 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
Ole Timer, my pastor said the verse WAS in the original text.
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Old Timer, I just want to expound on something you bring up here when you say "original text." I am assuming you are referring to the Greek from whence the English is translated. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people I have met assume that "original text" means the original AUTOGRAPH, as in the papyrus or what-have-you that the Apostle Paul or Matthew wrote.
A little over a month ago, when our pastor was talking about fasting, he claimed that the phrase in Matthew 17:21 "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" was in the original text. I'm not sure what he meant (and I'm not sure he knew what he meant, either).
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Personally, after much study on the subject matter, and after a close comparison of the English within the translations, I have concluded for myself that the KJV and NKJV is accurately what I believe. |
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. |
|
Your pastor is correct. The most reliable NT manuscripts do not include the prayer and fasting statement. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/2/17 11:24 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Why is Mat 18:11 Left out of some bibles? |
c6thplayer1 |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | c6thplayer1 wrote: | | KJV has it along others bibles but there are some versions such as NIV etc. that go from verse 10 to verse 12 leaving out verse 11????? |
C, the question is somewhat confusing and misleading. To ask, "Why did the NIV (or any version) "leave out" a verse found in the KJV, implies that the KJV is the final arbitrator of all Bible passages. It isn't. |
No implication at all. Heres what I understand. The KJV was written before the NIV. While they were writing the NIV they saw Verse 11 and decided to leave it out of the the NIV for what ever purpose. Why? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
3/2/17 11:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Instead of older mss including the passage, the earlier mss upon which AV is based include it. |
Just for clarity, are you calling more recent mss "earlier"? Earlier means older, not more recent. If your birthday is earlier than mine, you are older. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/2/17 11:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pastor Nations |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Personally, after much study on the subject matter, and after a close comparison of the English within the translations, I have concluded for myself that the KJV and NKJV is accurately what I believe. |
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. |
OTCP,
Colossians 1:14
Which do you preach?
"in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." NKJV
or,
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." NASB |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1085
3/2/17 11:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Ole Timer, my pastor said the verse WAS in the original text.
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Old Timer, I just want to expound on something you bring up here when you say "original text." I am assuming you are referring to the Greek from whence the English is translated. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people I have met assume that "original text" means the original AUTOGRAPH, as in the papyrus or what-have-you that the Apostle Paul or Matthew wrote.
A little over a month ago, when our pastor was talking about fasting, he claimed that the phrase in Matthew 17:21 "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" was in the original text. I'm not sure what he meant (and I'm not sure he knew what he meant, either).
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Personally, after much study on the subject matter, and after a close comparison of the English within the translations, I have concluded for myself that the KJV and NKJV is accurately what I believe. |
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. |
|
Your pastor is correct. The most reliable NT manuscripts do not include the prayer and fasting statement. |
|
My apologies, Miss Bonnie, I misread your post. It is indeed in some of the ancient manuscripts, but the most reliable manuscripts do not contain the statement. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/2/17 3:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | your use of the words "original text" sounds like those guys saying their $500 sheepskin qualifies them to use the title "Doctor".
Please let us know what Paul's handwriting looks like if you have the "original text". |
My use of the words "original text" were perhaps not the most precise, NB, but anyone even vaguely acquainted with linguistics in reference to biblical studies would know that the "original text" as in the very letter Paul wrote does not exist (or has to date never been discovered via archeology). The ole timer fergits at times he is dealin with apprentices an novices so he shall endeavor to use language understood by such.
But, I can tell ya what Paul's handwriting looked like. He wrote in large letters. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/2/17 3:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Pastor Nations wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Personally, after much study on the subject matter, and after a close comparison of the English within the translations, I have concluded for myself that the KJV and NKJV is accurately what I believe. |
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. |
OTCP,
Colossians 1:14
Which do you preach?
"in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." NKJV
or,
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." NASB |
I use both, PN. The NASB rendering of Colossians 1:14 does no disservice to the blood of Christ because it is referenced in other places in the NT.
Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/2/17 3:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Nature Boy Florida wrote: | your use of the words "original text" sounds like those guys saying their $500 sheepskin qualifies them to use the title "Doctor".
Please let us know what Paul's handwriting looks like if you have the "original text". |
My use of the words "original text" were perhaps not the most precise, NB, but anyone even vaguely acquainted with linguistics in reference to biblical studies would know that the "original text" as in the very letter Paul wrote does not exist (or has to date never been discovered via archeology). The ole timer fergits at times he is dealin with apprentices an novices so he shall endeavor to use language understood by such.
But, I can tell ya what Paul's handwriting looked like. He wrote in large letters. |
Agreed OTCP. I often forget that I am dealing with guys that just assume you know what they really meant when they say things wrong.
Sorry man.
I just assumed that a guy that critiques every credential another man posts about himself would be accurate in his own posts. My mistake. 
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16636
3/2/17 4:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Nature Boy Florida wrote: | your use of the words "original text" sounds like those guys saying their $500 sheepskin qualifies them to use the title "Doctor".
Please let us know what Paul's handwriting looks like if you have the "original text". |
My use of the words "original text" were perhaps not the most precise, NB, but anyone even vaguely acquainted with linguistics in reference to biblical studies would know that the "original text" as in the very letter Paul wrote does not exist (or has to date never been discovered via archeology). The ole timer fergits at times he is dealin with apprentices an novices so he shall endeavor to use language understood by such.
But, I can tell ya what Paul's handwriting looked like. He wrote in large letters. |
LOL
Makes me think of Dr Voorhis at ECBC talking about the "original Greek" manuscripts...he would say, "Peering over Paul's shoulder..." 
Y'all might want to check out Romans 8:1. I always wondered why folks left out the last part of that verse (that is pretty important.) It's not in the NIV, either.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5915
3/2/17 6:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| There is only 2% of the content of known ancient manuscripts in question, none of which affects/alters any major evangelical doctrine. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/2/17 7:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pastor Nations |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Pastor Nations wrote: | | Personally, after much study on the subject matter, and after a close comparison of the English within the translations, I have concluded for myself that the KJV and NKJV is accurately what I believe. |
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. |
OTCP,
Colossians 1:14
Which do you preach?
"in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." NKJV
or,
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." NASB |
I use both, PN. The NASB rendering of Colossians 1:14 does no disservice to the blood of Christ because it is referenced in other places in the NT.
Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. |
.
OTCP,
It would be interesting how you preach an expository sermon on Colossians Ch. 1 - do you mention the blood by cross-referencing the other verses, or just skip mentioning the blood?
But, I have a different question.
Mark 16:20 NKJV says: "And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."
Is Mark 16:20 God-breathed (inspired)? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1085
3/3/17 2:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
JLarry |
The fact is, He came to save the lost. Now whether or not He seeks the lost I don't know.
My favorite Bible for reading happens to be the NIV version, (not favorite because it is NIV) but I am searching for one that is NKJ.
Honestly I don't know enough about the older translations, but I like the fact that he came to save the lost. I was one and he found me.
Do we need to change the lyrics to the old song, "He sought me and He bought with His own blood".
_________________
Recorded Sermons @ www.pastorwiley.com
No one who died without Christ is happy about their decision. |
Acts Mod
Posts: 3346
3/3/17 7:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
I have almost read the whole Bible in the NLT. I like it a lot.
You scholars, tell me what is wrong with it - because it seemed pretty good to me.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16636
3/3/17 7:34 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pastor Nations |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I have almost read the whole Bible in the NLT. I like it a lot.
You scholars, tell me what is wrong with it - because it seemed pretty good to me. |
.
There is nothing "wrong" with any of the major translations, and I even quote from a paraphrase occasionally to make a point.
(I get a chuckle when the MSG says something like "don't be so stupid about this", etc.)
We don't have the original manuscripts, there is not unanimity about which thread is correct, and I rely upon the English as translated.
Again, there is nothing "wrong" with any of the major translations, some use different threads, some use different translation methods, etc., I don't disparage any of them, and I agree there is questions re the KJV.
Having said all that, I believe the resulting doctrine of the KJV and NKJV more than the others.
Compare 1 John 5:7 to the KJV as a good example. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1085
3/3/17 9:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pastor Wright |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I have almost read the whole Bible in the NLT. I like it a lot.
You scholars, tell me what is wrong with it - because it seemed pretty good to me. |
My favorite translation as well.
_________________
"[Jesus] will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." - Nicene Creed |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 68
3/3/17 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
When I am trying to recall a particular verse, the uniqueness of the KJV compared to my Southern English is helpful. It is how I have heard it quoted. It is how my brain has it stored.
And some of my favorite passages are pure poetry in the KJV. Isaiah 21 is one such passage. Shakespeare couldn't have improved on that. but you are going to have to dig a bit, read it in some other versions if you want to understand it, THEN go back and re-read it in the poetry that is the KJV.
My method of study in this day of the internet is often to simply go read any passage I am studying in several versions.
The fact that some of the older manuscripts do not contain some of what is found in later ones seems to me to suggest that these passages ought to be considered the same way we would consider commentary or preaching on a particular matter. It seems logical that it was probably added with good intent, but especially when it stands alone in what it suggests, it ought to be alright to question it just as you would preaching that was unsupported, or a message with interpretation, "to see whether it be of God". (1 Cor 14:29)
The "signs following" found in Mark 16:9-20 is one such passage. It holds some dear phrases. But is a sole reference to certain assertions which come off and have been preached to say that if you aren't able to do these miracles, sometimes if you do not practice these things regularly, then you're not really in the body of Christ.
We are not going to ever know all truth in this life. Not any one of us. But to honestly seek truth is something that ought to be a given for all Christians. Many Christians succumb to the temptation to set the bar a little higher to show themselves and others their spiritual superiority. But anytime someone helps God out, fixes some things God didn't get quite right, he has become useful for disunity and discord. He tears down. He does not build up the brethren.
I have to fight coming off this way myself. I have to force myself to allow that, without me being 'wrong', the other guy may be just as sound in his conviction.
BB |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
3/5/17 10:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
