members, click to sign in..

5,694 active users!!Bandwidth
SUNDAY
DEC 21, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -12 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
Photos
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
About | $1 Signup!
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
RELIGION, CURRENT EVENTS, TECHNOLOGY Subscribe to the breaking newsWhat is RSS?
FRONT PAGE  |  12/21/2014
WEDNESDAY, DEC 19, 2012  |  166 comments
Ancient Dead Sea Scrolls digitised in co-project by Israel and Google
Anyone with an internet connection will now be able to take a new look into the Biblical past through an online archive of high-resolution images of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls completed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and Google.

The scrolls, most of them on parchment, are the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible and include secular text dating from the third century BC to the first century AD.

IAA, the custodian of the scrolls that shed light on the life of Jews and early Christians at the time of Jesus, said it has collaborated with Google's research and development centre in Israel for the past two and a half years to upload digitised images of thousands of fragments from the collection.

Yossi Matias, the head of Google-Israel R&D centre, described the project launch as "exciting". ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.telegraph.co.uk

   12/21/14  |  David Barton wins million-dollar defamation suit • 1 comments
   12/19/14  |  Midwestern, filmmaker partner for Spurgeon documentary • 5 comments
   11/30/14  |  Workers at biblical copper mines ate quite well • 1 comments
   11/14/14  |  Happy 1660th Birthday Augustine • 9 comments
   10/30/14  |  6,000-Year-Old Temple with Possible Sacrificial Altars Discovered • 1 comments
MORE RELATED ( HISTORY ) NEWS | MORE..
   12/21/14  |  Apple CEO Tim Cook Gives Hefty Donation to Gay Rights Campaign • 3 comments
   12/13/14  |  US Dept of Education to Schools: Let Students Choose if They Are... • 10 comments
   12/13/14  |  Kentucky Withdraws $18 Million in Tax Breaks for Noah's Ark... • 6 comments
   12/13/14  |  Homeschool mom sues 6 social workers for snatching kids • 4 comments
   12/12/14  |  The Vanishing Male Worker • 27 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   12/01/14  |  From Tyndale to Today: A New Study Bible • 34 comments
   06/02/14  |  A Letter to SermonAudio From a Missionary to Haiti • 10 comments
   02/07/14  |  Bringing the Gospel of John to Every Home in Austin, TX • 37 comments
   01/07/14  |  SermonAudio Partners with RFC for the 2014 Family Conference at... • 1 comments
   01/01/14  |  Happy New Year from SermonAudio! • 29 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   12/21/14  |  Major Chicago study finds red light cameras not safer, cause... • 8 comments
   12/21/14  |  Weekend Reads: Expanding the kingdom and following Christ • 2 comments
   12/21/14  |  Apple CEO Tim Cook Gives Hefty Donation to Gay Rights Campaign • 3 comments
   12/21/14  |  Evidence mounts in 'fired-for-being-Christian' case • 2 comments
   12/21/14  |  David Barton wins million-dollar defamation suit • 1 comments
OTHER RECENT NEWS | MORE..

COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
Page 1 | Page 3 ·  Found: 166 user comment(s)
News Item12/28/12 4:51 AM
Michael Hranek | Endicott, New York  Protected NameFind all comments by Michael Hranek
Question wrote:
Being brought up a good pentecostal, I started with the KJV.
Question
Seems we are getting far afield from Digitizing the Dead Sea Scrolls but your comment made me want to ask you.

30 to 40 years ago a lot of Pentecostal people would have been considered people who feared God and loved the Bible and took it as having authority over their lives, people who believed and preached "Ye Must Be Born Again", people who believed in repentance for the remission of sin, who believed in being holy separate from the world and false religions such as Roman Catholicism, people who believed in believers baptism by immersion like the Baptists, people who believed in praying for the lost until they were saved.

Have you seen their drift into "playing church" with becoming more and more like other denominations with less fiery preaching against sin and hell for 'entertainment', ecumenism, a non-offensive social gospel and their own version of Purpose Deceived emergent mysticism where they seem to avoid the KJV and the Truth of Scripture and Biblical holiness like the plague unless of course it suits their agenda?

126

News Item12/27/12 6:48 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Question wrote:
But I do get upset by those who know little on textual matters who nevertheless offer dogmatic assertions against any text other than the TR.
I have to turn in, but if I have time tomorrow, I shall answer my own question about the texts upon which the NASB is based, along with some direct quotes from the Foreword and Preface of said Bible, which should alert believers to the subterfuginal method utilised by the Lockman Foundation.

One thing is for sure, neither of the Nestles (Eberhardt or Erwin) accepted as an accurate text either the Sinaiticus, or the Vaticanus, or even the Tischendorf. And that fact should concern all believers who are seeking the truth on this matter.

Other texts we could discuss are The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of The Holy Twelve, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Epistle of Barnabbas. Oh and not forgetting The Apocrypha. Should keep us going for a few months.

God bless all.

125

News Item12/27/12 5:04 PM
Question  Find all comments by Question
Christopher000 wrote:
John, you always get these deep, lengthy discussions going. I noticed one on another thread as well. I used to think that the Bible was so simple and clear and I always thought that there was no need for apologetics if people just read the Bible with simple innocense. I guess I was wrong because things can go much deeper than I ever thought. What bothers me sometimes is that both sides of whatever particular argument seem to have good arguments.
Christopher, you will stand before the Lord and have to account to him for all that you believe and do. So, please study and make your own mind up about the issues that come your way.

Study diligently and as widely as you can, because we live in difficult times and there are many who will want to tie you to their beliefs!

Being brought up a good pentecostal, I started with the KJV. But the more I have studied the less I am convinced about the translation and the underlying texts.

Oh don't get me wrong, I am on no crusade to change those who use it. But I do get upset by those who know little on textual matters who nevertheless offer dogmatic assertions against any text other than the TR.

124

News Item12/27/12 4:55 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
Christopher000 wrote:
Okay, sorry about that. The specific verses that he pointed out stuck out in my mind as him doing simple comparisons and I guess I missed, or forgot, that this is all a doctrinals issue. I think I get things jumbled as I hop around the board.
No problem, but that was the intent of my original posts to him and others and that was the challenge he took up. Just think of your comparison chart. That was comparing verses and then saying because those verses were different, then the doctrines were different. Look at the following comparison and tell me which is different than the other. Kind of a cute example I thought up. God dictated paragraph 1 and a scribe copied nr. 2.

1. Frank, I want you to go see the elderly woman that lives in the 3rd house on Elm Street. There are 5 houses on the street. When you get there, I want you to tell her the good news about how I sent my only begotten Son to redeem her soul from eternal damnation.

2. Frank, you are to go and see an old woman that lives in the second house from the end on elm street. Upon arrival, give her the gospel message. Explain to her the good news (omitted about) how I sent my only begotten Son to save her soul from eternal suffering.

123

News Item12/27/12 4:50 PM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
John, you always get these deep, lengthy discussions going. I noticed one on another thread as well. I used to think that the Bible was so simple and clear and I always thought that there was no need for apologetics if people just read the Bible with simple innocense. I guess I was wrong because things can go much deeper than I ever thought. What bothers me sometimes is that both sides of whatever particular argument seem to have good arguments.
122

News Item12/27/12 4:43 PM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
Okay, sorry about that. The specific verses that he pointed out stuck out in my mind as him doing simple comparisons and I guess I missed, or forgot, that this is all a doctrinals issue. I think I get things jumbled as I hop around the board.
121

News Item12/27/12 4:14 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
Christopher000 wrote:
Thanks Michael. I think you are right in that the arguments could go on to infinity. I do understand Frank's argument concerning doctrinal issues, but I also understand John's arguments which concern verse by verse comparisons. Many of the scripture discrepencies, to me, seem to weaken the particular message.
As for all of the manuscript arguments...um...huh? I'm clueless...ha-ha.
No, John's argument was that doctrinal issues were "severely affected" with the NASB. You have to look at all the posts to see where he was coming from. I wouldn't argue verse by verse, word by word with him. That would be like arguing which is true, "an elderly lady, versus an old lady". Just to set the record straight.

John is also on record for saying he doesn't mind it when people think he is wrong and that I personally should do that whenever I believe that to be true.

120

News Item12/27/12 4:08 PM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
Thanks Michael. I think you are right in that the arguments could go on to infinity. I do understand Frank's argument concerning doctrinal issues, but I also understand John's arguments which concern verse by verse comparisons. Many of the scripture discrepencies, to me, seem to weaken the particular message.
As for all of the manuscript arguments...um...huh? I'm clueless...ha-ha.
119

News Item12/27/12 4:06 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
Christopher000 wrote:
I do use the KJ as the litmus test because until recently, I really thought most everyone used it as the control to compare all others. And yes, I think we can all agree that the Queen James doesn't belong in the mix.I really never thought I'd see the day when anyone would be so bold. Fewer and fewer people seem to fear God anymore.
"Where is he? When is the promise of His coming??"
Mankind has become their own god again because they are much to intelligent to believe in the God of the Bible. This is the age of enlightenment afterall.
No problem, I don't even have major problems with those who use the KJ as a litmus test because for years I did; it just annoys me. And usually they won't admit it even if they do. If you have a strong opinion, then I believe you should state it. Truth is the issue. If someone can't defend their positions, or at least be able to argue them, then they should probably not be adamant. Scroll down until you find my post to John about the characteristics of a KJO person and you will see where I was coming from; it had numbered sentences. I never argued against the KJ, only those who are KJO.

There is actually a bible called the "uncensored bible" that might be worse than all them.

118

News Item12/27/12 3:59 PM
Michael Hranek | Endicott, New York  Protected NameFind all comments by Michael Hranek
Christopher000 wrote:
Thanks Frank. I must have come off wrong again. I was trying to sound neutral because I just don't know. I do use the KJ as the litmus test because until recently, I really thought most everyone used it as the control to compare all others. I do understand what you all are saying though.
And yes, I think we can all agree that the Queen James doesn't belong in the mix.I really never thought I'd see the day when anyone would be so bold. Fewer and fewer people seem to fear God anymore.
"Where is he? When is the promise of His coming??"
Mankind has become their own god again because they are much to intelligent to believe in the God of the Bible. This is the age of enlightenment afterall.
Christopher000
When it comes to the KJV controversy it is just about impossible to make anyone happy, although I must say I like your 'using the KJV as a litmus test to compare other translations' IMHO this is a sound premise as we do know God has used the KJV for about 400 years and although in places it is 'difficult' it remains a good and respected translation, except prehaps with a few malcontents. I know of one preacher who chooses to use it in the school he teaches so his students can have a common translation in their lessons.
117

News Item12/27/12 3:27 PM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
Thanks Frank. I must have come off wrong again. I was trying to sound neutral because I just don't know. I do use the KJ as the litmus test because until recently, I really thought most everyone used it as the control to compare all others. I do understand what you all are saying though.
And yes, I think we can all agree that the Queen James doesn't belong in the mix.I really never thought I'd see the day when anyone would be so bold. Fewer and fewer people seem to fear God anymore.
"Where is he? When is the promise of His coming??"
Mankind has become their own god again because they are much to intelligent to believe in the God of the Bible. This is the age of enlightenment afterall.
116

News Item12/27/12 1:30 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
Christopher000 wrote:
Are you guys upset that I jumped in and posted that link? I thought many of the differences were severe,
I know John wouldn't be upset, but to answer your question, of course I am not upset. I don't mind dissenting opinions at all. I have seen those charts before, but I did take a cursory look at the link you posted. Now, your chart uses the KJ as the basis for what is a correct and what is an incorrect translation. I don't mind that, although that makes it a circular argument.But for example, surely no one imagines that the NASB does away with the deity of Christ? No one can give me an example of a doctrine that is destroyed or altered by the NASB. But, like John says, people should use the one they are comfortable with. I think the only valid argument might be which manuscript lines are the best, but if someone is KJ, they believe that line is the best and others like Jim Lincoln believes the NASB line are the best. I could easily show where the KJ mistranslates things, but I never do because it didn't change anything important. But, yes there are liberal translations that should be avoided. I think the main issue is the motive of the translators. Who wouldn't argue against the "Queen James" translation, et al.
115

News Item12/27/12 10:56 AM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
John UK wrote:
Well I know that, Frank.
But if the adulterous woman is stoned to death, how then would she be able to remarry?
Do you now see why Joseph was "minded to put her away privily" (secretly)?
Now then bro, have a think about why the divorce rate has multiplied massively in the last thirty or so years. What reason? Well the simple reason is that a divorce is far easier to attain to than it was in previous generations. Why is that? Because thirty years or so ago, the modern versions really began to take off and make their influence felt on issues such as this. That's my opinion anyway.
A woman who has been put to death, can't remarry.

I think Joseph was a nice fellow and he didn't want Mary to die? She was obviously a wonderful young lady who was chosen by God to be the earthly mother of our Savior.

I'm sure you are correct about some of the newest versions of the bible. I have never researched them. I only know about the NASB controversy and I am not a textual critic. But, NO DOCTRINES, are severely affected with that translation and God can preserve His word through sinful man in "all" generations and in "all" languages. I also understand the ESV is very very good, but I have never used it.

114

News Item12/27/12 8:26 AM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
Are you guys upset that I jumped in and posted that link? I thought many of the differences were severe, but I guess you are just looking for straight up changes in doctrines? In reading through many of the discrepancies, I can see where people could be mislead on certain topics if they were looking to specific verses for answers.
I understand, for the most part, the arguments, but it seems to me that some translations may be more liberal so as not to offend, and cautious to be inclusive. Kind of like the difference between a dog and a wolf. Pretty much the same, but not quite.
Alright, I'm out because I'm probably talking nonscense. I'll just continue to follow the arguments and logic.
113

News Item12/27/12 4:27 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Frank wrote:
You can apply it solely to the engagement and I will apply it to the engagement and/or the subsequent marriage. If you are "rightfully" saying both were just as binding, then I'm not sure what is "severely affected"? In fact if I'm not mistaken; the death penalty could have been enforced in either case.
So, the AV doesn't lead any astray.
Well I know that, Frank.

But if the adulterous woman is stoned to death, how then would she be able to remarry?

Do you now see why Joseph was "minded to put her away privily" (secretly)?

Now then bro, have a think about why the divorce rate has multiplied massively in the last thirty or so years. What reason? Well the simple reason is that a divorce is far easier to attain to than it was in previous generations. Why is that? Because thirty years or so ago, the modern versions really began to take off and make their influence felt on issues such as this. That's my opinion anyway.

It won't be long before sodomites will be able to read and enjoy the scriptures because the texts condemning such will have been altered or removed. Time will prove this correct.

112

News Item12/26/12 11:57 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
John UK wrote:
1. Amen brother.
2. I take your point. However, have you considered this? In the NASB the mitigating clause is either for immorality (Matthew 19:9) or unchastity (Matthew 5:32). In the AV we have "fornication" in both passages.
This has come up once before, and discussed at length, because it refers not to immorality after the marriage, but fornication BEFORE the marriage. This is the very reason why Joseph was "minded to put her away (divorce her) privily", because he believed at the time that she must have played the harlot after their betrothal but before they were seen to be married. The Jews regarded betrothal as actually binding, and could not be revoked except with this fornication clause. This is the divorce Jesus was referring to.
Now if that is correct, you can see how doctrine is severely affected, and either the AV or the NASB leads people astray.
You can apply it solely to the engagement and I will apply it to the engagement and/or the subsequent marriage. If you are "rightfully" saying both were just as binding, then I'm not sure what is "severely affected"? In fact if I'm not mistaken; the death penalty could have been enforced in either case.
So, the AV doesn't lead any astray.
111

News Item12/26/12 10:05 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Frank wrote:
John, yes, we are unified in Christ Jesus, our Lord; no argument!

I would refer the fictitious young man to all the verses that touch on the subject and so would you.

1. Amen brother.

2. I take your point. However, have you considered this? In the NASB the mitigating clause is either for immorality (Matthew 19:9) or unchastity (Matthew 5:32). In the AV we have "fornication" in both passages.

This has come up once before, and discussed at length, because it refers not to immorality after the marriage, but fornication BEFORE the marriage. This is the very reason why Joseph was "minded to put her away (divorce her) privily", because he believed at the time that she must have played the harlot after their betrothal but before they were seen to be married. The Jews regarded betrothal as actually binding, and could not be revoked except with this fornication clause. This is the divorce Jesus was referring to.

Now if that is correct, you can see how doctrine is severely affected, and either the AV or the NASB leads people astray.

110

News Item12/26/12 9:16 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
John, yes, we are unified in Christ Jesus, our Lord; no argument!

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 5:32 I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

If your spouse didn’t commit immorality, then the marriage could not be dissolved. If someone divorced their wife simply because they didn’t want her and they married someone else, they were committing adultery. If the woman was innocent, then she could also not remarry since she was still married in God’s eyes. Whoever married her, commits adultery. However, logically as soon as the man had sex with another woman, then the marriage would be dissolved and the woman would be free to remarry since he had committed adultery and the marriage was broken. If the innocent woman remarried prior to her husband committing adultery, then she was guilty of adultery and so was the man who married her, but the marriage would be broken. Matthew 5:32 clarifies Matthew 19:9.

I would refer the fictitious young man to all the verses that touch on the subject and so would you.

109

News Item12/26/12 8:06 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
Question wrote:
Hey Frank, you might want to look at the following thread where John pretty much admits this:
Doctrine not affected
Thanks, I will look at it right now. I have already done the Matthew 19:9 issue, but haven't sort of worked it up yet.
108

News Item12/26/12 7:52 PM
Question  Find all comments by Question
Frank wrote:
No problem brother, your 19:9 will be there when you wake up. Lastly, I have never said, nor do I even ponder whether the KJ has errors or not, but, my guess is it is like the NASB it has some. But, all doctines are preserved.
Hey Frank, you might want to look at the following thread where John pretty much admits this:

Doctrine not affected

107
There are a total of 166 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 | last
Last PostTotal
Weekend Reads: Expanding the kingdom and following Christ
jim lincoln from nebraska: ":shakehead: http://www.serm..."
-3 min 
Major Chicago study finds red light cameras not safer, cause...
jim lincoln from nebraska: "ah, mike, some people consider laws codified morality...."
-9 min 
Billy Graham, Louis Zamperini and the two nights in 1949 that...
john uk from wales: " mike first we must define evil. i'll have a go. it's like..."
-12 min 323 


Christ's Prayer for His People

Don Bell
No tears in heaven

Revelation 7:17
Sunday - AM
Lantana Grace Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS

Real Love Lived!
Andrew Quigley

Jonathan Hunt
The Life of CH Spurgeon

Church History Series
TIME in the Word...
Play! | MP3

Ken Wimer
Idolatrous Works Religion

Book of Judges
Shreveport Grace Church
Play! | MP3

E. A. Johnston
Consider Him

Ambassadors For Christ Intl-US
Special Meeting
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Top 10 Puritan Hare Drive Reviews

Wash­er, Beeke, Bauch­am, Benn­ett, Brown, Price, McM­ah­on, Johns­on, Dild­ay, Menc­ar­ow...
www.puritandownloads.com/bl..

Sermon:
Defending the Faith
Bob Vincent

SPONSOR | 3,700+

SPONSOR





                   
A dark hour makes Jesus bright. ... Robert Murray McCheyne

City: Las Vegas, NV
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App New!
Android New!
Church App New!
Kindle + Nook New!
BlackBerry
Windows Mobile, Nokia
Chromecast TV
ROKU TV
Pebble Smartwatch
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
HIFI Option
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domains
Favorites
QR Codes
24x7 Radio Stream

INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword
SOAP API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | FTP | Dropbox
ABOUT US
SermonAudio.com is the largest library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide. All broadcasters must adhere to the Articles of Faith.

Our Services | Testimonials
Broadcast With Us!
Support Us
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Copyright © 2014 SermonAudio.com.