SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
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"....
I do not know it Mike, but I believe it. Just the same as I believe that the Son of God "died for the ungodly". Do you know that is true bro, or do you believe it? Why then would you believe something if it is not true? Is that not deception? Did Paul say that "Christ died for the ungodly" or did he not? I say he did. What do you think? Did he say something else? Is the Bible corrupted and our assurance a big deception? I think not! The Bible is true, and I stake my eternal hopes on it. Surely Mike you do the same?
Oh, did I answer the question?
Sure I did. At least I believe I did.
p.s. Mike, without the autographs, nothing about the Bible can be proven, thus it has to be by faith, and you surely know by now it is a God-given faith; and if it is a God-given faith, you also know that God would not bring someone to believe something that wasn't true. But you say, "Surely there have been people who believed they heard from God, but it was not God, it was either their own heart or it was a lying spirit." Precisely, which is why it is so good to have the word of God as a sure word which is black and white and eternal. This alone is our hope - it is in God's promises.
John UK wrote: US, this one-liner has been used many times, and still raises a smile. That's fine, but have you considered this? If you took Paul's words in the 1st century NT, and translated them into 17th century English, you would have none other than the King James Version. Or if you took the King James Version and translated Paul's words into greek, you would have the first century words of Paul in greek. Or don't you believe that?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The KJV, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me
US, this one-liner has been used many times, and still raises a smile. That's fine, but have you considered this? If you took Paul's words in the 1st century NT, and translated them into 17th century English, you would have none other than the King James Version. Or if you took the King James Version and translated Paul's words into greek, you would have the first century words of Paul in greek.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The KJV, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me
Yep, The Old KJV, King Jesus (The Living Word) Version, It-He Was Indeed Good Enought For The Apostle Paul, -And- He-It Was & Is Good Enough For Me !
And He-It Is Good Enough For You Too !
You See, "In The Beginning Was The Word, And The Word Was With God, And The Word Was (& Still Is) God." John 1:1
"For There Are Three That Bear Record In Heaven, The Father, The Word, And The Holy Ghost: And These Three Are One." 1 John 5:7
"And The Word Was Made Flesh, And Dwelt Among Us [And We Beheld His Glory, The Glory As Of The Only Begotten Of The Father], Full Of Grace And Truth." John 1:14
How The Living Word Came To Be:
"The Holy Ghost Shall Come Upon Thee (Mary), And The Power Of The Highest Shall Overshadow Thee: Therefore Also That Holy Thing Which Shall Be Born Of Thee Shall Be Called The Son (Word) Of God." Luke 1:35 *See I Tim. 3:16*
How The Written Word Came To Be:
The Holy Ghost Came Upon "Holy Men Of God", And The Power Of The Highest Overshadowed Them: Therefore That Holy Thing Which Was "Bourne" Of Them Shall Be Called (And Is Called) The (Written) Word Of God [The True Holy Scripture(s)-(Bible)]. *See 2 Peter 1:21*
Another point, Lurker, is that the Latin Bible (the Vulgate), before even the first English translations, would have been used of God to lead precious souls into his kingdom, in his providence and grace. The Spirit of God goeth where he will, and quickeneth whom he will, and enlighteneth whom he will. But because faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, the faithful in England would have been mainly those who understood Latin.
What a shame then that there are still people groups in our world today without a single book of the Bible in their own language. For them, it is still the dark ages, while publishers of more and more English versions keep churning them out hoping to make some more profit. Thankfully, the Trinitarian Bible Society has worked tirelessly to translate the Bible into more and more languages for the benefit of people and the glory of God, regardless of cost, being supported by Christians who actually care about men and women and children the world over who are currently in the darkness of nature's night, and who know nothing of Jesus.
item3 wrote: None of these were used to the extent which God used the King James Version over these centuries.
What does "extent" of use by God have to do with anything? Don't you agree that all the English translations leading up to the KJV served God's purpose in their time, leading precious souls into the Kingdom of God, and were His workmanship?
item3 wrote: The point made below is the comparison between the KJV and the modern versions.
OK. No argument. But you must be more careful about making broad brush statements; eg. "Since God brought HIS Word into english in 1611 perfectly preserved...." which implies that either there were no English translations before 1611 or that the English translations prior to 1611 were not perfectly preserved.
Yikes...I am going to have to read through the posts a few times. Honestly, I thought most of you were King James only until now. So you are saying that God has been preserving His word all along no matter what translation/version and that all are of sound doctrine? I guess that I've had this all wrong unless I haven't made sense of the responses yet. I'll stick with the KJ since I'm familiar with it and like it. The Pastor that I referenced earlier did some verse comparisons between the KJ, the NIV, as well as some others and the meanings were completly changed. I will have to dig them up and post them. Thank you very much for the responses.
item3 wrote: None of these were used to the extent which God used the King James Version over these centuries. Remember how God describes all of us ...... "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10. So lets honour God not men!! The point made below is the comparison between the KJV and the modern versions.
So the 400 years of use of the KJV makes it automatically of God to the exclusion of anything else, because, well, 400 years is such a long time, don't you know. Let's see, if with the Lord a thousand years is as one day, could we not say 400 years is as 9.6 hours? This doesn't do much to convince of the importance of the time factor in the argument.
Lurker wrote: John Wycliff's manuscript bibles, William Tyndale's NT, John Rogers Bible, Miles Coverdale's Bible, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible..... all before 1611, were what? Something other than God's word in English?
None of these were used to the extent which God used the King James Version over these centuries.
Remember how God describes all of us ...... "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10.
So lets honour God not men!!
The point made below is the comparison between the KJV and the modern versions.
Lurker wrote: Could be, John. But I rather think item3 meant following in the footsteps of Jim from Lincoln eg. modern versionist. I really don't know how he would have gotten that idea since my objection to his comment pointed out all the English translation which preceded the 1611 KJV. Hardly modern. But apparently item3 isn't a regular here for if he were he would know that I am a KJV user myself but far from an onlyist.
I'm with you bro on this. Being an Ingleesi myself, I hold very dear the memory of our brave and valiant brothers who began to shine the light in darkest England, bringing the word of God to the attention of the populace. Until their efforts, the only Bible was in Latin, which only the monks were able to read.
Dangerous work!
Unlike the super-suited executives who for filthy lucre today will keep bringing out more and more versions, hoping to dupe the populace into spending their dosh on another Bible which will not benefit them at all.
John UK wrote: Robin Hood, Little John, Friar Tuck, Maid Marian et al.
Could be, John. But I rather think item3 meant following in the footsteps of Jim from Lincoln eg. modern versionist. I really don't know how he would have gotten that idea since my objection to his comment pointed out all the English translations which preceded the 1611 KJV. Hardly modern.
Apparently item3 isn't a regular here for if he were he would know that I am a KJV user myself but far from an onlyist.
Frank wrote: Hello Ember! See John woke Jim up. It is his fault and not mine. However, you once again made me go to "google" for Ruckmanite. Your logic is good, I also used the expression "perfectly preserved", but I meant that all doctrines were perfectly preserved. Sorry if I added to the confusion.
Hey Frank,
John may have awoken Jim but my bone of contention was with "item3". Not too many things rile me up any more but slighting God's servants in the transmission of the English bible is one of them.
"However, you once again made me go to "google" for Ruckmanite."
Stick around, Frank. John and I will bring you into the 21st century.
item3 wrote: No! But tell me are you a Lincolnite?
Do you expect a straight answer to a crooked question?
Lurker wrote: John Wycliff's manuscript bibles, William Tyndale's NT, John Rogers Bible, Miles Coverdale's Bible, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible..... all before 1611, were what? Something other than God's word in English? Were there no English speaking born again Christians before 1611? Are you a Ruckmanite?
Hello Ember! See John woke Jim up. It is his fault and not mine. However, you once again made me go to "google" for Ruckmanite. Your logic is good, I also used the expression "perfectly preserved", but I meant that all doctrines were perfectly preserved. Sorry if I added to the confusion.
But I find it quite disrespectful to God as well as the Godly men He raised up long before the KJV to begin the long process of recovering His preserved word from the iron fisted grip of the RCC and put it into the hands of the plowboy.
Multitudes paid the ultimate price for a vernacular bible, free from the dictates of church and state, with their own blood and, as a matter of historical fact, that first came to pass in 1560. To imply that none of these sacrifices counted and it all began with the 1611 KJV is to fail to recognize God's work in the Protestant Reformation and what He accomplished for His people.
Lurker, perhaps the gentleman did what I do, all too often, when using a negation for a positive or vice-versa, probably meant "imperfectly," preserved. Because no doubt he would know that the translators didn't think their work was perfect or couldn't be improved upon, The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position (PDF).
item3 wrote: Since God brought HIS Word into english in 1611 perfectly preserved....
John Wycliff's manuscript bibles, William Tyndale's NT, John Rogers Bible, Miles Coverdale's Bible, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible..... all before 1611, were what? Something other than God's word in English?
Were there no English speaking born again Christians before 1611?
Are you a Ruckmanite?
27
There are a total of 166 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
Your logic is good, I also used the expression "perfectly preserved", but I meant that all doctrines were perfectly preserved. Sorry if I added to the confusion.
