|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 13, 2009 11:15:37 GMT -5
Why is The KJV Bible the true bible in your definition?
How do you come to that discernernment?
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 13, 2009 11:20:33 GMT -5
It was translated from the original texts word for word and wasn't altered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 13, 2009 11:49:29 GMT -5
It was translated from the original texts word for word and wasn't altered. What about the books they took out? Wouldn't you say that's changing a lot? They only used 66 books while The Holy Bible has 73. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 13, 2009 11:51:59 GMT -5
I have yet to study it...but my guess is they weren't inspired Scripture but works soley by men. I'll take that course next time it's offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 13, 2009 14:08:58 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it.
So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original?
Also, the KJV was NOT translated from the originals. No one has the originals, they are lost or deteriorated through time. They translated from copies.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 13, 2009 16:53:50 GMT -5
It was translated from the original texts word for word and wasn't altered. Yes, unlike the Latin Vulgate it was translated from the original Greek. I read somewhere that Greek is the most precise language in the world and that is why God used it for the Bible. So when the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters that is precisely what it means. The word cousin is used in regards to Elizabeth who was Mary's cousin and not a sister. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 13, 2009 17:13:45 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it. So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original? Also, the KJV was NOT translated from the originals. No one has the originals, they are lost or deteriorated through time. They translated from copies. There you go again! The churches criteria for books to be used in the Canon are: 1. They must have apostolic authorship....the apocrypha does not. 2. They must be received as authoritative by the early church. 3. They must be in harmony with the books about which there is doubt. 4. There must be a prophet of God during the time they were written. Sorry, but there were no prophets during the time the Apocrypha was written. You do realize that both Catholics and Protestants both agree that the other 66 books of the Bible were inspired by God. The church did not create the Canon but merely recognized the Canon. The Holy Spirit is the one responsible for choosing what books should be in the Bible. The reason the church recognized the Canon was because a guy name Marcion produced his own version of the Bible and the Church found it necessary to declare the exact content of the New Testament. Then there is the argument that says the Alexandrian Jews used the apocrypha in their Old Testament canon but that can't be proven. The Palestian Jews did not include the Apocrypha in their cannon. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 13, 2009 18:29:23 GMT -5
heather, I said I'm going to take that class next time it is offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 13, 2009 20:24:29 GMT -5
Emily, what class are you talking about? At college?
Of course if they are protestant they will just tell you the protestant view.
Why don't you research it for yourself? You are very smart and I'm sure you could find out a lot without waiting for a class.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 13, 2009 20:29:22 GMT -5
At my church they have a class on Church history and why we use the KJV. They will come around again eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 13, 2009 20:30:01 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it. So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original? Also, the KJV was NOT translated from the originals. No one has the originals, they are lost or deteriorated through time. They translated from copies. There you go again! The churches criteria for books to be used in the Canon are: 1. They must have apostolic authorship....the apocrypha does not. 2. They must be received as authoritative by the early church. 3. They must be in harmony with the books about which there is doubt. 4. There must be a prophet of God during the time they were written. Sorry, but there were no prophets during the time the Apocrypha was written. You do realize that both Catholics and Protestants both agree that the other 66 books of the Bible were inspired by God. The church did not create the Canon but merely recognized the Canon. The Holy Spirit is the one responsible for choosing what books should be in the Bible. The reason the church recognized the Canon was because a guy name Marcion produced his own version of the Bible and the Church found it necessary to declare the exact content of the New Testament. Then there is the argument that says the Alexandrian Jews used the apocrypha in their Old Testament canon but that can't be proven. The Palestian Jews did not include the Apocrypha in their cannon. Whoa! "the churches criteria"  So, it is up to the Church to determine which books belong in the Bible? So, you have to trust the Church's criteria before you know what is in the Bible. But I thought that you didn't believe in an infallible Church? What if the "Church's criteria" was wrong?! Indeed, if you follow the above "criteria" that you listed, you would come up with the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant Bible. I'm pretty sure that the Holy Spirit wouldn't give the Church one Bible for like 1200 years, then all of a sudden change His mind and take some of the books out. |
|
|
|
Post by mrstain on Jun 13, 2009 21:43:06 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it. So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original? Also, the KJV was NOT translated from the originals. No one has the originals, they are lost or deteriorated through time. They translated from copies. Good points. I would suspect that most protestants are not aware that the New Testament of the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which is a work of the Dutch Catholic, Desiderius Erasmus. Ahh, even the KJV relies on a Catholic for it's divinely inspired New Testament. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 14, 2009 0:39:33 GMT -5
Emily, i have never been able to figure out how a grown woman cannot think for her own, like do research on her own. You always have to have your pastor or church to teach you everything. You would be amazed of what historical facts you can find on the computer...since you are always on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 14, 2009 7:38:46 GMT -5
Even if you follow the verse in the Bible that says "I do not permit woman to speak(in Church) or have authority over a man"
That doesn't mean women aren't allowed to learn anything on their own!
Or is that just an excuse so you do have to look at the cold hard facts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 12:12:12 GMT -5
It was translated from the original texts word for word and wasn't altered. How could it be translated from the original texts when The Catholic & Orthodox Churches are the only Churches that have the oldest texts? Are you saying that we gave permission to the Protestants to have access to our books? The oldest Bibles in the world are with The Catholic Church (The Codex). Is this the one they copied from? Because if they did, they'd have 73 books in them (which, by the way, the original KJV did have for 100 years). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 12:14:30 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it. So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original? That's an excellent question. Where the original creators of the KJV wrong? Or are the current translations of the KJV wrong? Since both are different, both cannot be truthful translations. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 14, 2009 13:21:24 GMT -5
So which one is it Heather and Steven? Are the original texts not around or are they owned by the RCC?
A king would have access to the original texts....
I certainly can research on my own....but frankly I don't really trust information online, and I have no idea how to look up this kind of information at a library. Plus, at the class at my church they have all the research laid out and all I have to do is listen, read, and take notes. Kind of like a college class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:33:11 GMT -5
It was translated from the original texts word for word and wasn't altered. Yes, unlike the Latin Vulgate it was translated from the original Greek. I read somewhere that Greek is the most precise language in the world and that is why God used it for the Bible. But how could a 16th Century religion have original Greek transcripts when the oldest transcripts were about 400 years old and belonged to The Catholic Church? If they were original, they'd have to be 1500 years old at the time that they created the KJV, right? 1st & 2nd century scritpures weren't found until the 1940s and when they were, they actually had the 73 books in them that The Protesttants said were never in The Bible (Dead Sea Scrolls). Here's the thing, that would only apply if the Jews native language was Greek. They spoke in Armaic and in Armaic, there was no word for cousin. Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or KinsmenLuke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.
1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.
Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."
Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."
Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).The fact is, you will never find one scripture where it ever states that Mary has/had children. No one else is called Mary's Son, but Jesus Christ. If you read those who were called Jesus' brethren, you'd note that at the Cross, they were called the sons of the "other" Mary, Mary's (Jesus' mother's) cousin. But they are not called Mary's (Jesus' mother's) children. The only time that Mary is said to have children other than Jesus Christ is when Revelation 12 states that she is the mother of all Christians (presumably because Jesus Christ who is our Life comes through her womb). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:48:15 GMT -5
But Emily, the original, 1st Edition of the KJV had the "Apocrypha" in it. So which one is inspired, the 2009 KJV or the 1611 original? Also, the KJV was NOT translated from the originals. No one has the originals, they are lost or deteriorated through time. They translated from copies. There you go again! The churches criteria for books to be used in the Canon are: 1. They must have apostolic authorship....the apocrypha does not. That's Protestantism's criteria, you mean. The Old Testament wasn't authored by The Apostles either. The Catholic Church has always used them. Jesus used The Deuterocanonicals and quoted from them Himself as well as The Apostles. Only The Pharisees rejected The Deuterocanonicals and do you know why they rejected them? For the reason that you claim your bible valid...because they were written in Greek (not in their language). That depends upon personal interpretation to arrive at that point from someone creating their own bible. What they were doing was "undoing" what had already been done.  So, there were prophets in The OT, then it skipped, then, they appeared again in the NT? Name the prophets that were around when Jesus died and The NT was written? No. Catholics believe that and Protestants believe that "only" 66 books were inspired by God. We don't parse scripture...we accept it in it's entirety. Ok, so then show me one Bible that existed "before" The Catholic Church canonized it? Show me one Bible that had only 66 books in it "before" The 16th Century? Exactly, and that was taken care of in the first days of Christianity. The Holy Spirit didn't wait 1500 years to reveal the true canon of scritpure...it did that in the 4th Century. Now, if no Bible existed before The KJV, and all of a sudden you created a bible, thennnnn you'd have a case. But here's the thing...Protestantism only accepts the Pharisee's OT and reject The Christian (The Septuagint) OT Canon. You guys are in line with the same people who rejected and condemned Christ to The Cross...The Pharisees. And just they they "protested" Jesus Christ, now Protestants "protest" The Universal Church He left The World. Think about it...why did Protestantism reject the same books that The Pharisees rejected? Remember, The Protestant OT wasn't canonized by The Pharisees until 90 A.D. at The Council of Jamnia. Could it be because of all of The Catholic Doctrines that are found in The Deuterocanonical Books? So...you believe a "heretic" who rejected The New Testament of The Christian Bible? Where did you get this information from? Anybody can say anything. Unless history supports it, it's merely a theory. And that's why Jesus didn't use The Palestinian Canon, but The Septuagint (which existed a few hundred years before He was even born). Why don't you use The Canon that Jesus used? Why, like The Pharisees who rejected Christ, do you reject the OT Canon that Jesus used? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:59:30 GMT -5
Emily, what class are you talking about? At college? Of course if they are protestant they will just tell you the protestant view. Why don't you research it for yourself? You are very smart and I'm sure you could find out a lot without waiting for a class. You have no idea how many times I said the exact same thing! She should study for herself! God will guide her! |
|
