Charismatics, but then in recent years has shared platforms with them and also with the so called New Calvinists and not a word of condemnation against their worldly worship style etc.
I don't know but maybe age has softened his approach to the question of speaking our against error and being separate from it. In the ministry there is a temptation to bow to peer pressure and being a lone voice in the wilderness don't come easy to most. Thank God there are others who have remained faithful. We must be sure however to pray for them, that the Lord will uphold them and make them courageous to the end.
James Thomas wrote: This verse answers your question Luke 4:16-17 (KJV) 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Perhaps I misundertood Dave's question. Clearly the Lord knew the scriptures and the scrolls. But were these written in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew? And if Greek, was this the infamous LXX?
Dave wrote: Well to say that yshua and the apostles used the Septuagint exclusively is just plane ignorance, And to trust anything argues emphatically with itself ie: the corrupt text is plain foolishness. I could be wrong but I was pretty sure Yshua was Jewish, living in a predominantly Aramaic speaking land. I wonder would he know the scriptures, the scrolls and parchments?
Rationalistic liberals love to accept their own conjecturing as proof of the case. Any verbal differences in OT citations used in the NT sends them into a frenzy invoking an intermediate text such as the LXX as the only answer, as though God the Holy Spirit was bound to quote exactly the words he inspired in the text of the OT.
But then on their purely rationalistic understanding of preservation and for the sake of their phoney science this is a necessary and indispensable assumption. An assumption which is of course its own proof, because circular reasoning like this allowed as in evolutionary science.
James Thomas wrote: Luke 4:21 (KJV) 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:17-21 is fulfilled that DAY in what the Scripture in Isaiah 61 says. Isaiah 61:1-3 (KJV) 1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. The hermaneutic of God on display by Jesus Christ Himself. His version of Scripture interprests Scripture is the hermaneutic He used. Why not follow His example? What happened in Luke is described in Isaiah but with more detail. NOW that is a commentary I would recommend!!
The Queen James Bible is the ultimate bible in terms of textual criticism and the most modern English even changing the term homosexual to temple prostitute etc. so that liberals like you don't get confused with words - so clearly the most up to date in terms of research too.
You'll absolutely adore it Jim. It's right up your street!
Next years improvements will incorporate polyamory, and pedophilia, beastiality etc so even more to look forward to. Bet you can't wait. Start lining up your experts to commend all these changes.
ladybug wrote: So true Observer....Jim Lincoln has an agenda and he will stop at nothing to push that agenda. Those who have ears to hear will shun him and his comrades. I find it appalling that men like MacArthur have the audacity to slap their name on a 'study bible'. They are robbing the Holy Spirit of His work - to teach God's people! BTW, you left out James White. There could not be a more arrogant man than Mr. White; yet his fan club stretches far and wide
My intention was not to reproduce an exhaustive list of Jim's experts that he links to all the time, even when he's not actually read the article!!
For what it's worth I agree with bro Lurker that Mr White is converted, but he sold himself early to wanting to seem scholarly and consequently lost his way on the textual criticism issue and he adopted tactics unworthy of a Gospel advocate.
Thanks for your post. Always edifying and you got my point straight away.
You're also right that the right text will not eradicate problems from the churches because we still have the problem of incorrect hermeneutics. But that's on a tangent so I will forebear (but you know my thoughts from my previous visits to SA )
ladybug wrote: ... It is imperative that we study the Bible for ourselves ..and not some corrupt man that seeks to live comfortably in this life while he twists truth.
I don't think your arguments will sway Jim. His experts come in all shapes and colors.
Westcott & Hort Metzger MacArthur etc.
They're all the same to Jim provided he can call on them to support the perversion of the original texts of Scripture, because we all know that the Church did not have the right texts for more than 1850 years, until the German rationalists and liberals arrived on the scene to exalt the texts that the churches had previously rejected as corrupt.
Here's a part of the catechism:
Q: How do we spot faithful copies?
A: We have to find the texts that diverge the most from each other and from the majority which virtually all agree.
Q: Why should we believe this?
A: Because we have indisputable dating techniques and our experts say that they are the faithful texts.
Q: But your experts have not seen the originals & the churches that knew rejected your perverted texts?
A: It's a scientific matter. You won't understand it.
Q: Are you saying that the churches failed to preserve the truth?
Lady_Virtue wrote: So, these celebrities think the decriminalization of prostitution would be a bad move, but they're OK with fornication, adultery, sodomy, and other abominations and perversions, which are often depicted in the very films they act in, and prostitution is probably often in these same films? I couldn't care less what these inconsistent "stars" think. My concern lies with what thus saith the Lord.
pennned wrote: Blah blah blah... now a hyper-KJVO thinks their version is inherent, (even above the Greek) so they will actually force missionaries to teach their people of whatever language, Old English, instead of translating from the original Greek to the common language. This is in the tradition of the RCC who would not let the bible be translated from Latin or the muslems from Arabic. In fact, creating a stumbling block. this conversation has been enlightening. there are many churches that would literally shun a man who started learning the original languages.
Oh the misinformation campaign must carry on, eh Penney?
There is only one person here who has argued for the KJVO position. The vast majority are arguing for the correct underlying texts. So why do you and Jim like to bunch everyone together and only address KJVO arguments? Hmmm..
John UK wrote: I see it was Links who resurrected this old forum from 2010. I think Mike was right, he's just playing games, like a little child. They do say that people with dementia behave like that.
The strategy of the liberals whether in politics or religion is clear:
#1. Assert a lie, even an outlandish one to get attention. #2. If challenged, ignore the challenge, but back the first lie with any dubious argument and then assert a second lie. #3. Now we all know that to assert a lie is easy. Those seeking to challenge it have to unearth all the facts and arguments. So they have to work hard to displace the lie. In the meantime if you can multiply their work by multiplying the number of lies they have to deal with then the hope is that in the end they'll just tire and walk away. In the meantime you can hold the high ground and the stance of arrogance because you don't have to substantiate anything. So again if challenged allude to any dubious argument (doesn't even have to be relevant) and then assert a third lie and mock their attempts to date. A bit of baiting is good for an evil soul. #4. Rinse and repeat #5. Make sure to keep your composure because you know that they will tire.
pennned wrote: Tim Hornton, well they would need to know Greek and then their mother tongue. they would need to be biblicists. as were the translators of the KJV. they would likely meet with our Greek scholars who meticulously study the texts closest to Christ using textual criticism. following in the footsteps of Christ who used the Septuagint. Hebrew would also be helpful.
Smh. You sure are as stubborn as you are ignorant.
Jim Lincoln wrote: That church in Canada isn't liberal, and I would also point out, from, Which Bible?.
What a dumb quote.
Spurgeon was a baptist and was very happy with the KJV, as were Andrew Fuller, William Carey and all the other Baptists down the centuries. What Bible did the framers of the First and Second London Confession use Jim?
The fact is that the translators just did not translate the words for baptize/baptism etc. IOW they attached no particular meaning to them. Which shows a degree of honesty that is lacking in you.
And in case you missed it, I made a case for baptism against moniker man, using nothing but the KJV!
So I'd say its time to fire Dr Joyner from your panel of liberal bible perverting experts!
What? Your liberal textual mangler friends cannot handle a few typographical errors in some versions being corrected? I suppose it doesn't conform to their "science" so called, and certainly doesn't earn them any money? Ha!
Talk about stupidity!
And still waiting for anything original from Jim. Same tired old arguments hashed up again and again, from the same old liberal bible perverting links.