what is a "Christian" ?

[lpearson]

Originally posted by fest3er

Lowell,



Generally, you are saying good thing. But i also detect in your writings an ... absoluteness that doesn't quite jive, a black/white dichotomy - one or t'other, but nowhere in the middle.



---------Neal, you are right, I believe the Word of God is Black and White, no shades of grey. I may not understand it all, but what I do understand and have studied out is Pure and True. God in his word said he couldn't lie. I think it wonderful, he loved us enough that we could know exactly what he wants for our lives and where we stand; not guessing or making up our own ways.



We each are not of two minds. We are of one mind. We are human and do what humans do. Specifically, we sin. We sin because we are not perfect. We are not perfect because we are not God.



-------Here, I must disagree, the Word tells us the Christian has two minds; The Old man (Adamic life) and the New man(Christs life in us). We choose to live either godly or fleshly. Check out the third chapter of Colossians where Paul admonishes the Christian to "put on the New man and put off the old man and his deeds"; All of what he says there is about the choice of the minds within us. --------James 1:8 "A Double Minded man is unstable in all his ways"----------------James 4:8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye Double Minded. "



As Christians, the first thing we must accept and believe is that we do err and always will. It follows that the first thing we must believe is that God will welcome us when we physically die. But we must want Him to. That is where faith comes in, faith that if we believe, He will welcome us, regardless of how we lived our lives here.



-------If we believe, as said in SCRIPTURE,--- we are assured that we will be Saved. Our lives lived here determine rewards and placement THERE. (see previous replies)



Building on that faith reinforces our daily lives. Granted, we will not be judged on our works, but on our faith.



--------We will be judged by what we did here, judgement begins at the house of God (I Peter 4:17); and at Christs Judgement seat (I Cor. 5:10)



But faith is such a very personal thing. It is the ultimate in solitary thought, solitary action. A truly faithful person follows his own path, his own drummer, if you will. Following another person's example will quickly lead one from the right path, which is his own path. Those who go to services looking for examples, for 'heroes', are ... mmm ... not lost, but bewildered. The only example they need is found in the New Testament, in the Gospels and Epistles.



-------Again I disagree, but I think I see where you are going with this. My only comment is that which is found in I Corinthians 11:1 "Be ye followers of Me,(the apostile Paul) as I also am of Christ. "



As to Heaven and Hell, I'm not entirely sure that Hell - a state of being separate from God, really exists. Jesus died for our sins; He died to save us. I believe we have all been saved, that God welcomes all who pass from this life. It is thus written in Scripture. (Where, I don't know, but I've seen it many times; most likely in the New Testament. ) We can live any which way we want, yet we will all join God when we pass on.



--------I'm sorry, but this IS NOT SCRIPTURAL. I don't know where you got this doctrine from but it's not sound. Hell doctrine is found some 23 times in the New Testament, and Jesus spoke about it more than anyone else. Howbeit, many new versions have excluded the word hell from their books and put in Hades or the grave or Sheol, because it's not a popular and pleasant topic; ie. people going to hell. Hell is just a temporary holding place. Here are the scriptures showing ALL ARE NOT going to heaven and that there is eternal damnation.



"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of Life; and the dead were JUDGED out of those things which were written in the books, according to their WORKS. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were JUDGED every man according to their WORKS. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. " (Rev 20:11-15)



Neal, in your post I didn't see one scripture backing your positions. I think you are sincere and I don't wish to be you adversary, but I have determined to follow scriptural doctrine and not mans thinking or his teachings. After all where did we hear about Salvation? about Heaven and Hell?------ Scripture!!!!!-------------Why can't the Bible be the Final Authority?



Regards,

Lowell



N

 

[Hohn]

I am ending my contribution to this thread. I fear it is turning in a sour direction... .



The banter is interesting, enlightening, and educational.



Justin

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

two classes in heaven? hmmmmm. how 'bout the better resurrection being one that did not lead to death again. ? those who were resurrectd by Jesus during his earthly life physically died again. those resurrected to heavenly life never die again...



A. -----------Hi, In response to the above. I don't believe there are two classes in heaven. There are many different placements in the resurrection though. Two men in scripture never tasted death but were translated alive into heaven, Enoch and Elijah, (is that better than dying?); ---then---"And the graves were opened; and MANY (not all) of the saints which slept arose arose, And came out of the graves AFTER his resurrection, and when into the holy city, and appeared unto many. " Matthew 27:52-53. (Is this better than those who didn't get up? What was God's reasoning that many saints got up and others stayed? Could it be their lives, works and committments to him??? I think so.



This is a huge subject with many scriptures, but for space and time I will narrow my responses.



In I Corinthians 15:22-23 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. BUT EVERY MAN IN HIS OWN ORDER: Christ the firstfruits: afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. " Websters 1828 dictionary has a defination of Order = Rank; class; division of men; military order, -------well along with these thoughts in the military there are "privates" of different classes, sargents, lieutentants, colonels and then generals and their classes. -------------Is a 4 star general a better place than a buck private? Order also has the meaning in time and arrangement Matthew 27:52-53 responds to this.



Then in I Corinthians 15:35-42 we have the greatest sets of verses on the resurrection in the Bible. Paul admonishes the Christians in vs. 35 for not understanding how the resurrection will happen. He then gives analogies of things on earth and likens them to the differences in the resurrection; ie. seeds, flesh of men, flesh of beasts, flesh of fishes, and flesh of birds.



I saw a documentary on the Amozon jungle and it was stated in this study that there were at least 30,000,000 different types of vegetation, plants and trees within a 5 mile radius of where they were. That means there were at least 30,000,000 different types of seeds there. There are differences in mens flesh, =small, tall, fat thin, dumb, brilliant and so on;-----flesh of beasts= everything from the mouse to the Elephant; -----flesh of fishes= everything from the minnow to the whales. --------flesh of birds= everthing from the humming bird to the eagles. Then he notes the difference in the celestial bodies and the bodies terrestrial.



Not stopping there he points out the glory differences of the Sun, the moon and then the stars. -------- Now for the "punch" line for his analogies; -----"SO ALSO IS THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD---" vs 42. Are there better resurrections shown here???? YES THERE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Romans 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST;---if (conditional) so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. "



Is there a difference between heirs and joint heirs????? Is it better to be a joint heir with Christ so you can be glorified together, than just to be an heir of God?????



Going to the book of Revelation we see better resurrections there. For brevity, I'll just quote without much comment. Chapters 2 and 3 show a difference in the churches some Better some not so good. ----------Chapter 4 shows two different sets of saints the four and twenty elders and the four beasts; the first have their own seats whereas the four beasts are in the midst and around the throne, (remember the place that James and John wanted?) (Also check out Rev 3:21-22, Do you hear what he is saying?)



To show these are glorified saints = Rev 5:8-10 "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having everyone of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song saying, Thou are Worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and HAST REDEEMEND US TO GOD, by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. "



Again showing different or better placement. ****Note modern versions have deviated from the textus receptus, majority text and the Authorized Version on these verses.



Chapter 7 shows 144,000 of Israel ready to be sealed of God, then in chapter 14 it shows them up in heaven before the throne of God. -------Also, there is shown (chpt 7) a great multitude, which no man could number stand before the throne of God in heaven. Is there a difference here?????? (no thrones, just white robes and palms in their hands)



Part of Chapter 20 shows different thrones and saints ruling with Christ for the 1000 years. Is there a difference here, (ie) the unnumberable multitude of Chapter 7 before the throne; and saints having there own thrones. (not the thrones that the disciples will receive, nor the seat that the four and twenty elders have, nor the place that the four beasts have) Which is better??????







Q. ------------and if we're all going to heaven, both as rulers and subjects, why would God's kingdom need to come to earth (Mat. 6:9,10)?



A. -------------God cannot lie and he promised the nation of Israel the kingdom would come with Christ as ruler. After the Kingdom age(1000 year reign on earth) all believers will be with Christ in heaven ( Read the prophets and the gospels Christ)--- the disciples always peached the kingdom here on earth. So if he didn't fulfill this promise to them he would be a liar. ( This too is a big subject, but in a "nut shell" this is the reason. )





Q. -------why did John the Baptist not go to heaven (Mat. 11:11)?



A. -----------I think you missed the point in this scripture (John was definately a believer in Jesus Christ, heaven was assured to him as well as all other believers), Jesus is simply pointing out that the greatest here on this earth( John the Baptist) is not to be compared to the least in heaven. Risen in this verse doesn't me to heaven. It is the Greek word "egerro which means= to come from obscurity. John diffentially fits that as one reads about his life. Back to the question; This also shows better placements. The least in heaven means that there are those BETTER and HIGERER IN HEAVEN does it not????Remember Jesus said he was the resurrection and NO ONE can go to the Father without him. (John 11:25 and 14:6); Jesus was still alive at that time and not resurrected.



People who died in Christ went to paradise ( Luke 23:42-43. ; also called Abrahams bosom Luke 16:22)which was in the earth prior to Jesus assending to heaven. Then when Jesus when to heaven to be with his Father he took all of those saints with him that were in the earth. Remember Jesus was the resurrection and no one went to the Father before or without him.



Ephesians 4:8-9 "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captiveity captive,( they were captive in the earth and he came and got them to take them to heaven with him), and gave gifts unto me. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended FIRST into the lower parts of the earth? ( That's where they were so he went to apprehend them. ) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. )"





Q. -------why do the Psalms indicate the righteous would possess the earth. ? (Ps. 37:9,11,29)



A. --------------Jesus also said this in the gospels, that in the kingdom age the meek would inherit the earth. The Kingdom will be a vastly different place when Jesus rules with a rod of Iron. Justice, righteousness will be the norm, and the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the seas do now.



Q. ---------and if Adam/Eve had not sinned (chosen to disobey God) they would not have died (Gen. 2:16,17) and would have lived on where?



A. --------------No they would not have died. I guess the garden of Eden, since your question is hypothetical and didn't happen.





STATEMENT. --------------Death was a punishment for disobedience, not the doorway to a better life.



A. --------------------Death was punishment for disobedience and for those who don't believe in the Christ it would have been better had they not been born. ------------However, because Jesus got up from the dead and is our resurrection for those that believe, we too can get up to have a better life with him forever. I could write another post with the scriptures that show how much better heaven is than that of the eternal lake of fire. But I think my statement is securely backed up in Scripture. Somehow, you being a Christian (I assume by your posts) I don't think you really thought the last statement through to it's conclusion.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lizzyhermit]

I believe as Hohn said it has been interesting, enlightening and educational. I appreciate the many responses, but especially the last assumption posted "you being a Christian" which is where all of this began with the very first post.

 

[Mike Ellis]

It has certainly been an excellent thread, Fest3er had some interesting points I thought.



The concept of differing levels of the afterlife is one that I scratch my head over. As Lowell points out, the Scriptural references are clear. One is left wondering though, exactly *which portions* of the law are the ones that will make the distinction in our eventual judgement. Why indeed did some, but not all, of the saints arise at that moment?



If you ever have the opportunity to work with Orthodox Jewish folks, they have some very interesting insights on the relevance of the laws. Their lives are spent in rigid adherence to a framework of laws that were handed down in scripture or as a result of rabbinical interpretation of same. There are dictates on what they may eat, drink, wear, use, etc. However, there is an endless amount of "legalising" to interpret what those laws mean, and how they should be applied.



For instance, if you go to Israel you will observe in the hotels in Tel Aviv a device known as a "Shabbat Elevator". This turns out to be a regular, garden-variety elevator which on Shabbat (their sabbath, from sunset to sunset) is programmed to go continuously from floor to floor, up and down, all day long. Why? Because it is apparently forbidden for a Jew to do certain types of labor on Shabbat (lighting a fire, etc) and it has been determined that pushing the button to activate the elevator and making it work is violation of that law. BUT, if the elevator "just happens" to be going up and down anyway, it is OK to go along for the ride

Likewise, they are not permitted to operate the television on Shabbat, but if they know that a particular show is coming on and the television "just happens" to be left on and turned to the proper channel, then it is OK to watch it.



Why do I bring these seemingly unrelated items up? Because they are an example of people reaching an accommodation, in their minds at least, with God's law that they believe will not jeopardize their relationship down the road. They have decided that this "bending of the rules" is OK, for whatever reason, but bending of OTHER rules might get them in big trouble. Of course, they won't know until too late whether God views it the same way... .



We Christians face the same dilemma in some respects. Although we all seem to believe that faith alone assures salvation, the concept of differing levels of heaven makes one wonder - how exactly is the distinction of "good enough" made? Jesus was quite clear on which commandment He considered to be the most important, but there is not such clear direction on what to do if you want to be at the highest level. Does it mean you have to go to church every Sunday? If you are a Baptist, does that mean you have to go Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening too? AFAIK scripture doesn't set out the attendance rules in detail. Does singing in the choir make you "better"? Going to Bible Church A versus Faith Church B? Using King James instead of New American Standard? How do we know what the critical distinctions are?



In my view, the relative value of our eventual reward should NOT be a motivator for the actions we take here in life. I follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of my understandings, not out of thirst for the reward, but because I truly and honestly feel that it is the right thing to do. I will of course be very happy to experience heaven someday, but I am not particularly worried about being considered "better" or "worse" than someone else in the Sweet By and By. Why? Because I follow my heart and my conscience, not my brain or my checkbook. The spiritual walk is more than just "Gimme".



Consider two children - one says "Yes sir", "No sir", "Thankee", and "Please" because he considers it the right thing to do, the other one does it only because you give him $1 each time he does something right. Hmmm, which one is truly polite? You can't tell from outward behavior, from an outside viewpoint they both appear to be polite - but only one is polite because he feels it is the right thing to do



I have great faith that God can see the truth of my convictions, in spite of the horrible mistakes I make in my outward behavior at times. He knows I can't be perfect. This isn't an excuse not to try, as a man of conviction I am honor bound to do my best.



The miracle of Salvation: even when my best isn't good enough, it is good enough.

 

[lizzyhermit]

very well said Mike concerning motivation. I personally do not "believe that faith alone assures salvation" but that what we do demonstates what we believe (ja 2:14-26). But, as you stated, we aren't the judge, so if some "believe that faith alone assures salvation" thereby calling themselves "Christians" I now have a better understanding of their position.

 

[lpearson]

Mike Ellis,



Hi,



Nice reply, I enjoyed reading it. My conviction is= Love is the answer, God loved us so much he gave us his Son; If we love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, --our lives will bear the spiritual fruit spoken of in Scripture.



As for the Jews "corporately"; they are blind as a bat, they don't get it and won't until Jesus comes back (Romans 11:25); thinking they can be righteous before God with their rule keeping and not the sacrifice of their messiah. Most of the orthodox ones keep the oral law and not so much the laws of Moses. The Talmud (oral law) is a mess of self righteous nonsence and man make customs which put themselve above the laws God. This type of stuff was going on in Jesus's day; and he always stuck it to them because of their errors.



"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the TRADITION (not the laws of Moses) of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread (this ordance is not the the laws). (What a stupid thing to complain about). But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? ----------------vs. 6 ---Thus have ye made the commandement of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites,------" Matthew 15:1-7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This won't be popular but, here goes anyway.



The 1611 Authorized version of the Bible known as the KJV (not the NKJV) is God's word for the English Speaking people of the World. There is no Copywrite on the scriptures, however if you have a study bible with notes usually they are copywrited. All of the other New Versions have Copywrites on the scriptures and notes; these limit how many total scriptures you can use without permission from the publishing house who owns the rights. Check in the front of a new version for their rules on how you can use the book you bought.



I have studies this out for the last 9 years and have a small library of books on the subject. You mentioned the New American Standard. There are quite a few problems with this translation.



I have had persons tell me that it is the best translation in the world. Well, lets look at some of the facts.

1. There have been 10 revisions of the NAS; 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977, and 1995. The last one has 1000's of changes over the previous changed translations. The NASBU (newest one) states that it follows most closely the 26th. edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, yet it rarely follows this edition (only 5 times), but chooses rather the 23rd. edition.



Couple of Questions; a) Nestle's Greek text is now, in it's 27th revision, which of the 27 should we trust our souls in?

b) If the NAS is the best translation in the world, which of the 10 revisions is the one to use since they are all different?



In Numbers 21:14 the NAS has these Hebrew words "untranslated" in the English text; "Waheb in Suphah" ; if you don't know Hebrew you'll miss out on understanding the text. Here is what the Authorized Version says "What he did in the Red Sea".



In the New Testament the NAS, to make a better understanding for the reader, says in I Cor. 8:4 "----We know that here is no such thing as an idol in the world" ----Well I wonder why Israel got into so much trouble with God in the Old Testament, if there is no such thing as an idol in the world. The Authorized Version, same verse " we know that an idol is nothing in the world" big difference.



Luke 4:4 NAS; "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone. " This begs the question for the reader, then what shall man live on besides bread?



Authorized Version same verse, "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. "



When Jesus said EVERY WORD of God; did he mean it? Is every word important? Why then did and do the newer versions delete these words from the text? (A guess;maybe it is because they don't have all of the words of God).



This is just a sample, there are other versions that are much worse.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Lizzyhermit,



Just a comment on James 2:14-26; most of what is spoken here by James is showing "men" your works. Notice in vs 14 and 16 it talks about "profit", "What doth it profit my breathren though a man say, he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?



The greek word there is Sozo which means = deliever or protect.

The subject matter of these verses is not talking about eternal salvation. It is talking about our works before man; remember our eternal salvation is clearly defined in many scriptures, some of which are John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10; Ephesains 2:8-9. God doesn't look at the works of man for eternal salvation, he looked to his Son and his blood. It is mockery to say that Jesus lied on the Cross when he said "It is finished". The theory that we can do something to earn our salvation means Jesus couldn't quite do it for us, so then he isn't our Saviour. (Jesus's name means Saviour)



Many go to this part of scripture and emply works for salvation. Again it's talking profit. The save here is talking about being delievered from judgement for your lack of good works (II Cor 5:10)



Christian should all have good works and they should do them because it's the right thing to do (Mike Ellis's reply), but there are many who think they are eternally saved by their works and will not help destitute people needing basic human things. and yet James gives that as his main example of dead faith. (vs. 15-16) notice end of vs 16 = what doth it profit? (II Cor. 5:10)



This all is talking about justifing our faith before men with our works. Plus there is profit for the doer thereof. There are lots of Blow hard, hot air Christians out there or God wouldn't have these verses in his Bible.



If one doesn't see or study the context in which the scripture is meant, errors will happen. II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. " (Who, why, what, when, where, etc. )



I have yet to see anyone use I Timothy 2:13-15 as saying that all a woman has to do to have eternal salvation is to have children. (Wed or Not)-- but then she still needs some faith and some love and holiness and she can't get drunk. No mention of Jesus's sacrifice here. ----- vs. 15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. "



Well I seem to have written to much again, sorry.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[Mike Ellis]

Lowell,



It is a pleasure reading your messages, make 'em as long as you want!



I prefer King James version myself, I have always loved the way it is written and the way the words sing. I have a couple of other versions here at hand, but the KJV is the one I have stuck with through the years.

 

[lizzyhermit]

Lowell, I did not mean to imply 'earning salvation". What I mean't was that if one believes in the sacrifice of Jesus and truly has faith in the written word of God their lives would manifest the qualities produced by God's Holy Spirit. We aren't perfect but as someone said earlier, we should at least try... .



KJV = God's word for the english speaking world! Hmmm? I understand it to be a "version" not always a "translation" from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English. If the original writings used the tetragramaton (sp?) indicating God's name in Hebrew consanants thousands of times, why is it only rendered Jehovah 4 times in the KJV and then as Lord, LORD, God, GOD, etc. everywhere else? God's name is God's name, always was and will be. I've always been fasinated that pagan gods names are used throughout the Bible but not the name of the Creator of everything. Might lead one to wonder what else got changed/mis-translated (sheol, hades, gehenna, nephesh, psykhe, ruach, pneuma).



Personally I prefer referring to several versions/translations to consider the context and comparisions of related texts. I have also found a greek/english interlinear produced in 1864 to be very helpful in understanding the translation of the original greek text. I haven't found one for hebrew yet, but I'm still looking.



If we keep searching and applying we'll benefit.

 

[milehiscott]

lizzyhermit,

You are correct that the KJV is not a direct translation from the original languages. It was translated from the Vulgate. The Vulgate is the Latin translation written by Jerome from the original languages.



The Lord, LORD, God, GOD has to do with the limitations of English. In Hebrew they also have the words

eloheim and Jehovah for God. Usually the word eloheim is translated as Lord, meaning ruler (i. e. an English Lord of the Manor). It is written as LORD when it is a direct name for the Hebrew God Yehweh. The word Jehovah is usually translated as God. This can be any god or the Hebrew God. When it is a name specifically for the Hebrew God (i. e. Jehovah Jirah= God provides) it is usually written as GOD. The 4 renderings of Jehovah that you mention are where the original name of Yehweh was indicated. To keep in the Jewish tradition of not writing THE NAME, they translated it to Jehovah for English.



On a different note, I have a good interlinear at home. I'll PM you with the details. It might not be until Monday.



Scott

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by lizzyhermit





Personally I prefer referring to several versions/translations to consider the context and comparisions of related texts. I have also found a greek/english interlinear produced in 1864 to be very helpful in understanding the translation of the original greek text. I haven't found one for hebrew yet, but I'm still looking.



If we keep searching and applying we'll benefit.

_______________________________________________-

Mike Ellis,

Thanks.



________________________________________________-

Lizzyhermit,

I too have different versions to compare. But I only use them to show error. I have a friend who teaches a Bible class at a large church. He has everyone bring their different versions and then when there is a difference, every one will read what theirs says and then they will all vote on which one they like the best.



I told my friend that this is dangerous, either God preserved his word PURE or he didn't and lied to us, and for ignorant christians to vote on which perversion is right without knowledge is almost unbelievable. There have been over 180 new versions come on the scene since the 1880's, when Hort and Westcott (Catholics)came out with their latest Greek text. An average of about one new bible every 10 months, and we are still counting. All of the schalors who put them out have stated that theirs is better than the last and all of them are trying to replace the KJV, none of them attack each other just the KJV.



I believe when the Church started around 33-34 AD. That Satan tried to destroy it by killing as many followers of Jesus as he could. He used Rome to butcher many many Christians. They were fed to wild beasts, burned at the stake and so on. But the Church kept growing. So, (again my feelings) he decided to join the church so to speak, with Constintine and the Roman Catholic Church. Reading history, Constintine went to Alexrandria Egypt to get Bibles. There the scriptures had been worked over by Origin, Clement and other philosophers, who had scratched out crossed over and had written in their own thoughts. Scripture says that all scripture is inspired by God. These worldly thinkers disagreed. ---- Anyway,off go the 50 corrupt versions to the Roman Catholic Church.



Satan is clever and can come as an angel of light. I believe he knew that if he could corrupt the basis of the Christian faith, that he thought it would destroy itself. 2000 year later we have every "flavor" of Christianity you can imagine and the basis of the Faith, (the Bible) isn't much used anymore. Looks like it won't be a whole lot longer until the entire world will worship the beast and Christianity will be a fading memory. (Rev 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. " Yes there will be a remnant, and they will be killed for it. vs. 15 and others.



"Back to the story" your 1864 interliner is probably OK if it doesn't back the Alexandrian manuscripts. The greek texts backing all the newer versions are the VATICANUS AND THE SINIATICUS even though they disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.



Just an example of the type of text that the Vaticanus is; it omits Genesis 1:1----46:28 (creation is gone); Psalms 106-138; Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles are entirely deleted, Hebrews 9:14----13:25, and all of Revelation. ; besides all that in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences.



You mentioned the original Greek; well there is no such thing. No-one today has ever seen them. All we have are copies, codexs and many parts of different manuscripts. All the new versions are taken off the "MINORITY TEXTS", which are less than 2% of all the known manuscripts. Again without going into great detail with all of this; look at who puts out these new books and why.



I believe you can improve products like cars, trucks and general merchandise that we all use. ----But how can you improve on God's Holy Word????---------------Every new version has to change it's scripture so much, so it can be called a new work. In a "Nut Shell" this is the derivative copywrite law of the United States. A work has to differ enough from another so as not to infringe on it's copywrite. The KJV doesn't have a copywrite all of the others do.



Now why do these editors make new books all the time. Could it be they like to make money and don't care about the truth? Back in the 60's the Bible was the best selling book in the world, that didn't go unnoticed by Rupert Murdock. He bought Zondervon and some other publishing houses and in the 70's the NIV and other versions begain to Crop up.



The NIV has 64,098 fewer words than the textus receptus, majority text, and the Authorized Version (KJV). Aprox. 10% of the Whole Bible or almost the same amount as the entire New Testament. One of the Editors was a woman by the name of Virginia Moloncott; She had already written two books on lesibianism and wasn't sure that Jesus was the Christ. Now this is the type of person we want to entrust our souls with isn't it?



If you have an NIV, look up these scriptures; Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Mark 11:26, Mark 7:16, Mark 15:28, Mark 9:44 and 46, Luke 23:17, Romans 16:24, Acts 8:27 and Acts 28:29.



Interesting, you will not find one of the above, and not only that they didn't even bother to adjust their numbering system. Example Matthew 18:10 is there then it jumps to 18:12, this is true on all of the above. This doesn't even approach the partial deletions, reversals and totally oposites that are found in this version. One person was confronted by these facts and his response was he liked a version with less words.



I have had people tell me they like a version that's easier to read.

A Jack and Jill went up the hill type book. They don't care about truth. Why don't doctors get simpler books to read, like bone here and there and muscles apart from the bone with veins going all over the body, just cut the one closest to you. I know this is stupid. If you need a doctor, don't you want one who studied and knows his stuff? One who got "A's" and not "d's and f's.



Enough with the NIV for now, Here is an interesting letter from the chief editor of the NAS, Dr. Frank Logsdon. He wrote this to the owner and pulbisher of the NAS. Check it out.



"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. ----I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord---We laid the ground work;I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. -

I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I goin to do about it?---I can no longer ignore theses criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NAS. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachement to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. The deletions are absolutely frightening, there are so many. ----- I don't want anything to do with it. The finest leaders that we have today, haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it. That's how easily one can be deceived. I'm going to talk to Dr. George Sweeting, (then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things.

Dr. Frank Logsdon.



If he thinks it's a piece of junk and he put it together. Why is it so many people defend this work as the best translation in the world? Amazing.



Frank is now dead and with his Lord.



Scripture does talk about changing God's word. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in ths book. " Rev 22:18-19.



I wonder about Frank and the above judgement.



Scripture says "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? It doesn't take much error to cause to be off the mark.



I'll finish with this; Psalms 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. ******(NOTE: the 7 major bibles made are 1. Tyndale 1525; 2. Coverdale 1535; 3. Matthews 1537; 4. Great Bible 1539; 5. Geneva 1560; 6. Bishops Bible 1568 and the final one, could it be that this is what God meant in the above scripture? Number 7 King James Authorized Version. the major language of the world is English, all airline pilots everywhere speak the universial language= English. The Bible originally was mainly written in Hebrew and Greek and less than 1% of the entire worlds population speak or read those languages, however English is spoken everywhere. Just something to think about. )





vs 7; " Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shall preserve them (only one can be right then, the others adding or taking away for copywrite didn't preserve all of the words) from this generation for ever. Check out the newer versions on how they even butcher this set of scriptures. The NIV, NAS and the NLT are totally disgusting, they all entirely change the subject matter in verse 7.



Well, as usual I didn't mean to go this long, but it is a vast subject and this is just a drop in the bucket.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by milehiscott

lizzyhermit,

You are correct that the KJV is not a direct translation from the original languages. It was translated from the Vulgate. The Vulgate is the Latin translation written by Jerome from the original languages.



The Lord, LORD, God, GOD has to do with the limitations of English. In Hebrew they also have the words

eloheim and Jehovah for God. Usually the word eloheim is translated as Lord, meaning ruler (i. e. an English Lord of the Manor). It is written as LORD when it is a direct name for the Hebrew God Yehweh. The word Jehovah is usually translated as God. This can be any god or the Hebrew God. When it is a name specifically for the Hebrew God (i. e. Jehovah Jirah= God provides) it is usually written as GOD. The 4 renderings of Jehovah that you mention are where the original name of Yehweh was indicated. To keep in the Jewish tradition of not writing THE NAME, they translated it to Jehovah for English.



On a different note, I have a good interlinear at home. I'll PM you with the details. It might not be until Monday.



Scott

Scott,



My research indicates the following about the Latin Vulgate:



The oldest known manuscript which originally came through Anitoch was the Syrian Pe****to (Codex). It dates to 150 A. D. There are still 350 copies in existence today.



The Old Latin Vulgate came into existence no later that 157 A. D. It was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. This Latin version was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term "Vulgate"; as it's name Vulgate comes from vulgar which is the Latin word for common.



The Latin version of "Jerome", translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in about 380 A. D. It was rejected by real Christians. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name Vulgate for Jerome's translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people.



The King James Bible was commissioned, in part, NOT FROM Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but because of IT. The Catholic greek texts all came down from and through Alexandria Eqypt where Origen, who was not a Christian had a school. He felt free to change scriptures if he didn't like what they said. He wrote commentaries on most of the books of the Bible and definately influence the Vatianus and Siniaticus manuscripts now in use and behind the Catholic and all modern versions.



The King James was made from over 5100 manuscripts that originally came from Antioch, he commission some 52 men of the highest caliber to create this version. They were mostly professors of Greek and Hebrew at Oxford, Cambridge and the like. One spoke and wrote and taught 12 languages. Back then they didn't have T. V. 's or the internet and there was a huge interest in the Bible. One of the most common things to do was to study Greek. King James wanted a Bible for the common man, in the King's English; and to once and for all take out man made errors in all of the known bibles so that anyone could have the inerrant, infallible and literal truth of the Bible in every detail.



These men prayed for God's guidence for over 3 years before they even started, they were divided into groups of 6 and were to study every jot and tittle and word everywhere in all the known manuscripts at their disposal. Without computers, the task was daunting, and 4 men died before the work was complete. The Greek texts that they used were known as the Received Greek Text, or textus receptus = not Translated from Jerome's LATIN TEXT.

The Received Text:

1. Erasmus: 1516

2. Beza: 1565

3. Stephanus: 1546

4. Colinaeus: 1534

5. Elzevir: 1533



The Bibles that came from the Received Greek Texts.

Martin Luther (German)

Diodati (Italian)

Erdosi (Hungary)

Olivetan (France)

Valera (Spain)

Visoly (Poland)

Gottshcalkson (Iceland)

DeGrave (Holland)

Elizabeth Bible (Russia)

Coverdale (England, 1535)

Great Bible (1539)

Matthew's Bible (1537)

Bishop's Bible (1568)

Tyndale Bible (1525)

Geneva Bible (1560)

and

King James (1611 AV)



I won't go into the MINORITY Greek Texts of the Catholics which came from the Eqyptain Corruptions. (there are many).



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lizzyhermit]

interesting research !

hey lowell, as a result of your comments I've been doing some KJV research and I ran across this interestinbg viewpoint:



New Testament scholar J. Harold Greenlee noted that, with respect to the Bible, "No Christian doctrine . . . hangs upon a debatable text. "(10)



and that:



"It seems to me that, with all the difficulties we face in our often hostile culture, we should not erect walls between Christians on the basis of Bible versions. " R. Wade



I see your points about belief but feel that scripture also states we should do something with true knowledge... .

 

[lpearson]

Re: interesting research !

Originally posted by lizzyhermit

hey lowell, as a result of your comments I've been doing some KJV research and I ran across this interestinbg viewpoint:



New Testament scholar J. Harold Greenlee noted that, with respect to the Bible, "No Christian doctrine . . . hangs upon a debatable text. "(10)



and that:



"It seems to me that, with all the difficulties we face in our often hostile culture, we should not erect walls between Christians on the basis of Bible versions. " R. Wade



I see your points about belief but feel that scripture also states we should do something with true knowledge... .

Hi,



Both Jesus and Paul had something to say about the leaven of doctrine. One can find scholars from both camps as far as KJV or New versions. There were heretics then as well as now.



The don't know the context of J. Harold Greenlee statement. There are scriptures that are not as clear as others, but some extremely clear. Just need to know what all he was refering to.



R. Wade, well I don't want to erect walls; but if he is saying that all bibles are OK then he isn't much of a scholar. They differ a great deal.



I personally didn't care which one was the right Bible when I began my research, all I wanted was the TRUTH; however after many books and years of study, I am satified--- and will stand before My Lord, basing my Christian life on the Word of God found in the KJV.



With all the different bibles out there I wanted one I can trust to be pure and true, no matter what; no errors, no deletions, no additions, etc. I don't want to guess or question did the editor change God's word just to get a copywrite and to make money. Either it's all true or it's not.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[LHartman]

Great thread here guys.



I have owned almost all different versions of the Bible. I've been in the debate of what Bible is better. There are translations that are universally accepted and those that are universely condemned. God won't allow his word to be corrupted. This is why the bad translations are universally condemned. The debate shouldn't be over texts, but where you are with your relationship with Christ. All the debates in the world mean nothing if you are a lost soul.



If you choose to read your NIV or NKJ are you going to miss something? I doubt it. If I read the NIV, I may not get what the author is saying initially, but at some point HE will reveal what is being said.



"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. " Proverbs 3: 5-6



"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye. " Psalm 32:8



We are like babies being spoon fed. When we are ready, HE will give us a little bit more to chew on, so to speak. It's going to be the same with the NKJ and KJ versions.



This by no means is intended to be an argument. I just felt to add a little to a good conversation.



God bless,



Loren

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by LHartman

The debate shouldn't be over texts, but where you are with your relationship with Christ. All the debates in the world mean nothing if you are a lost soul.



If you choose to read your NIV or NKJ are you going to miss something? I doubt it. If I read the NIV, I may not get what the author is saying initially, but at some point HE will reveal what is being said. [/B]

Hi,

I agree partially with your first statement above. However I do respectfully disagree with the second.



The NIV has 64,098 less words than the 1611 Authorized Version, known as the KJV. The Texts used in the translations are an issue.



Here is kind of a dumb analysis of mine, so please put up with me on this.



If you were going to trust your life in an airline by taking one of their flights to let's say London, England and they offered you several planes to pick from. One having 64,098 less parts than the other one which didn't lack any parts. Besides that all other things being equal. Which one would you pick?



My point is that many people are very discerning in this world and count their lives here much more valuable than their spiritual lives (which go on forever); but they don't discern or search out the people and motives behind the versions they are trusting their eternal lives in.



In your NIV you will "miss something" 64,098 words missing; words added that are in no texts anywhere in the world; scriptures completely changed in meaning, some 180' different.



The following are verses that were totally deleted and the numbering system wasn't even changed. Check it out.

1. Matthew 17:21

2. Matthew 18:11 here is what it says in the Authorized Version.

"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. "



Now here's what it says in the NIV. -------------------------------



Is this an important verse?



3. Mark 7:16

4. Mark 9: 44 & 46

5. Mark 11:26

6. Mark 15:28

7. Luke 23:17

8. Romans 16:24

9. Acts 8:37

10. Acts 28:29



Jesus said "It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. " Luke 4:4



When he said "every word"; Did he mean it? or did he lie?



The NIV editors knowing that they deleted and changed many meanings quotes Luke 4:4 this way

"Jesus answered, It is written: Man does not live on bread alone. "



This is an incomplete sentence. What then does man need besides bread? You'll miss this in the NIV.



Here is a big issue with me in the NIV in changing the meaning of verses. Who is the "morning star?" "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. " KJV. (Rev 22:16)----Jesus = morning star.



In the NIV in Isaiah 14:9-17 says this, "The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you---all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones---all those who were kings over the nations. They will all respond, they will say to you, "You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us: All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you. How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a desert , who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home. "



This passage makes Jesus the proud usurper that wanted to dethrone God. This can't be.



Authorized Version Isaiah 14:12 clears this up from the above corruption.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning. "



The NIV replace Lucifer with the morning star. Is this right? God forbid.



The only place in the Bible (KJV) where the Devils personal name is found is here. None of the new modern versions that use the minority texts have this name anywhere in them, period. So if you have heard or Know about the name Lucifer you got it from the KJV. Is this missing something?



There many more examples I could go to where the reader will "miss something", but this is enough for now.



Regards,

Lowell