Patterson, Mohler endorse resolution critical of NIV '11
Two prominent Southern Baptist leaders have endorsed a resolution passed by convention messengers that calls the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible an "inaccurate translation" the SBC cannot recommend.
Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say messengers were right to pass the resolution and take a stand against what the language calls "gender neutral methods of translation." Mohler, though, did say he regrets the resolution addresses LifeWay stores so directly....
Why Jessie, there are black Catholics also! Of course I speak in a general sense on those two items, and the White racism, by one of the best known leaders of the KJVO movement is undeniable, A Response to Dr. Ruckman from which,
Dr. James White wrote: (he [Ruckman] has sent us other books, including one of the most ridiculous works we've ever seen titled "Black is Beautiful," a racist, aliens-are-taking-over-the-world conspiracy book).
I apparently have a request to repeat this,
Steve Rudd wrote: King James Version (KJV) ONLY??? Irrefutable proof the translators were not inspired Introductory notes 69 Questions for "KJV only" advocates 1611 marginal notes devastating!!! Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV Inconsistency in translation A Good Translation, But Nothing More Egyptian Corruption Argument refuted Historical bloodline of "KJV only" false teachers Archaic Language of the KJV: 419 examples! The Original translators Preface to the 1611 Edition
Dopey wrote: John my brother it is quiz time. Think carefully this is a hard one. What do you think is the correct rendering of this verse? 1. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Good question David
I believe that the text refers to Bible teachers. Such men should be able, in the words of the NT, be able to devote themselves "to the word and to prayer". Thus, without hindrance, they are able to devote all their time to studying and praying over scripture, and coming to a much deeper understanding of it than those who work outside the church. In this, they should have approval of God for their dilligence and prayerfulness, comparing scripture with scripture, and passing on to their flock precious insights and learning for their edification.
Now if Jim's links were to articles written by such a man, I would have no grumble about them, but his teachers all seem to be a bit two pegs short of a clothes line.
So, when I was listening to that BLACK Baptist Pastor, preaching from the KJV, that He was really a White suprimisist Catholic in disguise. What race are you Jimmy BOY? You one of them Anti Caucasians?
I'll list just two problems which are --not-- the fault of the translators of the AV or the AV itself.
For the British--The AV is a political football, now I would suppose that the AV has always been a political tool of sorts for the British, but it has reached extreme levels with this generation. If you support the Crown, (perhaps fanatically) you laud the AV, I guess if you use anything else you're a republican? Members of the Royal family use the Bible to takes digs at each other. The non-Christian Prince Charles is the patron of the AV, and note that the AV wasn't used in the latest royal wedding but the NRSV. Of course both the AV and NRSV are really bad Bibles, but I thought that was rather cute Prince William.
For the Americans--the AV is associated with the anti-Christian (and yes, even worse than Catholicism ) Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists. The AV is the Bible of choice for the White racists, Arnold Murray mentioned in the article, uses nothing else, and I don't know of any the other famous racists that use anything but the AVI I would hesitate to use the NASB, even, if though it is the best Bible in the English language today, if it had those problems.
Jim Lincoln said in this thread what I have put in quotes below.
"John, UK, you should know better by now spouting all those inaccuracies"
Jim would you please list all the inaccuracies John UK is "spouting" I did a 5 part mini series, as it were, in the thread directly above this comment. And one of the things I dealt with was false accusations rebellion and How God dealt with it.
"Really, if you gentlemen weren't so slavishly Catholic-like in following the tradition of men, and used something like the New King James Version as suggested here, I wouldn't have much to grip about"
Jim would you please list name by name who the "gentlemen" are and which "tradition of men" they are following; they are no doubt sorry about the "grip" they are causing you.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Dopey, and others how often does one has to point out, just one of the verses that the translators of the AV used? 1 Corinthians 14:11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language...
Jim Lincoln, and others how often does one have to point out:
Matthew 3:9 ...for I [John the Baptist] say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Jim, and others, God, if He wanted to could cause people to be born again through what is written on birch trees for nothing is impossible with Him.
The understanding of what God means in Scripture is not determined by a person's own intellectual capacity to understand what he reads but rather the Holy Spirit giving the person a direct revelation of the truth:
1 Corinthians 2:11-14 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;...
Jim, it is amazing (not) that you never referred to the NIV which is the subject of this article.
However, out of a desire to assist you in your learning, I will answer your points.
1. You take 1 Cor 14:11 out of its context, and use it for your own ends. Typical of a cult!
2. You know full well that if the KJV was modernised in its language, I would not object to it, and I would class it as the word of God, and so would the translators of the KJV. So let's have no more inaccuracies please.
3. Slavishly Catholic-like following traditions?! Ha! Plus I used the NKJV for nine years until I realised how poor it was as a translation, and went all the way back to the KJV. Best thing for you to do also.
4. If you want to debate KJV-Onlies, I suggest you find one (rare on these threads) and have at it with them instead of me. Ah, but of course, it's the good ol' strawman isn't it? Where would little Jim be without his little strawmen to knock down.
5. Now your next comment should be about the dreadful 2011 NIV not the magnificent Authorized (King James) Version of 1611.
Dopey, and others how often does one has to point out, just one of the verses that the translators of the AV used? 1 Corinthians 14:11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.---NASB
They supported a Bible in modern English, and though even slightly archaic at the time, that's exactly what they did. John, UK, you should know better by now spouting all those inaccuracies--as you're fellow Commonwealth members point out, Canada says "NO!" to KJV only.
Really, if you gentlemen weren't so slavishly Catholic-like in following the tradition of men, and used something like the New King James Version as suggested here, I wouldn't have much to grip about
Jim, my friend: Matthew 3:9 ...for I [John the Baptist] say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Jim, God, if He wanted to could cause people to be born again through what is written on birch trees for nothing is impossible with Him. So what are you so thankful for in regard to the Indian Hills Community Church? Can it be that you are thankful that the Indian Hills Community Church doesn't have God saving people from Hell using the AV? ________________________________________
At 7/1/11 3:11 PM Jim Lincoln wrote: "By the way, if a Bible isn't in contemporary English it should be thrown in the rubbish bin before it is in a pew of of any church"
1 Corinthians 2:16 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
Jim, the KJV isn't in contemporary English. My quote from you, in effect, makes the claim you have the mind of God in regard to what you stated or it is simply the mind of Jim Lincoln? Which is it Jim? The mind of Jim Lincoln or the mind of God on the matter?
Ghj wrote: But one of the ways which Satan always has worked with sin is, "Did God really say that." (Gen 3:1 para). The answer is - NIV (any) NO! God did not say that. The answer is KJV YES! God did say that. is NOT "word for word."
Elaborate please. How exactly does the NIV not say "that" (and please explain what "that" is, since you obviously are not referring to the specific event in Genesis 3), while the KJV does say "that"?
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, I'm not in favor of NIV 2O11, however, the NIV 1984
Hmmmm. 1984 Isn't that interesting!
It's a shame Jim after so many good posts, on so many good subjects, that you have gone back to your default position of obsessively trashing the KJV. You loose All credibility when you do that. You get on to Tony, but your obsession makes people think that you are off your meds.
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, if a Bible isn't in contemporary English it should be thrown in the rubbish bin before it is in a pew of of any church except for Shakespearean actors.
Be ye and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your : Neither give place to the devil. Ephesians 4:26-27 KJV
It doesn't take a degree to know that taking on board a modern version generally means: 1. A less accurate Bible Then 2. Modernise your hymn book or use Mission Praise 3. Throw out those hard backed pews 4. Tolerate people falling asleep during the service Or 5. Introduce clapping, shouting, laughing, jumping, running (for the adults). 6. Downgrade doctrine 7. Hold men's breakfasts 8. Use the world's music to attract youngsters 9. Join the ecumenists (from whom the modern Bible oozes out) 10. Join the World Council of Churches 11. Compromise and become half-Calvinist and half-Arminian 12. Focus on the love of God and forget his holiness and justice Leading to 13. Deny hell 14. Deny the deity of Christ 15. Deny justification by faith alone 16. Introduce more and more entertainment to hold people 17. Put a board outside your church saying carpenter seeks joiners 18 FULL APOSTASY
No, I'm not in favor of NIV 2O11, however, the NIV 1984 is a far superior Bible than the AV, you and some other should really read, Comparing Bible Translations.
By the way, if a Bible isn't in contemporary English it should be thrown in the rubbish bin before it is in a pew of of any church except for Shakespearean actors. So, I would think you would support the NKJV or the he 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21¬ģ). Both much more acceptable than anything done in 1679.
Jim Lincoln wrote: You will note these gentlemen weren't condemning the 1984 version of the NIV, though for expositional preaching a dynamic version of the Bible is not as good as a literal word for word translation as the NASB
I can see you are in favour of the NIV 2011 - instead of the Word of God King James Version, by your post Jim.
I always find it kind of sad when people cannot identify the true Word of God and go for the heretical versions published and translated by Liberal and Co.
But one of the ways which Satan always has worked with sin is, "Did God really say that." (Gen 3:1 para).
The answer is - NIV (any) NO! God did not say that.
The answer is KJV YES! God did say that.
It would appear that messrs Mohler and Patterson are on the right wave length for the truth.
You will note these gentlemen weren't condemning the 1984 version of the NIV, though for expositional preaching a dynamic version of the Bible is not as good as a literal word for word translation as the NASB. Dr. Robert Thomas, professor at Masters Seminary has a very good paper about, Bible Translations: the Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching.