Load DataTitan ReloadingRotoMetals2Reloading Everything
PBcastcoRepackboxInline FabricationWideners
Lee Precision MidSouth Shooters Supply
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: Playbook for "End times" right from the Lords lips

  1. #41
    Boolit Master

    dannyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Ah, okay! I was confused about what you meant. I think of it as dividing the unrolling of Biblical history into different ages of God's revelations, i.e., dispensions, not the Bible itself.

    There is a lot of untrue crap thrown at Larkin and Schofield's illumination of the dispensations; correctly understood, those two writers make a lot of odd surface things make immediate deep sense.


    Personal Trivia:

    I found my (leather bound!) Schofield Bible lying on the edge of a highway in Ohio about 1985. I was gifted my treasured copy (1918 edition!) of Larson's excellent Dispensational Truth from a retired minister/Bible college teacher about 1995, shortly before his passing; it's a great book. Schofield and Larson get slandered by many "Bible experts" who obviously have not/will not actually read what they wrote.
    I love it when college educated people tell me "they can't understand the KJB": I tell them it was written for people like me a 9th Grade Graduate.

  2. #42
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    3,820
    Quote Originally Posted by dannyd View Post
    I love it when college educated people tell me "they can't understand the KJB": I tell them it was written for people like me a 9th Grade Graduate.
    Well ....maybe. But that translation was some 400+ years ago and languages do change a bit over time. I remember when a "gay" person was bright and happy, someone fun to be around and it was a fairly common name for girls. And that was just a few decades ago, but not now because our language has changed!

    I was raised on the KJV. I love it and often still read it but I recognise its shortcomings - and it has them, a lot of them. It cold outside so I've spent most of today on Youtube getting to know about the Dr. Ruckman you mentioned, and a few others who feel as he does about the KJV. IMHO, they are wrong headed. Like, they list and agonise over trivial points on words that even if they were right they absolutely do not touch on any meaningful orthodox Christian doctrines.

    It appears none of them have actually tried to read an original 1611 version! I have viewed a reproduction of the original and I can guarantee you that very few people could follow or read aloud because of the weird old English spelling and grammar. (Someday I'm gonna get my own copy of it!)

    I wonder if have you ever read a transliterated Bible, one that has the original (even going from right to left) and giving the literal word translations? I have one and it's simply impossible for everyone who has tried to read it make sense of most of it. Thus, we must have translations and all translations are, of necessity, "versions" because different languages simply won't swap off word for word, therefore I love to read every version I can find. But that can be awkward, so I often read/study the Amplified Bible because it often gives other words that could rightly have been used by translators instead of just one word. (If you can find a copy of the Amplified, read John 3:16 and you'll get a MUCH better understanding of what "whosoever believes in Him" actually means in that verse, and it's a lot more than simple "belief"!)

    And, as for the "Authorised Version" label, Dr. Ruckman is flat wrong about it being "authorized" by the Holy Spirit or years of church tradition. King James was a Scottish Calvinist/Presbyterian. He called for and then approved the work of his translation team by making it "authorized" - by himself - to be used in the pulpits of his empire as it existed at that time; and that's all it means.

    The only complete text the KJV translators had to work with was the (Roman Catholic) Vulgate, itself only a circa 310 AD translation from Greek to common Latin intended to be used in their pulpits.

    All of that sorta makes people's hard feelings about the honest works of other translators seem silly, at least to me. Dr. Paul Gilcrist, one of the team leader NKJV translators for Thomas Nelson Publishers, is a friend; he's one of the most God centered men I've ever known. (But, my recognition of the KJV limitations was well formed before we meet.)
    Last edited by 1hole; 01-23-2021 at 11:00 PM.

  3. #43
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Green Valley
    Posts
    728
    Over at BibleHub.com you can read the King James in Koine if you want.
    Our English is full of Greek. Apostrophe, Epistrophe, Hypnosis.
    Greek word for the day? Kataclysm.

    Did Matthew write in Greek? Probably not, but was translated to Koine.
    Did Mark write in Koine? Certainly. As Peter told Mark the story of his life.
    Did Luke write in Koine? Certainly. Luke was an amanuentsis.
    Did John write in Koine? Don't know, likely John wrote his account first, he was there.
    Did Paul write in Koine? There's the fun of Koine, studying what Paul wrote, how he wrote it and who he wrote it to. Paul's personifications of evil. His rants. His rhymes and puns. His prayers.
    James was writing to Antioch, Jerusalem was leveled, so Koine.
    Hebrews was written by Priscilla and Paul, in Koine.

    Did Jesus speak Greek?
    My Savior can talk to anybody.

  4. #44
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    3,820
    Language is words but it's more than words, we must also consider the grammar. Simple direct word "translations" between languages are a jumbled and confused pile of loose words. So, ALL translations are paraphrased versions even when they are done from the oldest texts we have; if they were not we couldn't begin to understand them.

    Words convey certain meanings and ideas that, when placed in a coherent format - i.e., grammar - convey meanings. Many English words have basically the same meanings while other words have no direct equalivants so a translator must chose the words that means the most to him; that doesn't automatically distort the message. Instead, it means the message - the important part - can be honestly given in other words without somehow being subversive to the original message.

    It's wrong, it's immature, it's not Christian to harshley argue between ourselves about words that mean the same things and suggest that anyone who disagrees is either a demonic fool or diabolical lier. I have heard it argued that if the original KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas it should be good enough for us; that's not satisfactory to me.

    There is a vast differences in sentence structure (grammar) between other languages and our American English. There are no Webster's dictionaries for the old languages. And even our own definitions shift over time; some 400+ years since 1611 is a long time. Thus, honest, Godly Bible translators must do the best they can with the documents they have and I appreciate them for it.

    Fact is, since 1611 many fragments of scripture and other records have been found, including the Dead Sea scrolls and the Rosetta Stone, that significantly expand word meanings that were previously either unknown, unclear or wrong. To ignore words wrongly translated in the KJV as if they were handed down directly from the hands of God isn't honest; God does not make goofs but men do!

    As I said before, I love the KJV but it came from the hands of fallible men. I'm not blind to their (trivial) mistakes but I also love Bible translation accuracy.

    Whatever Bible version we prefer, if we read and understand the original message the words have done all they can do. The rest is between us and God.

    Texts: Titus 3:9, 2 Tim 2:14, Prov 26:4

    NOTE: That respect for most versions DOES NOT include the Jehovah Witness' so-called New World Translation, or the Book of Mormon, or the RCC's Apocrifa, nor anything from the Christian Scientists, which is neither Christian or science.
    Last edited by 1hole; 01-24-2021 at 11:09 PM.

  5. #45
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Green Valley
    Posts
    728
    Some would say the Bible is a collection of folk tales.
    My pastor insists the KJV is inerrant, literally true.
    YMMV
    I have here a 1963 book
    "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament
    with lexicon and synonyms"
    by Berry.
    (You can find similar at BibleHub.com at Strong's KJV or Greek interlinear.)

    The book prints out the greek with the literal english underneath with the KJV printed down the side. I am astonished how accurate the KJV is. Greek is a different syntax that sometimes sounds like Yoda:

    Romans 3:3-4 from the Interlinear
    ...For what, if not believed some? their unbelief the faith of God shall make of no effect? 4 May it not be! but let be God true, and every man false, according as it has been written, That thou shouldst be justified in thy words and overcome in thy being judged.
    Amen.

    There are eight greek words that are all translated judgement.
    The greeks knew all about judgement.
    The greeks had some odd ideas about love, grace, mercy.
    We have a saying "It's Greek to me..." love was greek to them.
    Jesus taught us the meaning of Love. Grace. Mercy. Charity. Truth.

    And has our language slipped away, yet again?
    Pilate said "What is truth?"
    and was looking at his answer.

    Nunc Demittis

  6. #46
    Boolit Master

    dannyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,136
    Just saying if God can't get us his word: why bother with the rest of it. So, I will stick with the KJB.

  7. #47
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Green Valley
    Posts
    728
    +!
    Compare the versions in BibleHub.com.
    Many men above my pay grade worked years to create the KJB.
    KJB is as close as can be done in english.
    KJB has it's faults, but so do I.

    To reply to the OP
    John 21:22
    "...If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

    That would be John, the last surviving, boiled in oil, laughing.
    John died of old age, wrote Revelation in Koine.
    I believe my Savior came right back, as He promised.
    He came for His Apostles as they died.
    By my reckoning, we are in end times.
    Post-post millennial. Waiting for the world to end.
    The world will end, ask any scientist.
    What did you do to serve the Lord today?
    When you stand before the Great White Throne,
    how will you answer when the book of your life is read?
    Nunc Demittis

  8. #48
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    3,820
    Quote Originally Posted by dannyd View Post
    Just saying if God can't get us his word: why bother with the rest of it. So, I will stick with the KJB.
    Dan, the problem you raise seems to presume that the KJV IS the "word of God", i.e., literal and without error. But -

    If that is true, then God spoke in Elizabethan English and nothing archeologists have uncovered in the last 410 years changes our understandings of any anchient words; that just isn't so. All languages, old and new, shift some word meanings over time; Godly and educated translators try to learn what each word meant when it was written AND what it means today. But, so far as I can find out, NONE of the mainstream changes/corrections impact a single Christian precept so we delude ourselves struggling over Biblical trivia!

    The 1611 KJV itself has been entirely revised some 5-6 times. IF today's KJV was indeed the literal "word of God", what were the previous versions; why would God allow early translators get some things wrong and only get them "right" with the newest (early 1800's) version? And, if God indeed spoke in Elizabethan English, where does that leave all other translations; are the French, Spanish, German, Dutch, etc, all studying corruptions instead of good ol' KJV English? Nah, you know that isn't so!

    Please believe me, I'm not trying to change your favorite Bible. I say, "Read and study what speaks best to you and respect what others prefer." I'm only trying to help you comfortably come to accept that other (mainstream) Bible versions are not the demonic distortions some well-meaning but wrong folk say.

    (And again, in my defense of other Bible versions than the KJV, let everyone understand that I do NOT include the un-Godly textural revisions and unholy published materials presented by Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, 7th Day Adventists and other cults wrongly claiming to be Christian.)

  9. #49
    Boolit Master

    dannyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Dan, the problem you raise seems to presume that the KJV IS the "word of God", i.e., literal and without error. But -

    If that is true, then God spoke in Elizabethan English and nothing archeologists have uncovered in the last 410 years changes our understandings of any anchient words; that just isn't so. All languages, old and new, shift some word meanings over time; Godly and educated translators try to learn what each word meant when it was written AND what it means today. But, so far as I can find out, NONE of the mainstream changes/corrections impact a single Christian precept so we delude ourselves struggling over Biblical trivia!

    The 1611 KJV itself has been entirely revised some 5-6 times. IF today's KJV was indeed the literal "word of God", what were the previous versions; why would God allow early translators get some things wrong and only get them "right" with the newest (early 1800's) version? And, if God indeed spoke in Elizabethan English, where does that leave all other translations; are the French, Spanish, German, Dutch, etc, all studying corruptions instead of good ol' KJV English? Nah, you know that isn't so!

    Please believe me, I'm not trying to change your favorite Bible. I say, "Read and study what speaks best to you and respect what others prefer." I'm only trying to help you comfortably come to accept that other (mainstream) Bible versions are not the demonic distortions some well-meaning but wrong folk say.

    (And again, in my defense of other Bible versions than the KJV, let everyone understand that I do NOT include the un-Godly textural revisions and unholy published materials presented by Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, 7th Day Adventists and other cults wrongly claiming to be Christian.)

    To me the KJB is the word of God. I don't disrespect the other books I just say away from them.

  10. #50
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Green Valley
    Posts
    728
    Mark 24:4
    "And Jesus answered and said
    take heed that no man deceive you."

    I believe we have a responsibility
    to know the Truth
    so that we do not deceive
    or be deceived.
    And to teach this responsibility to the kids.
    We are here to worship, pray,
    teach, and preach,
    tell the Truth,
    until the world ends.
    Hallelujah!
    Check out Revelation 22:20 in Koine.

  11. #51
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    3,820
    Quote Originally Posted by dannyd View Post
    To me the KJB is the word of God. I don't disrespect the other books I just say away from them.
    Okay, I understand and appreciate that as your personal position.

    (I want to ask, "Which version of that translation effort do you prefer, the original or the current version?" and "How valuable do you consider Bibles in other languages compared to your copy of God's original words?" I want to ask ... but I won't. )

  12. #52
    Boolit Master

    dannyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Okay, I understand and appreciate that as your personal position.

    (I want to ask, "Which version of that translation effort do you prefer, the original or the current version?" and "How valuable do you consider Bibles in other languages compared to your copy of God's original words?" I want to ask ... but I won't. )
    To uneducated to know all that other stuff: sometimes ignorance is really bliss

    I read a 1917 Scofield

  13. #53
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    3,820
    Quote Originally Posted by dannyd View Post
    To uneducated to know all that other stuff: sometimes ignorance is really bliss
    Guess that's why I'm usually so happy!

    I read a 1917 Scofield
    So do I at times. That's what I found lying on the highway in Ohio in 1985; it replaced the falling apart standard KJV I received for 1959 high school graduation.

    I could read my old KJV but I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when my wife got me an Amplified New Testament for 1966 Christmas and I read Romans in real English for the first time! When I read John 3:16-18 in real English a lot more came clear. In fact, that's what started me in a real study of the Bible. I sure don't "know-it-all" - yet! - but I've been very blessed by going deeper into the Bible message than just reading surface words captured in distracting KJV/Elizabethan grammar.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check