Is It Right?

[ollie]

Have you taken the test? The NIV says the same things any other bible (other then the OKJV, that is) says, but it paraphrases. It is more accurate then, say, the KJV. Why do you think they made the New King James Version? To correct the mistakes in the older one, the mistakes revealed in the text. It has been edited and changes so many time over the pass few years, and there are cases where the KJV says just the opposite of what every other Version says. It was the King James Version that incorrectly names the Reed Sea the Red see.  It was also this version that used “week” to describe a 7-year period.

Petro, The Jehovah’s Witness use the New World Version. They read the NIV like a Protestant would read the New American bible, during research. The JW believe the NIV has many errors.

I guess it all boils down to this: most translations still carry the most important messages from God, but to read just one is foolish. Sorry, it is late (or early, depending on how you look at it ), and what I’m starting isn’t the most coherent, but you get what I'm saying  

"
"It was the King James Version that incorrectly names the Reed Sea the Red see."

FYI!

The Red Sea gets its name from the explosive growth of a blue algae, trichodesmium erythraeum, that every so many years dyes the normal blue green water of the Red Sea an orange red.

http://red-sea.com/general_info/


Red Sea: Translates the unexplained classical names Erythrasan Sea and Mare Rubrum. To the early Portuguese mariners the name Mar Vermelho seemed to be appropriate, because of the red streaks of water, due probably to floating infusoria.

http://www.sacklunch.net/placenames/R/RedSea.html

[Petro]

Tibby,

posted by Tibby reply #39

Have you taken the test? The NIV says the same things any other bible (other then the OKJV, that is) says, but it paraphrases. It is more accurate then, say, the KJV. Why do you think they made the New King James Version? To correct the mistakes in the older one, the mistakes revealed in the text. It has been edited and changes so many time over the pass few years, and there are cases where the KJV says just the opposite of what every other Version says. It was the King James Version that incorrectly names the Reed Sea the Red see. It was also this version that used "week" to describe a 7-year period.

Tibby, I gave you the website for comparing the verses, between KJV and NIV;

Http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

Hey I know it is late, but;

How you can say,
  "The NIV says the same things any other bible",

This only proves you didn't read the caomparisons, or can't comprehend what you read;  try, rerdaing the verses with the quoted compared words, and see if your tatement is true.

If they are, you can eat my hat..
Blessings,
Petro

[Allinall]

Before I begin my two to three thousand word essay    let me say one thing about what Tibby said concerning the "Reed Sea."  There is a popular viewpoint that the sea crossed was the Reed Sea, as opposed to the Red Sea.  Why?  Because the Reed Sea is much smaller and easier to leave God out of the picture for miraculous workings!  It is a non-christian theory mind you.  I believe Tibby may have read the statement somewhere without hearing the whole story.  The Red Sea is the accurate translation.  

[Allinall]

As far as the human race is concerned... Yes.  If we have nothing then there can be no final authority for us.  Everyone will claim whatever they please and couldn't be proven wrong.  Unless of course you are of the silly camp of people that still "hear" God in their head.  You know just like the "renegade" Mormans who claim God tells them to kill people that are in the way of God's plans.

God stopped communicating directly with man at the close of scripture(ie no one hears anything from God. There is no one who can claim "thus saith the LORD" if it is not already in scripture.  Though many give it a shot like Benny Hinn  ).  

Why, you might ask?  Quite simply everything God wants us to know is contained in His Holy Word.  If His written Word was of no use or importance than Jesus Himself would not have constantly reffered to the scriptures as proof of His statments.  He even used written scripture against satan!!  I dare say then that His Holy written Word is most precious and not to be tampered and handled so lightly.  

Let me begin by saying that I agree with the understanding that we need the word for the mere sake of accountability, if not more so for our knowledge and subsequent understanding of our God.  Paul said in Romans 7:7-8 (and I'll use the KJV not to stir up anything unnecessarily)

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

God's word provides us the understanding of sin and how to deal with it as God planned.

The point I was trying to make with my question, was to get you to look at the passage from whence came your support for this topic.  Let's look at that passage from Matthew 24 contextually:

1   And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2   And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3   And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4   And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5   For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6   And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7   For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8   All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9   Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10   And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11   And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12   And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13   But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14   And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15   When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16   Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17   Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18   Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19   And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20   But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21   For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22   And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23   Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24   For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25   Behold, I have told you before.
26   Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27   For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28   For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29   Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30   And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31   And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32   Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33   So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34   Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35   Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus here is speaking in response to the questions posed by His disciples, after He pronounces the fall of the temple.  This is important.  Why?  Well for one, many miss the mark by using this passage as an understanding of the second coming.  Yet the disciples asked two questions:

1.  When will the temples destruction take place - vs. 3a
2.  When will He come again and the end times begin - vs. 3b

In the passage listed above, Jesus answers that first question.  The generation He speaks of was not a spiritual one, but a physical one.  He was being literal, and literally speaking, within that generation that temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.  

But let's stop here.  He is talking about the destruction of the temple - and throws in a statement concerning His written word?  We can explain that away, I'm sure, but not without taking that verse completely out of context.  Jesus had said that the temple would be destroyed.  To the Jew, that was an impossibility.  God, afterall, was on their side.  The disciples had viewed Jesus as a liberator - yes, they knew Him to be God very God, and worshipped Him accordingly.  Yet they had thought His kingdom would be set up in the here and now; that He would remove the Roman oppression and set Israel back up in the supremacy it once knew.  And then He tells them the exact opposite.  For the temple to be destroyed the city would have to fall.  For the city to fall, the vision of Jewish liberation that they had would not have been fulfilled.  So, Jesus makes a very unique statement:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

These things are temporal.  God's word is not.  God had just said that the temple would fall.  He isn't pointing to the existence of a written copy of His word, rather the truthfulness, and eternality of that word.  All else shall pass away, but not His word.  When we take that verse to support the KJV only position, we do so out of context.  We attribute that word in the form of the KJV.  That is simply, contextually, not so.

[Allinall]

Now for Part II...

Christ goes on in the next verses to answer the second part of the disciples questions:

36   But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37   But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38   For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39   And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40   Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41   Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42   Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43   But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44   Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45   Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46   Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47   Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48   But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49   And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50   The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51   And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This may even be in reference to His first answer as well!  However, they did ask two questions, and I believe He adaquately answers them both.

Yes, just look at the difference between the shear number of KJV translators (52 I believe) and their methods compared to any bible there after.

I wasn't making reference to the skill, or education of those translators.  Rather, I was asking if they were better men, any less sinful, any better believers than othe translators.

[ollie]

Before I begin my two to three thousand word essay    let me say one thing about what Tibby said concerning the "Reed Sea."  There is a popular viewpoint that the sea crossed was the Reed Sea, as opposed to the Red Sea.  Why?  Because the Reed Sea is much smaller and easier to leave God out of the picture for miraculous workings!  It is a non-christian theory mind you.  I believe Tibby may have read the statement somewhere without hearing the whole story.  The Red Sea is the accurate translation.  

Good info Allinall. Here is some more.

Red Sea, Reed Sea...and the Persian Gulf


The conclusion of Passover has traditionally focused on celebrating the miraculous parting of the Red Sea. There will certainly be some purists among my readers who are already jumping to correct me: The Hebrew "Yam Suf" should be rendered more precisely "the Sea of Reeds," a translation which has been adopted by some recent English biblical commentaries.
 I have heard the accusation that the common English usage of "Red Sea" is nothing more than the result of the ignorance of early Bible translators, or perhaps an old typographical error. This is not the case at all.

Actually, the name "Red Sea" is a lot older than the English language, and can be traced at least as far back as the 5th-century B.C.E. Greek historian Herodotus. It is used standardly in the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Bible, and by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus Flavius.

If one reads these ancient authors one soon realizes that the body of water being referred to is not necessarily the one which currently bears that name. It seems to be applied to the entire maritime area between Africa, Arabia and south Asia, extending at times as far as the Indian Ocean.

Some of the sources make a clear distinction between the more expansive Red Sea and the smaller Reed Sea. The latter lies in the region between Arabia and the Egyptian coast, especially in the Gulf of Eilat--the area that we normally think of now as the "Red Sea."


 
It is likely that the Red Sea was so named by ancient sailors as a result of the peculiar colouring created by the mountains, corals and desert sands (though the Egyptians called the same body of water the "Green Sea"); whereas the "Reed Sea" takes its name from the papyrus reeds and bulrushes that proliferated along the nearby Nile.
The distinction between the two seas is made very clearly in a remarkable document preserved among the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that is known to scholars as the "Genesis Apocryphon." This Aramaic text retells the stories of the Hebrew Patriarchs, much of it presented as an autobiographical account narrated by Abraham himself.

In one episode, Abraham tells us how he travelled along the frontier of the land which God had promised him, progressing from the Gihon River (apparently identified with the Nile), to the Mediterranean, south Lebanon and along the Euphrates River. Following that river through what is now Iraq Abraham arrived at the Red Sea in the east, which he traced through to "the tongue of the Reed Sea, which goes forth from the Red Sea."

From this itinerary it is evident that the Reed Sea is an inlet of the Red Sea. The fact that Abraham reached the Red Sea from the mouth of the Euphrates shows us that what is being referred to is in fact none other than the Persian Gulf!

The implications are quite remarkable. While I do not believe that we necessarily have to begin speaking of the "miraculous parting of the Persian Gulf," it is intriguing to observe that the story places both Iraq and Saudi Arabia within the perimeters of the Promised Land, a view which will warm the heart of the most extreme Israeli right-wingers.

As for myself, I will be perfectly satisfied if people simply stop correcting me whenever I speak of "the Red Sea."


http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/910329_Red_Sea.html

[Allinall]

Very true Ollie.  Thanks for the info!

[Petro]

Ollie,

You are being corrected so that you may, See Red.

God Bless..

Petro

[Brother Love]

Before I begin my two to three thousand word essay    let me say one thing about what Tibby said concerning the "Reed Sea."  There is a popular viewpoint that the sea crossed was the Reed Sea, as opposed to the Red Sea.  Why?  Because the Reed Sea is much smaller and easier to leave God out of the picture for miraculous workings!  It is a non-christian theory mind you.  I believe Tibby may have read the statement somewhere without hearing the whole story.  The Red Sea is the accurate translation.  

Good info Allinall. Here is some more.

Red Sea, Reed Sea...and the Persian Gulf


The conclusion of Passover has traditionally focused on celebrating the miraculous parting of the Red Sea. There will certainly be some purists among my readers who are already jumping to correct me: The Hebrew "Yam Suf" should be rendered more precisely "the Sea of Reeds," a translation which has been adopted by some recent English biblical commentaries.
 I have heard the accusation that the common English usage of "Red Sea" is nothing more than the result of the ignorance of early Bible translators, or perhaps an old typographical error. This is not the case at all.

Actually, the name "Red Sea" is a lot older than the English language, and can be traced at least as far back as the 5th-century B.C.E. Greek historian Herodotus. It is used standardly in the Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Bible, and by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus Flavius.

If one reads these ancient authors one soon realizes that the body of water being referred to is not necessarily the one which currently bears that name. It seems to be applied to the entire maritime area between Africa, Arabia and south Asia, extending at times as far as the Indian Ocean.

Some of the sources make a clear distinction between the more expansive Red Sea and the smaller Reed Sea. The latter lies in the region between Arabia and the Egyptian coast, especially in the Gulf of Eilat--the area that we normally think of now as the "Red Sea."


 
It is likely that the Red Sea was so named by ancient sailors as a result of the peculiar colouring created by the mountains, corals and desert sands (though the Egyptians called the same body of water the "Green Sea"); whereas the "Reed Sea" takes its name from the papyrus reeds and bulrushes that proliferated along the nearby Nile.
The distinction between the two seas is made very clearly in a remarkable document preserved among the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that is known to scholars as the "Genesis Apocryphon." This Aramaic text retells the stories of the Hebrew Patriarchs, much of it presented as an autobiographical account narrated by Abraham himself.

In one episode, Abraham tells us how he travelled along the frontier of the land which God had promised him, progressing from the Gihon River (apparently identified with the Nile), to the Mediterranean, south Lebanon and along the Euphrates River. Following that river through what is now Iraq Abraham arrived at the Red Sea in the east, which he traced through to "the tongue of the Reed Sea, which goes forth from the Red Sea."

From this itinerary it is evident that the Reed Sea is an inlet of the Red Sea. The fact that Abraham reached the Red Sea from the mouth of the Euphrates shows us that what is being referred to is in fact none other than the Persian Gulf!

The implications are quite remarkable. While I do not believe that we necessarily have to begin speaking of the "miraculous parting of the Persian Gulf," it is intriguing to observe that the story places both Iraq and Saudi Arabia within the perimeters of the Promised Land, a view which will warm the heart of the most extreme Israeli right-wingers.

As for myself, I will be perfectly satisfied if people simply stop correcting me whenever I speak of "the Red Sea."


http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/910329_Red_Sea.html

Thanks again Ollie

Brother Love

[Brother Love]

An Open Letter To James "M" And Those Of Like Mind

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.

Dear James,

It is possible that I have misjudged you. Perhaps I do not fully understand your position. I have made errors in judgment before and no doubt will do so again.

However, I find myself in a bit of a quandary because you imply that you are a Christian on one hand and therefore a brother but a defender of Calvinistic doctrine on the other which would make you an enemy of the cross of Christ and by extension an enemy of mine.

I am no friend to the enemy. You can claim Christian fellowship all you want to but as long as you defend Calvinism you will be marked as a heretic and placed on the list with the defenders of Mormonism, the church of Christ (Campbellism), Jehovah Witnesses (Russelites), Seventh Day Adventism, the Roman Catholic Church and all others that make of none effect the gospel of the grace of God.

I stand against Calvinism. I stand against those who teach Calvinism. I am not your friend and neither do I desire to be unless you repent (change your mind) about your defense of Calvinism and end the confusion you cause true believers by the twisting of the truth.

You may contact whoever you wish to contact and you may report to all that you wish to report to for those who know me will not desert me and even is they should I have NO FEAR in meeting you or any of your kind at the judgment seat of Christ, should you happen to make it there which I sincerely doubt.

I believe the following verses apply to you and those like you. These verses are taken from the inspired and preserved word of the living God, found in the King James Version which you and your coconspirators revile!

2 Cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If I am wrong then I am sorry and I apologize, but I am not wrong because …

Calvinism still….

Makes God the author of sin.

Cheapens the grace of God by limiting it's scope.

Populates the planet with a majority population of un-redeemable un-men like creatures who were created by God as "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Denigrates faith by teaching that regeneration precedes faith.

Falsely teaches that faith is the gift of God rather than salvation.

Takes what should be the RESULT of salvation and makes it the REQUIREMENT of salvation.

 

Denies the truth of the two natures in a believer.

Denies a literal 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth.

Denies the truth of generic nature of the word "church" (requiring a modifier) and by doing so falsely identifies Israel and the Body of Christ as being the same church.

Denies the principle division in scripture of Prophecy vs., Mystery

Makes no distinction between Israel (little flock) and the Body of Christ.

Attempts to appropriate Israel's covenants for the Body of Christ.

Makes no distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God.

Makes no distinction between the Apostleship of Peter and that of Paul.

And you, dear sir, defend these teachings and I stand, unapologetically, against this confusion and error.

So James, write all the letters you want, send all the emails you wish, contact whoever you desire it will not change my mind. The only thing that will change my mind about you and those of like mind is a turning from error to the truth.

Going forward as of this date any correspondence from you or your conspirators will be sent to where the sun does not shine UNLESS the subject line reads, "I Repent of Calvinism".

 

The door is open to you. If you have been blinded by Satan we stand with you and for you "In Christ". If you do not know for sure where you will spend eternity then we would consider it an honor to point you to the one who paid for all sin, for all men, for all time.

 

Maranatha

Doug Dodd S.B.G.

P.S.

Thanks A4C for the link to all of Brother Doug Dodds Bible Studies, I posted this one because I really got a lot out of it.


Brother Love

[Petro]

Yes, just look at the difference between the shear number of KJV translators (52 I believe) and their methods compared to any bible there after.

I wasn't making reference to the skill, or education of those translators.  Rather, I was asking if they were better men, any less sinful, any better believers than othe translators.

The Wescott & Hort 1881 Translators, never did their work out in the open, they kept everything a secret, they hand picked their team, and never annouced their work publicly until imediately before the published it; it can hardly be compared to the work of the KJV committees.

This also, is a historical fact..

Petro

[Ambassador4Christ]

There are no Bible Authorities, for the Bible is its own and only authority. The most deadly mistake of all is to blindly take the word of a fallible man without personally checking with the Infallible Word of God.

KJV

[Ambassador4Christ]

Do You Have Your Own Religion?

I am not surprised if you do, I hear it all the time, "I 've got my own religion!" And no wonder. With so many "religions" to choose from and so many "kinds" of bibles to read it is no wonder that many are confused about what to do or believe. If you find yourself in this condition let me encourage you with a few points.

1. Religion comes from man, faith comes from God through the bible.

2. God has a bible for English speaking people, it is the King James Bible.

3. God has a method for studying his word called "rightly dividing the word of truth" in 2Tim.2:15.

4. Through study, using God's method, you will discover the Doctrine, Duty & Destiny of the Church the body of Christ. In short you will no longer be confused.

Remember, your religion will be no better than any man's religion at God's Judgment Seat.

By Pastor Doug Dodd S.B.G.

[Allinall]

The Wescott & Hort 1881 Translators, never did their work out in the open, they kept everything a secret, they hand picked their team, and never annouced their work publicly until imediately before the published it; it can hardly be compared to the work of the KJV committees.

This also, is a historical fact..

Petro

Again, we touch on the character of the translators, and their method of work.  What of the scriptural support you'd given that I showed you'd taken out of context for use as support for your viewpoint?

[Allinall]

There are no Bible Authorities, for the Bible is its own and only authority. The most deadly mistake of all is to blindly take the word of a fallible man without personally checking with the Infallible Word of God.

KJV  

 

Amen!  And you have taken the counsel of man, as God advises, from both sides, and weighed that counsel in the balance of scripture to find the truth?  Because if you have not, rather, have taken what a man has said, and searched to prove that point, instead of discovering what God's might be, then you are making the very deadly mistake you claim others of opposing views are making.

GOD'S WORD