Jump to content

What Would You Get A Christian For Christmas?


Recommended Posts

There are instances in the NASB and NIV where doctrine becomes an issue, meaning that the New Translations create discrepancies. Now, mind you I haven't read one of these in awhile, but I have toyed with the notion of literally going through alll 3 and pointing out the differences, and how they effect the doctrine as it were. That would be a huge project, though- although it would be fun.
I would actually love to see that (the going through all three) although maybe we should find two examples of where it has created discrepancies in doctrine. My point is that there is the same amount of thought and precision in the biblical translations for study ie the KJV, NASB, and NIV. (I won't go into the loosly translated bibles ie the living word as that is nice for children but not so good for study) Would you then say that a missionary, when he is translating the bible for peoples in say New Guinea, should translate from the original texts of from the KJV. You would say the Original Texts. So how much more than would it be right to say that the NASB and KJV and NIV are both on equal ground.Basically I think we need a starting point for the discrepancies in doctrine and then we can analyze it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would actually love to see that (the going through all three) although maybe we should find two examples of where it has created discrepancies in doctrine. My point is that there is the same amount of thought and precision in the biblical translations for study ie the KJV, NASB, and NIV. (I won't go into the loosly translated bibles ie the living word as that is nice for children but not so good for study) Would you then say that a missionary, when he is translating the bible for peoples in say New Guinea, should translate from the original texts of from the KJV. You would say the Original Texts. So how much more than would it be right to say that the NASB and KJV and NIV are both on equal ground.Basically I think we need a starting point for the discrepancies in doctrine and then we can analyze it.
Another thread I think. However, your New Guinea reference brought up an interesting question. Since the word of God has already been spread world wide, through all nations, why are factions of christianity wasting there time ministering to nations that have already rejected him? These are poor people, who need help- but do you really think that religous intervention is the answer? From what I can see it doesn't help anything- there lives don't change, they still keep the same sinful customs, so what is the point? This is harsh line of reasoning I know, but a thought procees that I think bears consideration.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are instances in the NASB and NIV where doctrine becomes an issue, meaning that the New Translations create discrepancies. Now, mind you I haven't read one of these in awhile, but I have toyed with the notion of literally going through alll 3 and pointing out the differences, and how they effect the doctrine as it were. That would be a huge project, though- although it would be fun. Not much I haven't produced scripture for lately. Can't do much more than that.
I guarantee some other Crazy has already done this... just plagiarize.
Link to post
Share on other sites

funny how a get a xian for christmas thread turned into a textual criticism debate.Lois, I appreciate your enthusiasm for scripture and you are an ardent apologist with lots of zeal, although it seems your pursuit lacks some tact and some foundation.KJV has some big fans out there although arguably not the oldest and therefore most reliable version. Just shooting from the hip here, so if I miss a few points or get them backwards, I am sorry. It origianally comes from Textus Receptus. I believe based on the codex Vaticanus. Its translations spread rapidly especially when King James had it translated into English, which the Catholic church was not fond of. After that time 2 more codecies were found and are older than Vaticanus. They are the Siniaticus (sp) and Alexadrias (sp). There are also many smaller portions that are used in building the original docs.KJV is not bad, it is actually a very strong translation of the scriptures. Doctrine, is not lost on other versions of scripture however. DPB points out that much study by Biblical scholars was put into bringing forth very strong versions like NASB and NIV. It is very hard to justify KJV as the "only" true inspired version. If so, how do you justify that its very name points to one of the biggest blatant man effected influences on translation. The name "James" is not a greek name. King James had the translators change one of the names so that he could be included in scripture. This does not effect doctrine or truth or the infallability of scripture, just shows mans infallability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
funny how a get a xian for christmas thread turned into a textual criticism debate.Lois, I appreciate your enthusiasm for scripture and you are an ardent apologist with lots of zeal, although it seems your pursuit lacks some tact and some foundation.KJV has some big fans out there although arguably not the oldest and therefore most reliable version. Just shooting from the hip here, so if I miss a few points or get them backwards, I am sorry. It origianally comes from Textus Receptus. I believe based on the codex Vaticanus. Its translations spread rapidly especially when King James had it translated into English, which the Catholic church was not fond of. After that time 2 more codecies were found and are older than Vaticanus. They are the Siniaticus (sp) and Alexadrias (sp). There are also many smaller portions that are used in building the original docs.KJV is not bad, it is actually a very strong translation of the scriptures. Doctrine, is not lost on other versions of scripture however. DPB points out that much study by Biblical scholars was put into bringing forth very strong versions like NASB and NIV. It is very hard to justify KJV as the "only" true inspired version. If so, how do you justify that its very name points to one of the biggest blatant man effected influences on translation. The name "James" is not a greek name. King James had the translators change one of the names so that he could be included in scripture. This does not effect doctrine or truth or the infallability of scripture, just shows mans infallability.
Since the other translations are made from different texts as you even say... they would not ALSO say James if this were true.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the other translations are made from different texts as you even say... they would not ALSO say James if this were true.
Since KJV was the common and widely know version, it was decided by the other scholars, not to confuse people so they kept the name James. References to quoted scripture or even a book of the Bible, "James" would create confusion. Since the name does not dictate or change any theology, it was deemed acceptable to leave as is. I believe Jesus's brothers name was actually Joseph. I forget right now.
Link to post
Share on other sites
funny how a get a xian for christmas thread turned into a textual criticism debate.Lois, I appreciate your enthusiasm for scripture and you are an ardent apologist with lots of zeal, although it seems your pursuit lacks some tact and some foundation.KJV has some big fans out there although arguably not the oldest and therefore most reliable version. Just shooting from the hip here, so if I miss a few points or get them backwards, I am sorry. It origianally comes from Textus Receptus. I believe based on the codex Vaticanus. Its translations spread rapidly especially when King James had it translated into English, which the Catholic church was not fond of. After that time 2 more codecies were found and are older than Vaticanus. They are the Siniaticus (sp) and Alexadrias (sp). There are also many smaller portions that are used in building the original docs.KJV is not bad, it is actually a very strong translation of the scriptures. Doctrine, is not lost on other versions of scripture however. DPB points out that much study by Biblical scholars was put into bringing forth very strong versions like NASB and NIV. It is very hard to justify KJV as the "only" true inspired version. If so, how do you justify that its very name points to one of the biggest blatant man effected influences on translation. The name "James" is not a greek name. King James had the translators change one of the names so that he could be included in scripture. This does not effect doctrine or truth or the infallability of scripture, just shows mans infallability.
Which the Catholic church was not fond of. All you really need to know about what you think you know is right in that sentence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Since KJV was the common and widely know version, it was decided by the other scholars, not to confuse people so they kept the name James. References to quoted scripture or even a book of the Bible, "James" would create confusion. Since the name does not dictate or change any theology, it was deemed acceptable to leave as is. I believe Jesus's brothers name was actually Joseph. I forget right now.
This is incorrect, as proven in 1947 with the dead sea scrolls.
Link to post
Share on other sites

if humans spent as much time discussing science as they do religion we wouldve cured cancer by now. What have you losers accomplished?then again any1 dumb enough to seriously discuss this crap.. well we probably dont want their opinion on science anyway so i guess...carry on

Link to post
Share on other sites
if humans spent as much time discussing science as they do religion we wouldve cured cancer by now. What have you losers accomplished?then again any1 dumb enough to seriously discuss this crap.. well we probably dont want their opinion on science anyway so i guess...carry on
. . . another classy post by "the shank". Why do you even care or waste your time posting in the religious forum anyway . . . oh yeah I forgot . . . your a jerk.
Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . another classy post by "the shank". Why do you even care or waste your time posting in the religious forum anyway . . . oh yeah I forgot . . . your a jerk. troubled man searching for what's missing in your life... and while you know it's Jesus... you refuse to accept him, because according to Romans 9, you were probably made for destruction... I love you, please repent and accept Jesus as your personal savior... He loves you.
fyp
Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thread I think. However, your New Guinea reference brought up an interesting question. Since the word of God has already been spread world wide, through all nations, why are factions of christianity wasting there time ministering to nations that have already rejected him? These are poor people, who need help- but do you really think that religous intervention is the answer? From what I can see it doesn't help anything- there lives don't change, they still keep the same sinful customs, so what is the point? This is harsh line of reasoning I know, but a thought procees that I think bears consideration.
Have you ever been on a missionary trip anywhere? I personally have and to see what they are doing for those "poor people" is great. I have a friend from college who was in New Guinea (hence the reference) for most of his childhood and he said that he saw the people there changing their ways. What once was a fully pagan worship system going so far as cannabalism now has a church and a bible which they can read. Don't you think that if you are in a country of 1 million pagans and even one of them comes to the realization of a loving God then what you did was totally worth it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which the Catholic church was not fond of. All you really need to know about what you think you know is right in that sentence.
I can't believe you only nitpicked that out of Mcsoups entire post. What did you just read half way through the post see that he mentioned catholics and disregard everything. He made some good points which you chose to ignore and only looked at that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incorrect, as proven in 1947 with the dead sea scrolls.
I hate arguing with my own "team." That is like saying, "you were supposed to post not flag" between a QB and WR.But what???? Where did you come up with that? The dead sea scrolls were OT baby, not NT. James is a NT name.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you only nitpicked that out of Mcsoups entire post. What did you just read half way through the post see that he mentioned catholics and disregard everything. He made some good points which you chose to ignore and only looked at that.
All I can say is get used to it. LMD is not very good at handling multiple points, so he tends to just focus on (and twist) just one. It makes for a lot of 'blood from stone' discussions
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya subur, subhannallahi, a'udhu billahi minash-shaitanir-rajim,al-hamdu lillah, bismillahir rahmanir rahim
. . . and thank you for your contribution to this thread . . . it wouldn't have been the same without your comments.
Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . and thank you for your contribution to this thread . . . it wouldn't have been the same without your comments.
no no, thank YOU for your contribution. ohandnext time you want to make a funny comment, you might want to make sure you have some ground to make it. That happens to be a prayer. Google it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . and thank you for your contribution to this thread . . . it wouldn't have been the same without your comments.
QFT
no no, thank YOU for your contribution. ohandnext time you want to make a funny comment, you might want to make sure you have some ground to make it. That happens to be a prayer. Google it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
no. I don't speak Korean. I only speak American. American is the only true language.
Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, I hope the above post was a joke because NOBODY can be that ignorant. Congratulations though, on losing any credit you might have had, I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously on any future posts. For those of you who aren't ignorant and are interested in the translation, if you haven't already googled it:"Glory to God, the Patient One. I seek refuge in God from Satan, the accursed. In the name of God, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful."

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, I hope the above post was a joke because NOBODY can be that ignorant. Congratulations though, on losing any credit you might have had, I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously on any future posts. For those of you who aren't ignorant and are interested in the translation, if you haven't already googled it:"Glory to God, the Patient One. I seek refuge in God from Satan, the accursed. In the name of God, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful."
Arabic? Aramaic? What language...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you only nitpicked that out of Mcsoups entire post. What did you just read half way through the post see that he mentioned catholics and disregard everything. He made some good points which you chose to ignore and only looked at that.
Catholocism is from top to bottom absolutely packed with lies and deceits,and when faced with them it takes on average years for them to admit it, if they do at all. So, yeah, I hear Catholocism and I fire away, which really isn't hard to do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...