“there not there”…it hurts. it. physically. hurts.
I agree. But is it spelt right in their king james bibbal? :O
Apparently, the Amazing Memory Plan does not teach one to spell or use punctuation correctly.
Seriously, this made my English-teacher-soul shrivel up and die a little bit. Ack.
Mine too.
*screams in frustration*
I third that! 😯 It was the FIRST thing I noticed!
I have no molars now; they’ve been ground to nubs. 👿
There.
Their.
They’re not the same!
(pun intended)
Holy crap! I took at least a full minute trying to figure out what 2 disparate locations they were referring to that 1 was the correct location & the other wasn’t. Ugh!
If you use improper spelling, you reduce the impact of your message. SNARK FAIL!
Well?? As a former fundy who still believes in the KJV, where are these verses? I think that’s a legitimate question. 😳
They aren’t in the oldest manuscripts.
My hubby and I still use the KJV as well and I use it in my homeschool classroom.
I do know that the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible over with them when they came to America.
I believe in the KJV.
I believe it exists.
I also believe in pop tarts, though can I find one around here? No joy.
I had bacon, biscuits and gravy today. 😛
Scrambled-egg a-la microwave here…
Macushlalondra, you should give this video a watch. Aside from being nifty info to know about anyway, it helps explain the difference between the collection of manuscripts used by the KJV, and those used by most modern translations. http://www.dts.edu/media/play/bumper-sticker-theology-part-1-b-wallace-ph-d–daniel/
If you’re unfamiliar with Daniel Wallace, he’s pretty much THE New Testament Greek scholar around today, and thankfully, he holds to traditional Christian views on the Bible.
This is a great video. Unfortunately, many Christians don’t understand where our Bible comes from, or the many variant manuscripts we possess. Most KJV proponents don’t realize that the KJV is based off of a critical text composed by Erasumus, and differs from the Byzantine Majority text in over 1800 significant places. I think we should use the most reliable texts, which is one reason I don’t like or use the KJV. Another reason is that in many places it is just plain poorly translated. The translators of the time had no understanding of the Greek concept of aspect, instead understanding the grammar through a Latin tense paradigm (Koine doesn’t have tenses the way we have them, it has a different characteristic known as aspect). Very interesting topic to study.
The verses are still in the NIV, in the footnotes.
*some manuscripts include here…
Yes, they are. Also in numerous other recent translations (I mean more recent than the KJV, natch).
I read the ESV & it has verses, like these not found in the original manuscripts, in the footnotes. THEY’RE still there… they’re just not in the main text due to the possible inaccuracies.
Another issue is what possible motive anyone could have for deliberately leaving out these verses. None of them teach any doctrine that isn’t thoroughly taught elswhere in Scripture. In fact, if fundy’s weren’t obsessed with their concept of defending every idea and doctrine with a single proof text they wouldn’t even have noticed. When you look at the Bible as an organic whole you don’t have to obsess. Not that this means any verse can be cut out; far from it. But when the oldest manuscripts have no sign of a verse, and it doesn’t show up until a thousand years later in copies of copies of copies…
Just realized my first sentence might not be clear. My meaning is, there is no motive. If a wolf actually was trying to deceive the sheep and distort true doctrine, he’s the world’s biggest idiot. Those verses are uselss to the cause of changing any truth in the Bible.
All the manuscript evidence does suggest to me that the text of Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible, therefore I reject most of the modern textual criticism as silly.
However, I John 5:7 is a very interesting verse. What does everyone think who has read any of the scholarship? Is the King James correct for including it, or is it a late addition?
I looked 1 John 5 up in the NIV in biblegateway.com. There is a footnote there that reads,
“1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century).”
The verse is found in no Greek manuscript until the end of the Middle Ages. That’s some 1400 years after the book was written. It appears much earlier in Latin, which is how it got into the KJV – the KJV translators were all Latin scholars (because all the lectures at Oxford and Cambridge were given in Latin). There is simply no way that this verse can be original – there are many variants with far better support that the KJV does not adopt. So we can say simply that 1 John 5:7 is in the KJV because it’s in the Latin.
What Basil said. The Johannine Comma is definitely an addition, which is a shame, because it’d be a great Trinitarian proof-text otherwise.
Tellingly, it is not used by any writer in the early Trinitarian controversies. The standard KJV-Only answer is, “well, they didn’t use it because they knew their opponents had taken it out of the Bible.” That doesn’t actually work; the Fathers were not shy about pointing out Bible-mutilation. Athanasius did not use it against the Arians because it was not in his Bible. If the Arians were taking passages out of the Bible, Athanasius would have said so.
Personally, I fail to see how “These verses are complete missing from the NIV” is a footnote of “The World’s Fastest Bible Memory Plan.” They need to get ride of the asterisks.
You can ignore the “The World’s Fastest Bible Memory Plan.” footnote because the author is ignoring the footnotes in the NIV.
“These verses are completely missing from the NIV.”
This statement is completely misleading. I guess they don’t read the footnotes in the KJV either.
Jesus didn’t speak in footnotes. Amen?
So I just looked up each of these verses.
About two-thirds of them are not exactly important. I don’t know anything about manuscripts, but someone is rather nitpicky. About the other third, I don’t know.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
A lot of them read like footnotes, don’t they? Then there are disagreements about minor details in the stories that were handed down, such as what happened with Silas.
The ones that talk about foundational matters are a bigger deal. Whoever stuck a Trinitarian verse into the Bible that late in the game had pretty big stones. OTOH, a sizeable chunk of the Hebrew Bible is itself interpretation of earlier texts in light of a particular theological idea, so.
Ah, but you can’t prooftext out of the footnotes. Only prooftexting from real verses is inspired. 🙄
+10 🙄
I stopped reading after “there not there”
Grrrrr
So, just out of curiousity, I took a look at biblebelievers.com. Wow. Not for the faint-hearted.
I was impressed with the up-to-date material. Like the article on the Da Vinci Code. Very timely.
I love being talked down to by people who can’t spell or avoid run-on sentences or comma splices.
Interestingly enough, I’m not sure that the Bible ever explicitly endorses rote memory. “Hiding God’s word in your heart” has more to do with internalizing its truths than parroting exact verbiage.
I never understand how fundies think that saying 5 Hail Marys is vain repitition but memorizing verse after verse after verse is not.
That’s an easy one, the bible itself instructs and compels us to memorize it. Jesus “is” the Word.
We are specifically instructed by the same “word” not to pray vain, repetivie prayers.
Standing by with bible in hand to provide as many verses as you may need to support my statement.
Repetitive……….the main reason I “hide” the Word of God in my heart is to keep from sinning against Him.
and yet the word “memorize” is not in the Bible . . . food for thought.
Are you saying Jesus is the Bible? 😯
greg – You do know that the Hail Mary is basically just scripture verses stringed together right? Check out Luke chapter 1.
Which brings me back to my question/comment….why do fundies think that saying 5 Hail Marys (scripture) is vain repetition but verse memorization is not?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” John 1 1-2
“The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen his Glory, the Glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and tuth.” John 1:14
“For their are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
An interesting study, Jesus as “The Word”. In the beginning was the “LOGOS” John writes. The phrase and usage of Logos was prominent in Greek thought, to the point that Justin Martyr made his apologetic for Christianity along the lines of the philosophical “logos” that the Greeks knew about and revered was the semiotic preparation for the Gentiles to receive the gospel once it went into the world. Did John use this new phrase in order to appeal to the Gentile mind?
greg – did you deliberately include one of the Bible verses mentioned in the flyer above? (1 John 5:7)
Uh…Greg, The verses in John’s Gospel were not, could not be refering to the bible as it exists now or even then. Jesus being the Word of God expresses that relationship with HIM is the way to know God. Direct relationship with God is the Good News. Church history is filled with those who knew and served God without access to the closely guarded for political reasons Bible. The scriptures are a wonderful way to draw closer to and gain more information about God and even to double check what you think you may have heard from God but intimate relationship with Christ is required for scripture to be of any use at all. “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned”
Scorpio – Yes I deliberately used it, in the sense that it fit in with what I was attempting to demonstrate with the scriptures.(I really wasn’t trying to be provocative) But I have studied the “comma Johanneum” and don’t think it does belong, it was only in a few manuscripts and they were very recent, and half of those manuscripts had the reading written in the margins. The phrase is only in a few Latin versions.
We certainly don’t need the “comma” to support our belief in the Trinity, many other verses do that nicely.
Hail King James, full of grace, the Lord is thee.
Blessed art thou among “bibles” and blessed is the fruit of thy pages: saved souls.
Holy King James, father of the managawd, save us sinners now (and since we have been saved now, no need for anything but thy 23rd Psalm at the hour of our death).
Amen. 😎
+10 for you
Very well done!!!
Dude! Very snarkily played.
Aaaaaaaaand the Snarky Snark Champion is…Deacon’s Son!!!
*cheers & applause*
I don’t know about you, but I think that a particularly powerful and touching scene in the movie “Volcano” (which is neither a powerful or touching movie; just a run of the mill disaster movie) is when the guy is walking through the burning subway car carrying the driver saying Hail Mary’s. Particularly since that guy died trying to get out of the car.
I love that movie, and that scene.
So here’s the question: What does a person say a Hail Mary for? What’s the purpose?
As far as I understand it, the reason for Scripture memorization would be so that one has God’s Word at one’s fingertips, so to speak, when trying to decide how to respond in a godly way to various situations, etc. Repeating Scriptures to one’s self like some kind of lucky mantra wouldn’t be a good reason for memorizing Scripture, and would be hard to distinguish from vain repetitions (so you can scream one-line Scripture pull-outs at people you don’t agree with would also be an innappriate us for Scripture memorization).
Probably too late for anyone to read this but . . .
“Vain repetitions” is a King James neologism for a single Greek word that only appears once in the New Testament (and, as far as I know, nowhere in classic Greek texts). The word is “battologeo” from “Battos” (a proverbial stammerer) and “logos” (meaning “word,” as in “the Word became flesh”). One initially notes that there is no connotation of “vain” or “vanity” in either of those two roots. That is a pure invention of the King James translators. (For what it’s worth, I believe that the King James translators used this rendering as a dig at Roman Catholicism. By way of comparison, Douay-Rheims translated the Greek word here simply as “speak much”. King James here is biased in favor of iconoclastic protestantism and Douay-Rheims seems to be biased in favor of Catholic liturgical tradition.) Objectively, the word seems to be intended to capture the idea of meaningless babbling which was a part of pagan worship (something like the pagan version of “speaking in tongues” as a sign of possession/inspiration by the deity).
Looking at Matthew 6 in context, we see that Jesus first tells us not to pray as hypocrites for the purpose of being seen by others and second tells us not to pray as pagans who believe that many words and meaningless babbling are required to catch the ear of the deity. Then we are told that our prayers are, in contrast, to be (1) private and (2) short. As to the latter, we have the example of the Lord’s Prayer which takes up a grand total of 5 verses.
Nothing in Matthew 6 in any way condemns the repetition of a particular prayer’s wording. In fact, I Thess. 5:17 instructs us to pray without ceasing. Many Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants believe that the best way to fulfil the commands of both Matthew 6 and I Thess. 5:17 is to repeat a short simple prayer because that allows us to go about our daily lives without having to think up prayer extemporaneously. Noting, of course, that Orthodox Christians especially, and also Catholics and some Protestants, believe that prayer should emanate from the church as a whole more than from the individual believer and thus these traditions are much more confortable with pre-written carefully worded prayers. For example, devout Orthodox repeat “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner” throughout the day as a simple act of prayer and devotion. This prayer, known as the Jesus Prayer, is based on the prayer of the publican in the parable of the publican and pharisee. (Noting again, of course, that the pharisee prays a long and public prayer while the publican prays a short, simple, and private prayer.)
At the risk of offending some, I will point out that while my reading of Matthew 6 does not preclude repetition of the Lord’s Prayer or the Hail Mary (whether the Hail Mary is an appropriate prayer to pray is another issue entirely), it does preclude the occasional practice of modern praise and worship music that involves congregational repetition of a simple musical chorus over and over until one assumes a trance-like state of “communion” with God. My criticism here is not of praise and worship as such but is similar to that of many people on this site who criticize the mindless repetition of invitation hymns for 10, 20, or more verses for the sole purpose of emotional manipulation. I think Matthew 6 requires simple, short, private prayer. Thus, I think that repetition of a particular prayer text as a part of private or public worship is not inappropriate (e.g., recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in a church service or praying a rosary at home). However, I think that the modern exponent of “battologeo” in Christianity today is occasionally found in the praise and worship sequence of the contemporary evangelical service. The beauty of Matthew 6 is that we may pray to God and He will hear us. We don’t need to engage in repetitive rituals until we feel emotionally close to God. Some would argue that reciting the Lord’s Prayer or other prayer is a “repetitive ritual” but I don’t think repetition as such is evil (otherwise I Thess. 5:17 would be an impossible command to follow). I simply think that when the purpose of the prayer is to be seen by others or to engage in a “battologeo”-type approach to God, that prayer does not conform to the spirit of Matthew 6.
Thanks for the explanation, Deacon’s Son. I was using the term “vain repetition” in the sense of “meaningless babble.” I was trying, (and probably failing) to convey that through my reference to a “lucky mantra.” That is, words–whatever they are–that are repeated so often they become meaningless babble (even if the words themselves have meaning). Mark 7:6, for example, makes it clear that meaningful words can be meaningless babble depending on where the heart is. That’s what I was hoping to convey: I did not mean that praying a pre-written prayer was a “vain repetition.” I have no problem with repeating a prayer, as opposed to always praying extemporaneously.
My question is what is a person doing when he/she says a Hail Mary, particularly over and over? You imply in your final paragraph that the person is praying. To whom?
I understand where you are coming from. However, I still don’t care for the use of the term “vain repetition” as it smacks of a biased translation of the Greek, in my opinion. As for repetition to the point of meaninglessness, I agree that any repetition can lead to that result. However, it is a classic fundie error to assume that because A can lead to bad result B some of the time, that A is therefore bad all of the time. I’m not saying you are in favor of that viewpoint; just saying that is the typical fundie argument against repetitive prayers such as the rosary.
As for the Hail Mary and other prayers to the saints I defer to my Catholic brothers and sisters to explain the distinction they draw between prayer to God and prayer to the saints. Suffice it to say that in the Latin texts of the church there are two separate words (or maybe even three . . . I can’t remember) to distinguish the kind of reverence owed to God versus Mary and the saints. While I myself do not recite the Hail Mary because of my personal ambivalence to the practice of prayers to Mary and the saints I am not prepared to condemn those who do.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree that any prayer or scripture or song can become uselessly repetitive. However, I don’t think that is really what is at issue in Matthew 6 nearly as much as the values Christ is promoting of humble religiolus devotion directed to God.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess where we would differ is that I don’t really care what Latin words there are for different types of devotion. I need Biblical proof that prayer can legitimately be made to any other entity but God. And if the prayers to Mary are not really prayers, but some other type of lesser devotion, then the word “prayer” should not be made. It has a definite connotation of worship and dependence; things reserved for God alone.
And I suppose I should clarify that my reference here is to the supposed touching movie scene of the man reciting Hail Marys through a burning subway car. What is that, if not crying out to something other than God for protection and help in time of trouble? That is worship. That is portraying a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power.
The answer that Catholics have given me to that issue is that if we as Christians really believe in eternal life then it is appropriate to invoke the prayers of deceased Christians on our behalf as much as Christians who are still alive. I find that proposition questionable but I don’t know that there is a clear Scriptural argument against it. As for crying out to Mary instead of to God, I think that probably has a lot more to do with the cultural conditioning that comes from being a Catholic than it does with a genuine Catholic teaching that invoking Mary in such a situation is appropriate. I see Catholic practices like the Hail Mary as falling into the “all things are lawful but not all things are expedient” category – that is, I don’t see that they are wrong or harmful but neither do I see them as beneficial or useful. Again, I am not the best person to defend the nuances of the richness of the Catholic theological tradition as I am not myself a Catholic. Personally, I see too many strains in Catholicism that come from a similar impulse as the worst of fundie Christianity. However, I have learned that humility in the face of my understanding of another Christian tradition is vital. Thus, I do not share some of their practices but I do not condemn. Paul says “now we see through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face.” I think that verse calls believers in Christ to love one another and to set aside quibbling over unclear points of doctrine and tradition. But, I also respect those who think “prayers” to Mary are inappropriate for a Christian. I just don’t see that it is as clear cut as you suggest. But of course that does not mean I am right! I have enjoyed the discussion however. 😀
Miriam, you write, “That is portraying a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power.” When your car breaks down, do you take it to a mechanic, or do you pray and have God fix it? When you move, do you hire movers (or ask friends), or do you ask God to load your possessions into the truck for you?
Jeremy C, what skill does Mary have that you would expect her to exert on your behalf in a burning subway car situation, that is analogous to taking your broken car to a qualified mechanic?
I still pray when I take my car to a mechanic, because I know that God ultimately is in control of all things. And because He gives to everyone the abilities they are blessed with (Ex 28:3; 36:1; Isa 28:23-29; Dan 1:17; etc) it is therefore ultimately His doing that it was done at all. I appreciate the help of the mechanic, and I pay him his just wages for the work, but I owe all to God.
However, there are many situations where no human help can serve in any way. There is only one I can go to in those situations, and that is God. If the opportunity arises, I can ask other Christians for their prayers (the opportunity doesn’t always arise), but my trust is still in God alone. I have no trust in the prayers of others; only knowing that God chooses many times to work through the prayers of His people.
And since I can find no place in Scripture suggesting that the dead can intercede for me like the living can; nor would it be logical to suppose that any one human being like Mary could possibly hear and intercede for more than a handful of people at a time; nor do I expect a human being to be able to hear me unless they are near me or connected to me via some kind of electronic device––to suggest then that it is otherwise with Mary is to ascribe God-like characteristics to her. This is blasphemy: a word I don’t use lightly.
I find the argument that “we’re just asking her to intercede like we would any Christian friend” or “she’s just helping out like the mechanic does” to be a pretty thin cover for ascribing worship to someone other than God. It can’t be done without assuming that Mary has characteristics of God, beyond that of any human being, and it doesn’t explain why someone would think to call on Mary in particular. Why not someone you know personally? Why does it have to be her? There’s obviously a reverence involved that is inappropriately great for a mere human being.
Miriam, thanks for getting back to me. Sorry my own response has been so long in coming, things have been wild around these parts.
Mary’s “skill” in a burning subway car would be to intercede on the person’s behalf to God. Now, if you still want to stand by your statement, “a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power”, then going to a mechanic is still a problem. Fixing a car is well within God’s power – certainly, it’s “easier” than saving someone from a burning subway car.
Your objections to praying to Mary seem to be based on, 1, arguments from silence (i.e., you say that Scripture doesn’t mention it), and 2, your human logic. It’s fine to use those for reasons why you don’t personally believe in the practice (neither do I, by the way), but they are very weak reasons for saying that nobody should believe in the practice. The simple fact of the matter is, we’re just not told enough about what our state after death will be like (and even less so what it will be like between our death and the coming resurrection) to say for sure what we will or will not be capable of.
You personally believe there is not a significant change in our basic nature after death – not enough to allow us to hear what people on earth may be trying to say to us. Well and good, but know your view is without absolute scriptural backing. Others believe that Mary, the Saints, and perhaps others who have died, gain the ability to hear our prayers after death. Well and good, as long as they don’t suggest (as some, regrettably, have) that one MUST pray through these agents to reach God.
It’s not ascribing God-like characteristics to humans. It’s certainly ascribing characteristics that we earthly Christians don’t possess, but I don’t see anything in Scripture that says only God is capable of hearing prayers. And I don’t see anything wrong with giving reverence to humans. If we worship humans, if we revere them more than God (as, again, some regrettably do), then yeah, it’s a problem – a big one. But giving someone honor is not a sin, yes?
Fascinating discussion. I would contribute that the best insight that we have into the after life is in the story of Lazerus and the rich man. This does not leave the impression that the dead are aware of the current state of things on earth, beyond the fact that the rich man retains the knowledge that his brothers were as sinfull as he and worthy of the same fate. Also, there is no indication that humans, short of rising from the dead, can in any way influence the living.
Further, The apostle Paul refers to those who sleep in Christ. While this does not conclusively indicate lack of awareness of the living and there is much debate about “soul sleep” it again does not indicate the ability to influence anything in the living world.
To close, My tendency is to think that praying to a mortal human who has died is, at the least, fruitless except as an emotional balm and, at the most, blasphemous in seeking help from any but God our very present help.
Then again, the writer of Hebrews says that we are surrounded with a great cloud of witnesses. These are the saints. The analogy of the race is furthered with the idea that those who have already run are watching us run our race.
Remember that the body of Christ is composed of the Living, not the Dead. Those gone before are Alive in Christ, having “never died” as Christ said since they believe in Him. Having “died” here they still have the ability to pray.
To my mind, asking my departed grandfather to be praying for me is at least as reasonable as asking someone else in the Church to pray for me, and might be more likely to actually get done!
I suppose it boils down to whether or not you consider the faithful dead to still be alive in Christ, and thus part of the Communion of Saints. They have no godlike powers, but still have the ability to petition our Heavenly Father.
Regards,
Right, it’s important to remember that, at least in and of itself, prayers to Mary/the Saints/departed loved ones is not asking them to come directly to your aid. Rather, it’s asking them to pass on your requests to God.
It’s something the Bible just isn’t 100% clear on. If someone wants to rely on their church’s teachings to fill in the blanks, that’s fine (as long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture), but those who (like me) say that our beliefs should be shaped, as much as possible, by Scripture alone, can’t rule it out either.
If you look at most of the prayers to saints and Mary, they include the phrase “pray for us”- the litany of saints is a long list of names, and as each is invoked, that phrase is repeated (St Michael, pray for us, St Joseph, pray for us, etc.) It connects with the idea of the Church including all believers, living and dead, and therefore we can ask the dead to pray for us just as we could ask people we know to do so (with the added caveat that if someone has died but ended up in hell, they are no longer part of this group). Mary is believed to be especially close to God, as His Mother, and is particularly invoked because of that. I think also when you have a lot of emphasis on the greatness and incomprehensibility of God, having a human mother to run to for help is reassuring.
(That said, here’s an Irish joke on the subject:
Two men were fixing up the chapel roof early one weekday morning, and saw an old woman come to pray the rosary. Bored, one of the men decided to have a bit of fun with her, crying out “This is the Lord!” The woman didn’t seem to notice, so his friend chimed in, even louder, “THIS IS THE LORD!”
The old woman lifted her head and looked at the cross above the altar, and spoke:
“Will you shut up, I’m talking to your mother!”)
The amount of spiritual pride on this site is amazing. You are convinced that you are right about everything. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong. At my church we use ONLY the King James BIBLE (NOT VERSION). Why? Because it IS the Scriptures for enlgish speaking people.
The New International Version removes many references to Christ and God, attempting to create a universalist Bible! The ESV is a Calvinist monster attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!
One day you will wake up and realize you were reading Satans bible. But it will be too late
Not a bad effort, but I’m not convinced that a semiliterate graduate of a basement Bible college would use the term “spiritual pride.” Maybe “confirmed [sic] to the world?”
Dr. – With our new friend Dante running around here, you are going to have to do much better than this. 😆
Dr., could you compile and post a list of verses from the ESV that led you to adopt the view of it which you hold?
“The ESV is a Calvinist monster attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!”
I fail to see the error here. ❓
I suppose that club only holds morning meetings?
That club might not even know Who Jesus is (yet).
and then again we might… 😉
Some of us surely do. 🙂
It’s true because you say it! Where’s your authority/ proof?
You’re right. That’s why we should all just read the Challoner-Douay Rheims as Our Lord Jesus Christ intended. 😮
It’s actually the King James Translation, and not a particularly bad one at that!
I have noticed that the calvinists love that ESV, I really need to take a long, careful look at that translation.
You might just learn something. 😀
😆 Gotta give you a touche’ on that one.
Prescription: Take a shot of Ephesians 1, swallow down the Gospel of John, finish your evening with a double portion of Romans 9, then call us in the morning.
So Jonathan David, are you right about everything? If not, where have you been wrong? Could it be possible that you are wrong about the Bible version issue?
Not one doctrine in the Bible has been changed by an up to date translation of the Scriptures.
How will it be too late? Are we saved by the version of the Bible we read or by grace through faith in Jesus? Just curious.
Good response to those Bibliolitors.
Good effort, Doc
“The ESV is…attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!”
Are you saying that non-elect (i.e., an unsaved person, a nonbeliever, or however you put it) could be in heaven? I can’t find even the slightest bit wrong with this statement. 😯
Dear Dr. Jon (I can call you Jon, right?)
Thank you for sharing with us.
Also, thank you for considering yourself right about everything as it pertains to this subject. Without your guidance we all would have continued to have an equally authoritative but obviously flawed opinion. We are forever in your debt.
Enlgish sounds like a really fun language! Sort of like a combination of Klingon and Entish . . . and equally useless.
This made me laugh out loud for quite awhile. You really hit my nerdy side with that one.
So in other words its gonna sound really harsh but said really slow.lol
“Dr.” III–The word version is a proper word for the King James translation. If you would have gone to a real school, you might have learned that in the study of old writing, the word version means a work not in the original language. This is to make a difference between autographs (the original text), manuscripts (copies of the autographs), and other language translations (versions).
Many words have variant meanings, and version isn’t only a particular view of something. If you are going to claim Biblical Scholarship, you might want to actually study the history of the translation process, and read more than a one-sided diatribe tha matches your preconceived notions.
The amount of spiritual pride of Jonathon David is amazing. He is convinced that he is right about everything. Has he ever considered that he might be wrong? At my church we don’t force people to use a specific VERSION. Why? Because God wants the Scriptures to be read by everyone, including modern English speaking people.
This kind of spiritual superiority doesn’t surprise me, though, coming from a group of people who are attempting to make everyone think that heaven is an exclusive club for fundamentalists!
😆 That was kind of fun! 😀 (But yes, I meant what I said)
Never trust a Dr with 2 first names.
All the outright Armenians I know are all fine with the ESV. I don’t even believe the T in TULIP, and I think the ESV beats the KJV 8 days a week.
Do all Armenians use the ESV? I don’t know for sure but I am confident the Kardashians don’t.
All the Armenians I know use the Armenian Bible. In Armenian (oldest Bible translation in the world still in use.
I don’t know about the ARMINIANS.
Once more: An Armenian is a person from the nation of Armenia. An Arminian is a follower of the theology of Jacobus Arminus, 17th century Dutch theologian. This means that an Armenian may be a Calvinist, but an Arminian never can be.
I attended a Calvinist seminary with an Armenian.
@dr johnathon … you are not real. I call fake troll on you. 🙄
Please expound on a couple of your statements:
1. Where in the bible does it say that the KJB is THE bible for English speaking people?
2. Where in the bible does it say that heaven is not for the elect?
3. Where in the bible does it say that any other translation is Satan’s bible?
4. Have you ever considered that you could be wrong?
The best argument, in my opinion, for using a modern translation comes from the Preface to the 1611 King James Translation. The translators left their philosophy of translation there for future generations to see. For all the awe that the KJV-only crowd has for those translators, they tend to ignore what the translators actually believed about their work.
It’s worth noting that the translation project of the KJV was opposed at the time because many believed that the existing English translations were sufficient and that a new translation would produce confusion in the Body. The translators of the KJV opposed this idea and believed that language evolved, and that believers should have a copy of the Word of God in the language that they used daily.
“Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and aske what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread bene mingled with leaven, her silver with drosse, her wine with water, her milke with lime?”
“But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue?”
They were also clear that they did not believe their work should be the end of the project, but that translations should continue as languages changed and that those future translations would also be the preserved Word of God.
“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.”
“No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse.”
Heh, and he’s accusing us of spiritual pride.
Well played, sir, well played.
You do realize that King James I, the “authorizer” of the King James Bible, was a homosexual, don’t you? History is so very interesting.
St.Peter says….
And the answer is…..
This is for all those who truly believe in
“Final Jeporady”
😯
The whole debate about versions is crazy. Noah’s ark can’t be taken literally, no matter what version one uses (how did the Dodo waddle his way from the middle east to the isolated island that was the one place on the earth that it could survive + 100 other absurdities?). KJV or NIV, it is obviously the collection of ancient myths. The Mormons have been experiencing a loss of membership related to people being able to fact check on the internet, I wonder if fundamentalists/literal Bible believers will suffer the same fate.
Possible solution: since the Earth was broken up after the flood, the dodo would have died out everywhere except the one place it could survive.
Possible solution two: The dodo bird was represented on the ark by an animal of its biblical “kind” (baramin in Hebrew, many creationist would contend that dogs make up a “kind” with specific species, such as german shepherd, that are closely related to one another). As the animals from this “kind” spread out across the world, they differentiated into location specific species.
That tends to be where I land. Species do change over time, so it makes sense that after several thousand years a bird-type would change into the dodo based on its environment.
Since this is their amazing, easy, Bible memory plan does that mean they are of the devil?
These fools (and I use that term with its entire weight of Biblical application) deny that the any English translation other than the KJV contains God’s word. They have their pathetically weak designer god who fits in their god-box. What a small god they serve.
God says his word is established forever and it will accomplish his purposes according to his will. He is not the God of the King James version only! O, the ignorance! The arrogance! The shame, that Bible versions have so divided the body of Christ. Is Christ not in the NIV? Is the sacrificial death of Jesus not told in the NLT? Is his burial not documented in the pages of the ESV? Is his triumphal resurrection not proclaimed in the CEV?
O, foolish KJV only believers, which is greater the Translation of inspired scripture or the one who inspired it? Which is your god?
/rant
So true, Don. Thank you for speaking the truth, passionately and vehemently but honestly.
Most excellent rant!
I think this is a satire. Their point is that since memorizing the NIV is easier, it is the Devil’s memory plan.
Welcome back, Darrell. You were missed.
“These verses are completely missing from the NIV”.
As is usual with the KJVO types, this assumes what needs to be proven – that the verses were part of the original. One could just as easily (and correctly) say, “These verses were added in the KJV”. Contrary to the impression the KJVO types give, modern versions don’t start with the KJV and then decide what’s in and what’s out. The KJV is not the standard, the manuscripts are.
This. So, so much this.
Yup.
Never try to argue someone out of a position they were never argued into.
Absolutely, the whole thing begins by begging the question. The question of course being whether or not these verses belong in the Bible. I tend to a rather conservative position myself, but on no theory other than assuming a Version (whether the KJV or the Latin Vulgate) to be the standard can 1 John 5:7 be declared original.
The grammatical argument does not work: the New Testament is full of what any classical Greek tutor would consider grammatical blunders, and no-one has ever suggested that the text be amended as a result of them.
I kind of love how you didn’t have to include any commentary with this post. It speaks for itself quite well.
Wait, is that how it works now? The Bible with the most verses is the best? ‘Cos I could add a few more if that’d improve matters…
oh and I love the “god vs the devil” dualism in this poster. God wants A . . . the devil wants B . . . it’s up to YOU to break the stalemate. Sigh.
The farther that I am away from Fundamental Baptists, the more it annoys me when people claim to “speak” for the devil.
Should we ask them how they know what the devil wants?
For all I know, maybe the devil wants to make Bible memorization hard so 1) people won’t do it and 2) the people who do it feel proud of themselves and superior to others.
The simple and obvious just doesn’t work on these KJVonly’s. Every verse they have ever, or will ever quote from the bible in English, was “inspired” in another language. They cannot seem to grasp this!
God did not inspire “one” word of “any” English translation. Every single English translation that we use today, went through a “translation” process.
“A variety of translations is necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”……..the KJV translators in “The Translators to the Readers”
What?!? You haven’t heard of “secondary inspiration” where the “translators” CORRECTED the original?
Kind of Orwellian isn’t it?
My church preached that. They called it double inspiration. One inspiration for God dictating the original, a second inspiration for translating it into English by the KJB translators. The more I learn about translating, the crazier this whole concept sounds!
Apparently it takes somewhere between 0 and 10 minutes for the fundies to memorize nothing. What a useful insight into the workings (or lack thereof) of their shrivelled minds.
Well, I’m sold. ‘Cause, as we all know, if I don’t agree with the NIV relegating those verses to footnotes, the only other possible version available in the English language is the KJV. Not faulty “reasoning” at all.
Actually, I’m intrigued by the implication that God wants everything to be as hard as possible for us.
I guess when you’re working hard to earn God’s favor through your good works, that makes sense…
Good point!
Absolutely correct, Miriam. In fact, your observation goes beyond this silly issue, and to the heart of why fundyism is a different religion. Their god is so foreign to Christianity, that he appears to be much more like a pagan deity, placing burden after burden on his followers, apparently for sport. Reminds one of Zeus’ dealings with Odysseys…
I agree. They add to the gospel and make a man’s salvation depend on his good works. They also have faith in their faith, not in Christ. Whatever they might say, it’s not His objective work in history, sure promises and almighty power that they look to for assurance: it’s the strength of their own sincerity when they prayed a certain prayer or walked the aisle. That’s a different gospel.
Not that I don’t think there are many true believers in the fundy world. I think there are. But what’s being taught, preached and written is a false gospel–either directly or by implication.
If I begin with the ESV, can I accuse the KJV of adding to the Bible? Or of taking the word ‘God’ out of John 1:18 and replacing it with ‘Son’, thus obscuring a vital testimony to the deity of Our Lord? I mean, there are many who call Jesus the Son of God who won’t call him God, so obviously they changed the text. Can I get an Amen on that? (no, because it’s silly)
I did this to a Ruckmanite once. The answer was…amusing.
I don’t get the point of the flyer. What if the NIV took OUT the verses because the KJV added them when they weren’t they’re in the first place? Their using faulty logic in there flyer.
Ask a KJV Only person what conflation means. Most don’t know because they have no knowledge of textual issues. If they do know, there is at least a starting place for a conversation.
Comments are closed.
A silly blog dedicated to Independent Fundamental Baptists, their standards, their beliefs, and their craziness.
Huh.
“there not there”…it hurts. it. physically. hurts.
I agree. But is it spelt right in their king james bibbal? :O
Apparently, the Amazing Memory Plan does not teach one to spell or use punctuation correctly.
Seriously, this made my English-teacher-soul shrivel up and die a little bit. Ack.
Mine too.
*screams in frustration*
I third that! 😯 It was the FIRST thing I noticed!
I have no molars now; they’ve been ground to nubs. 👿
There.
Their.
They’re not the same!
(pun intended)
Holy crap! I took at least a full minute trying to figure out what 2 disparate locations they were referring to that 1 was the correct location & the other wasn’t. Ugh!
If you use improper spelling, you reduce the impact of your message. SNARK FAIL!
Well?? As a former fundy who still believes in the KJV, where are these verses? I think that’s a legitimate question. 😳
They aren’t in the oldest manuscripts.
My hubby and I still use the KJV as well and I use it in my homeschool classroom.
I do know that the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible over with them when they came to America.
I believe in the KJV.
I believe it exists.
I also believe in pop tarts, though can I find one around here? No joy.
I had bacon, biscuits and gravy today. 😛
Scrambled-egg a-la microwave here…
Macushlalondra, you should give this video a watch. Aside from being nifty info to know about anyway, it helps explain the difference between the collection of manuscripts used by the KJV, and those used by most modern translations.
http://www.dts.edu/media/play/bumper-sticker-theology-part-1-b-wallace-ph-d–daniel/
If you’re unfamiliar with Daniel Wallace, he’s pretty much THE New Testament Greek scholar around today, and thankfully, he holds to traditional Christian views on the Bible.
This is a great video. Unfortunately, many Christians don’t understand where our Bible comes from, or the many variant manuscripts we possess. Most KJV proponents don’t realize that the KJV is based off of a critical text composed by Erasumus, and differs from the Byzantine Majority text in over 1800 significant places. I think we should use the most reliable texts, which is one reason I don’t like or use the KJV. Another reason is that in many places it is just plain poorly translated. The translators of the time had no understanding of the Greek concept of aspect, instead understanding the grammar through a Latin tense paradigm (Koine doesn’t have tenses the way we have them, it has a different characteristic known as aspect). Very interesting topic to study.
The verses are still in the NIV, in the footnotes.
*some manuscripts include here…
Yes, they are. Also in numerous other recent translations (I mean more recent than the KJV, natch).
I read the ESV & it has verses, like these not found in the original manuscripts, in the footnotes. THEY’RE still there… they’re just not in the main text due to the possible inaccuracies.
Another issue is what possible motive anyone could have for deliberately leaving out these verses. None of them teach any doctrine that isn’t thoroughly taught elswhere in Scripture. In fact, if fundy’s weren’t obsessed with their concept of defending every idea and doctrine with a single proof text they wouldn’t even have noticed. When you look at the Bible as an organic whole you don’t have to obsess. Not that this means any verse can be cut out; far from it. But when the oldest manuscripts have no sign of a verse, and it doesn’t show up until a thousand years later in copies of copies of copies…
Just realized my first sentence might not be clear. My meaning is, there is no motive. If a wolf actually was trying to deceive the sheep and distort true doctrine, he’s the world’s biggest idiot. Those verses are uselss to the cause of changing any truth in the Bible.
All the manuscript evidence does suggest to me that the text of Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible, therefore I reject most of the modern textual criticism as silly.
However, I John 5:7 is a very interesting verse. What does everyone think who has read any of the scholarship? Is the King James correct for including it, or is it a late addition?
I looked 1 John 5 up in the NIV in biblegateway.com. There is a footnote there that reads,
“1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century).”
The verse is found in no Greek manuscript until the end of the Middle Ages. That’s some 1400 years after the book was written. It appears much earlier in Latin, which is how it got into the KJV – the KJV translators were all Latin scholars (because all the lectures at Oxford and Cambridge were given in Latin). There is simply no way that this verse can be original – there are many variants with far better support that the KJV does not adopt. So we can say simply that 1 John 5:7 is in the KJV because it’s in the Latin.
What Basil said. The Johannine Comma is definitely an addition, which is a shame, because it’d be a great Trinitarian proof-text otherwise.
Tellingly, it is not used by any writer in the early Trinitarian controversies. The standard KJV-Only answer is, “well, they didn’t use it because they knew their opponents had taken it out of the Bible.” That doesn’t actually work; the Fathers were not shy about pointing out Bible-mutilation. Athanasius did not use it against the Arians because it was not in his Bible. If the Arians were taking passages out of the Bible, Athanasius would have said so.
Personally, I fail to see how “These verses are complete missing from the NIV” is a footnote of “The World’s Fastest Bible Memory Plan.” They need to get ride of the asterisks.
You can ignore the “The World’s Fastest Bible Memory Plan.” footnote because the author is ignoring the footnotes in the NIV.
“These verses are completely missing from the NIV.”
This statement is completely misleading. I guess they don’t read the footnotes in the KJV either.
Jesus didn’t speak in footnotes. Amen?
So I just looked up each of these verses.
About two-thirds of them are not exactly important. I don’t know anything about manuscripts, but someone is rather nitpicky. About the other third, I don’t know.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
A lot of them read like footnotes, don’t they? Then there are disagreements about minor details in the stories that were handed down, such as what happened with Silas.
The ones that talk about foundational matters are a bigger deal. Whoever stuck a Trinitarian verse into the Bible that late in the game had pretty big stones. OTOH, a sizeable chunk of the Hebrew Bible is itself interpretation of earlier texts in light of a particular theological idea, so.
Ah, but you can’t prooftext out of the footnotes. Only prooftexting from real verses is inspired. 🙄
+10 🙄
I stopped reading after “there not there”
Grrrrr
So, just out of curiousity, I took a look at biblebelievers.com. Wow. Not for the faint-hearted.
I was impressed with the up-to-date material. Like the article on the Da Vinci Code. Very timely.
I love being talked down to by people who can’t spell or avoid run-on sentences or comma splices.
Interestingly enough, I’m not sure that the Bible ever explicitly endorses rote memory. “Hiding God’s word in your heart” has more to do with internalizing its truths than parroting exact verbiage.
I never understand how fundies think that saying 5 Hail Marys is vain repitition but memorizing verse after verse after verse is not.
That’s an easy one, the bible itself instructs and compels us to memorize it. Jesus “is” the Word.
We are specifically instructed by the same “word” not to pray vain, repetivie prayers.
Standing by with bible in hand to provide as many verses as you may need to support my statement.
Repetitive……….the main reason I “hide” the Word of God in my heart is to keep from sinning against Him.
and yet the word “memorize” is not in the Bible . . . food for thought.
Are you saying Jesus is the Bible? 😯
greg – You do know that the Hail Mary is basically just scripture verses stringed together right? Check out Luke chapter 1.
Which brings me back to my question/comment….why do fundies think that saying 5 Hail Marys (scripture) is vain repetition but verse memorization is not?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” John 1 1-2
“The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen his Glory, the Glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and tuth.” John 1:14
“For their are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
An interesting study, Jesus as “The Word”. In the beginning was the “LOGOS” John writes. The phrase and usage of Logos was prominent in Greek thought, to the point that Justin Martyr made his apologetic for Christianity along the lines of the philosophical “logos” that the Greeks knew about and revered was the semiotic preparation for the Gentiles to receive the gospel once it went into the world. Did John use this new phrase in order to appeal to the Gentile mind?
greg – did you deliberately include one of the Bible verses mentioned in the flyer above? (1 John 5:7)
Uh…Greg, The verses in John’s Gospel were not, could not be refering to the bible as it exists now or even then. Jesus being the Word of God expresses that relationship with HIM is the way to know God. Direct relationship with God is the Good News. Church history is filled with those who knew and served God without access to the closely guarded for political reasons Bible. The scriptures are a wonderful way to draw closer to and gain more information about God and even to double check what you think you may have heard from God but intimate relationship with Christ is required for scripture to be of any use at all. “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned”
Scorpio – Yes I deliberately used it, in the sense that it fit in with what I was attempting to demonstrate with the scriptures.(I really wasn’t trying to be provocative) But I have studied the “comma Johanneum” and don’t think it does belong, it was only in a few manuscripts and they were very recent, and half of those manuscripts had the reading written in the margins. The phrase is only in a few Latin versions.
We certainly don’t need the “comma” to support our belief in the Trinity, many other verses do that nicely.
Hail King James, full of grace, the Lord is thee.
Blessed art thou among “bibles” and blessed is the fruit of thy pages: saved souls.
Holy King James, father of the managawd, save us sinners now (and since we have been saved now, no need for anything but thy 23rd Psalm at the hour of our death).
Amen. 😎
+10 for you
Very well done!!!
Dude!
Very snarkily played.
Aaaaaaaaand the Snarky Snark Champion is…Deacon’s Son!!!
*cheers & applause*
I don’t know about you, but I think that a particularly powerful and touching scene in the movie “Volcano” (which is neither a powerful or touching movie; just a run of the mill disaster movie) is when the guy is walking through the burning subway car carrying the driver saying Hail Mary’s. Particularly since that guy died trying to get out of the car.
I love that movie, and that scene.
So here’s the question: What does a person say a Hail Mary for? What’s the purpose?
As far as I understand it, the reason for Scripture memorization would be so that one has God’s Word at one’s fingertips, so to speak, when trying to decide how to respond in a godly way to various situations, etc. Repeating Scriptures to one’s self like some kind of lucky mantra wouldn’t be a good reason for memorizing Scripture, and would be hard to distinguish from vain repetitions (so you can scream one-line Scripture pull-outs at people you don’t agree with would also be an innappriate us for Scripture memorization).
Probably too late for anyone to read this but . . .
“Vain repetitions” is a King James neologism for a single Greek word that only appears once in the New Testament (and, as far as I know, nowhere in classic Greek texts). The word is “battologeo” from “Battos” (a proverbial stammerer) and “logos” (meaning “word,” as in “the Word became flesh”). One initially notes that there is no connotation of “vain” or “vanity” in either of those two roots. That is a pure invention of the King James translators. (For what it’s worth, I believe that the King James translators used this rendering as a dig at Roman Catholicism. By way of comparison, Douay-Rheims translated the Greek word here simply as “speak much”. King James here is biased in favor of iconoclastic protestantism and Douay-Rheims seems to be biased in favor of Catholic liturgical tradition.) Objectively, the word seems to be intended to capture the idea of meaningless babbling which was a part of pagan worship (something like the pagan version of “speaking in tongues” as a sign of possession/inspiration by the deity).
Looking at Matthew 6 in context, we see that Jesus first tells us not to pray as hypocrites for the purpose of being seen by others and second tells us not to pray as pagans who believe that many words and meaningless babbling are required to catch the ear of the deity. Then we are told that our prayers are, in contrast, to be (1) private and (2) short. As to the latter, we have the example of the Lord’s Prayer which takes up a grand total of 5 verses.
Nothing in Matthew 6 in any way condemns the repetition of a particular prayer’s wording. In fact, I Thess. 5:17 instructs us to pray without ceasing. Many Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants believe that the best way to fulfil the commands of both Matthew 6 and I Thess. 5:17 is to repeat a short simple prayer because that allows us to go about our daily lives without having to think up prayer extemporaneously. Noting, of course, that Orthodox Christians especially, and also Catholics and some Protestants, believe that prayer should emanate from the church as a whole more than from the individual believer and thus these traditions are much more confortable with pre-written carefully worded prayers. For example, devout Orthodox repeat “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner” throughout the day as a simple act of prayer and devotion. This prayer, known as the Jesus Prayer, is based on the prayer of the publican in the parable of the publican and pharisee. (Noting again, of course, that the pharisee prays a long and public prayer while the publican prays a short, simple, and private prayer.)
At the risk of offending some, I will point out that while my reading of Matthew 6 does not preclude repetition of the Lord’s Prayer or the Hail Mary (whether the Hail Mary is an appropriate prayer to pray is another issue entirely), it does preclude the occasional practice of modern praise and worship music that involves congregational repetition of a simple musical chorus over and over until one assumes a trance-like state of “communion” with God. My criticism here is not of praise and worship as such but is similar to that of many people on this site who criticize the mindless repetition of invitation hymns for 10, 20, or more verses for the sole purpose of emotional manipulation. I think Matthew 6 requires simple, short, private prayer. Thus, I think that repetition of a particular prayer text as a part of private or public worship is not inappropriate (e.g., recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in a church service or praying a rosary at home). However, I think that the modern exponent of “battologeo” in Christianity today is occasionally found in the praise and worship sequence of the contemporary evangelical service. The beauty of Matthew 6 is that we may pray to God and He will hear us. We don’t need to engage in repetitive rituals until we feel emotionally close to God. Some would argue that reciting the Lord’s Prayer or other prayer is a “repetitive ritual” but I don’t think repetition as such is evil (otherwise I Thess. 5:17 would be an impossible command to follow). I simply think that when the purpose of the prayer is to be seen by others or to engage in a “battologeo”-type approach to God, that prayer does not conform to the spirit of Matthew 6.
Thanks for the explanation, Deacon’s Son. I was using the term “vain repetition” in the sense of “meaningless babble.” I was trying, (and probably failing) to convey that through my reference to a “lucky mantra.” That is, words–whatever they are–that are repeated so often they become meaningless babble (even if the words themselves have meaning). Mark 7:6, for example, makes it clear that meaningful words can be meaningless babble depending on where the heart is. That’s what I was hoping to convey: I did not mean that praying a pre-written prayer was a “vain repetition.” I have no problem with repeating a prayer, as opposed to always praying extemporaneously.
My question is what is a person doing when he/she says a Hail Mary, particularly over and over? You imply in your final paragraph that the person is praying. To whom?
I understand where you are coming from. However, I still don’t care for the use of the term “vain repetition” as it smacks of a biased translation of the Greek, in my opinion. As for repetition to the point of meaninglessness, I agree that any repetition can lead to that result. However, it is a classic fundie error to assume that because A can lead to bad result B some of the time, that A is therefore bad all of the time. I’m not saying you are in favor of that viewpoint; just saying that is the typical fundie argument against repetitive prayers such as the rosary.
As for the Hail Mary and other prayers to the saints I defer to my Catholic brothers and sisters to explain the distinction they draw between prayer to God and prayer to the saints. Suffice it to say that in the Latin texts of the church there are two separate words (or maybe even three . . . I can’t remember) to distinguish the kind of reverence owed to God versus Mary and the saints. While I myself do not recite the Hail Mary because of my personal ambivalence to the practice of prayers to Mary and the saints I am not prepared to condemn those who do.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree that any prayer or scripture or song can become uselessly repetitive. However, I don’t think that is really what is at issue in Matthew 6 nearly as much as the values Christ is promoting of humble religiolus devotion directed to God.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess where we would differ is that I don’t really care what Latin words there are for different types of devotion. I need Biblical proof that prayer can legitimately be made to any other entity but God. And if the prayers to Mary are not really prayers, but some other type of lesser devotion, then the word “prayer” should not be made. It has a definite connotation of worship and dependence; things reserved for God alone.
And I suppose I should clarify that my reference here is to the supposed touching movie scene of the man reciting Hail Marys through a burning subway car. What is that, if not crying out to something other than God for protection and help in time of trouble? That is worship. That is portraying a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power.
The answer that Catholics have given me to that issue is that if we as Christians really believe in eternal life then it is appropriate to invoke the prayers of deceased Christians on our behalf as much as Christians who are still alive. I find that proposition questionable but I don’t know that there is a clear Scriptural argument against it. As for crying out to Mary instead of to God, I think that probably has a lot more to do with the cultural conditioning that comes from being a Catholic than it does with a genuine Catholic teaching that invoking Mary in such a situation is appropriate. I see Catholic practices like the Hail Mary as falling into the “all things are lawful but not all things are expedient” category – that is, I don’t see that they are wrong or harmful but neither do I see them as beneficial or useful. Again, I am not the best person to defend the nuances of the richness of the Catholic theological tradition as I am not myself a Catholic. Personally, I see too many strains in Catholicism that come from a similar impulse as the worst of fundie Christianity. However, I have learned that humility in the face of my understanding of another Christian tradition is vital. Thus, I do not share some of their practices but I do not condemn. Paul says “now we see through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face.” I think that verse calls believers in Christ to love one another and to set aside quibbling over unclear points of doctrine and tradition. But, I also respect those who think “prayers” to Mary are inappropriate for a Christian. I just don’t see that it is as clear cut as you suggest. But of course that does not mean I am right! I have enjoyed the discussion however. 😀
Miriam, you write, “That is portraying a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power.” When your car breaks down, do you take it to a mechanic, or do you pray and have God fix it? When you move, do you hire movers (or ask friends), or do you ask God to load your possessions into the truck for you?
Jeremy C, what skill does Mary have that you would expect her to exert on your behalf in a burning subway car situation, that is analogous to taking your broken car to a qualified mechanic?
I still pray when I take my car to a mechanic, because I know that God ultimately is in control of all things. And because He gives to everyone the abilities they are blessed with (Ex 28:3; 36:1; Isa 28:23-29; Dan 1:17; etc) it is therefore ultimately His doing that it was done at all. I appreciate the help of the mechanic, and I pay him his just wages for the work, but I owe all to God.
However, there are many situations where no human help can serve in any way. There is only one I can go to in those situations, and that is God. If the opportunity arises, I can ask other Christians for their prayers (the opportunity doesn’t always arise), but my trust is still in God alone. I have no trust in the prayers of others; only knowing that God chooses many times to work through the prayers of His people.
And since I can find no place in Scripture suggesting that the dead can intercede for me like the living can; nor would it be logical to suppose that any one human being like Mary could possibly hear and intercede for more than a handful of people at a time; nor do I expect a human being to be able to hear me unless they are near me or connected to me via some kind of electronic device––to suggest then that it is otherwise with Mary is to ascribe God-like characteristics to her. This is blasphemy: a word I don’t use lightly.
I find the argument that “we’re just asking her to intercede like we would any Christian friend” or “she’s just helping out like the mechanic does” to be a pretty thin cover for ascribing worship to someone other than God. It can’t be done without assuming that Mary has characteristics of God, beyond that of any human being, and it doesn’t explain why someone would think to call on Mary in particular. Why not someone you know personally? Why does it have to be her? There’s obviously a reverence involved that is inappropriately great for a mere human being.
Miriam, thanks for getting back to me. Sorry my own response has been so long in coming, things have been wild around these parts.
Mary’s “skill” in a burning subway car would be to intercede on the person’s behalf to God. Now, if you still want to stand by your statement, “a person more ready to turn to a human being for aid and help than Almighty God: and I can think of few things more insulting to His majesty and power”, then going to a mechanic is still a problem. Fixing a car is well within God’s power – certainly, it’s “easier” than saving someone from a burning subway car.
Your objections to praying to Mary seem to be based on, 1, arguments from silence (i.e., you say that Scripture doesn’t mention it), and 2, your human logic. It’s fine to use those for reasons why you don’t personally believe in the practice (neither do I, by the way), but they are very weak reasons for saying that nobody should believe in the practice. The simple fact of the matter is, we’re just not told enough about what our state after death will be like (and even less so what it will be like between our death and the coming resurrection) to say for sure what we will or will not be capable of.
You personally believe there is not a significant change in our basic nature after death – not enough to allow us to hear what people on earth may be trying to say to us. Well and good, but know your view is without absolute scriptural backing. Others believe that Mary, the Saints, and perhaps others who have died, gain the ability to hear our prayers after death. Well and good, as long as they don’t suggest (as some, regrettably, have) that one MUST pray through these agents to reach God.
It’s not ascribing God-like characteristics to humans. It’s certainly ascribing characteristics that we earthly Christians don’t possess, but I don’t see anything in Scripture that says only God is capable of hearing prayers. And I don’t see anything wrong with giving reverence to humans. If we worship humans, if we revere them more than God (as, again, some regrettably do), then yeah, it’s a problem – a big one. But giving someone honor is not a sin, yes?
Fascinating discussion. I would contribute that the best insight that we have into the after life is in the story of Lazerus and the rich man. This does not leave the impression that the dead are aware of the current state of things on earth, beyond the fact that the rich man retains the knowledge that his brothers were as sinfull as he and worthy of the same fate. Also, there is no indication that humans, short of rising from the dead, can in any way influence the living.
Further, The apostle Paul refers to those who sleep in Christ. While this does not conclusively indicate lack of awareness of the living and there is much debate about “soul sleep” it again does not indicate the ability to influence anything in the living world.
To close, My tendency is to think that praying to a mortal human who has died is, at the least, fruitless except as an emotional balm and, at the most, blasphemous in seeking help from any but God our very present help.
Then again, the writer of Hebrews says that we are surrounded with a great cloud of witnesses. These are the saints. The analogy of the race is furthered with the idea that those who have already run are watching us run our race.
Remember that the body of Christ is composed of the Living, not the Dead. Those gone before are Alive in Christ, having “never died” as Christ said since they believe in Him. Having “died” here they still have the ability to pray.
To my mind, asking my departed grandfather to be praying for me is at least as reasonable as asking someone else in the Church to pray for me, and might be more likely to actually get done!
I suppose it boils down to whether or not you consider the faithful dead to still be alive in Christ, and thus part of the Communion of Saints. They have no godlike powers, but still have the ability to petition our Heavenly Father.
Regards,
Right, it’s important to remember that, at least in and of itself, prayers to Mary/the Saints/departed loved ones is not asking them to come directly to your aid. Rather, it’s asking them to pass on your requests to God.
It’s something the Bible just isn’t 100% clear on. If someone wants to rely on their church’s teachings to fill in the blanks, that’s fine (as long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture), but those who (like me) say that our beliefs should be shaped, as much as possible, by Scripture alone, can’t rule it out either.
If you look at most of the prayers to saints and Mary, they include the phrase “pray for us”- the litany of saints is a long list of names, and as each is invoked, that phrase is repeated (St Michael, pray for us, St Joseph, pray for us, etc.) It connects with the idea of the Church including all believers, living and dead, and therefore we can ask the dead to pray for us just as we could ask people we know to do so (with the added caveat that if someone has died but ended up in hell, they are no longer part of this group). Mary is believed to be especially close to God, as His Mother, and is particularly invoked because of that. I think also when you have a lot of emphasis on the greatness and incomprehensibility of God, having a human mother to run to for help is reassuring.
(That said, here’s an Irish joke on the subject:
Two men were fixing up the chapel roof early one weekday morning, and saw an old woman come to pray the rosary. Bored, one of the men decided to have a bit of fun with her, crying out “This is the Lord!” The woman didn’t seem to notice, so his friend chimed in, even louder, “THIS IS THE LORD!”
The old woman lifted her head and looked at the cross above the altar, and spoke:
“Will you shut up, I’m talking to your mother!”)
The amount of spiritual pride on this site is amazing. You are convinced that you are right about everything. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong. At my church we use ONLY the King James BIBLE (NOT VERSION). Why? Because it IS the Scriptures for enlgish speaking people.
The New International Version removes many references to Christ and God, attempting to create a universalist Bible! The ESV is a Calvinist monster attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!
One day you will wake up and realize you were reading Satans bible. But it will be too late
Not a bad effort, but I’m not convinced that a semiliterate graduate of a basement Bible college would use the term “spiritual pride.” Maybe “confirmed [sic] to the world?”
Dr. – With our new friend Dante running around here, you are going to have to do much better than this. 😆
Dr., could you compile and post a list of verses from the ESV that led you to adopt the view of it which you hold?
“The ESV is a Calvinist monster attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!”
I fail to see the error here. ❓
I suppose that club only holds morning meetings?
That club might not even know Who Jesus is (yet).
and then again we might… 😉
Some of us surely do. 🙂
It’s true because you say it! Where’s your authority/ proof?
LOL @ “enlgish speaking people”. That’s our problem; we speak English.
You’re right. That’s why we should all just read the Challoner-Douay Rheims as Our Lord Jesus Christ intended. 😮
It’s actually the King James Translation, and not a particularly bad one at that!
I have noticed that the calvinists love that ESV, I really need to take a long, careful look at that translation.
You might just learn something. 😀
😆 Gotta give you a touche’ on that one.
Prescription: Take a shot of Ephesians 1, swallow down the Gospel of John, finish your evening with a double portion of Romans 9, then call us in the morning.
So Jonathan David, are you right about everything? If not, where have you been wrong? Could it be possible that you are wrong about the Bible version issue?
Not one doctrine in the Bible has been changed by an up to date translation of the Scriptures.
How will it be too late? Are we saved by the version of the Bible we read or by grace through faith in Jesus? Just curious.
Good response to those Bibliolitors.
Good effort, Doc
“The ESV is…attempting to make heaven am exclusive club for the elect!”
Are you saying that non-elect (i.e., an unsaved person, a nonbeliever, or however you put it) could be in heaven? I can’t find even the slightest bit wrong with this statement. 😯
Dear Dr. Jon (I can call you Jon, right?)
Thank you for sharing with us.
Also, thank you for considering yourself right about everything as it pertains to this subject. Without your guidance we all would have continued to have an equally authoritative but obviously flawed opinion. We are forever in your debt.
Enlgish sounds like a really fun language! Sort of like a combination of Klingon and Entish . . . and equally useless.
This made me laugh out loud for quite awhile. You really hit my nerdy side with that one.
So in other words its gonna sound really harsh but said really slow.lol
“Dr.” III–The word version is a proper word for the King James translation. If you would have gone to a real school, you might have learned that in the study of old writing, the word version means a work not in the original language. This is to make a difference between autographs (the original text), manuscripts (copies of the autographs), and other language translations (versions).
Many words have variant meanings, and version isn’t only a particular view of something. If you are going to claim Biblical Scholarship, you might want to actually study the history of the translation process, and read more than a one-sided diatribe tha matches your preconceived notions.
The amount of spiritual pride of Jonathon David is amazing. He is convinced that he is right about everything. Has he ever considered that he might be wrong? At my church we don’t force people to use a specific VERSION. Why? Because God wants the Scriptures to be read by everyone, including modern English speaking people.
This kind of spiritual superiority doesn’t surprise me, though, coming from a group of people who are attempting to make everyone think that heaven is an exclusive club for fundamentalists!
😆 That was kind of fun! 😀 (But yes, I meant what I said)
Never trust a Dr with 2 first names.
All the outright Armenians I know are all fine with the ESV. I don’t even believe the T in TULIP, and I think the ESV beats the KJV 8 days a week.
Do all Armenians use the ESV? I don’t know for sure but I am confident the Kardashians don’t.
All the Armenians I know use the Armenian Bible. In Armenian (oldest Bible translation in the world still in use.
I don’t know about the ARMINIANS.
Once more: An Armenian is a person from the nation of Armenia. An Arminian is a follower of the theology of Jacobus Arminus, 17th century Dutch theologian. This means that an Armenian may be a Calvinist, but an Arminian never can be.
I attended a Calvinist seminary with an Armenian.
@dr johnathon … you are not real. I call fake troll on you. 🙄
Please expound on a couple of your statements:
1. Where in the bible does it say that the KJB is THE bible for English speaking people?
2. Where in the bible does it say that heaven is not for the elect?
3. Where in the bible does it say that any other translation is Satan’s bible?
4. Have you ever considered that you could be wrong?
The best argument, in my opinion, for using a modern translation comes from the Preface to the 1611 King James Translation. The translators left their philosophy of translation there for future generations to see. For all the awe that the KJV-only crowd has for those translators, they tend to ignore what the translators actually believed about their work.
It’s worth noting that the translation project of the KJV was opposed at the time because many believed that the existing English translations were sufficient and that a new translation would produce confusion in the Body. The translators of the KJV opposed this idea and believed that language evolved, and that believers should have a copy of the Word of God in the language that they used daily.
“Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and aske what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread bene mingled with leaven, her silver with drosse, her wine with water, her milke with lime?”
“But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue?”
They were also clear that they did not believe their work should be the end of the project, but that translations should continue as languages changed and that those future translations would also be the preserved Word of God.
“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.”
“No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse.”
Heh, and he’s accusing us of spiritual pride.
Well played, sir, well played.
You do realize that King James I, the “authorizer” of the King James Bible, was a homosexual, don’t you? History is so very interesting.
St.Peter says….
And the answer is…..
This is for all those who truly believe in
“Final Jeporady”
😯
The whole debate about versions is crazy. Noah’s ark can’t be taken literally, no matter what version one uses (how did the Dodo waddle his way from the middle east to the isolated island that was the one place on the earth that it could survive + 100 other absurdities?). KJV or NIV, it is obviously the collection of ancient myths. The Mormons have been experiencing a loss of membership related to people being able to fact check on the internet, I wonder if fundamentalists/literal Bible believers will suffer the same fate.
Possible solution: since the Earth was broken up after the flood, the dodo would have died out everywhere except the one place it could survive.
Possible solution two: The dodo bird was represented on the ark by an animal of its biblical “kind” (baramin in Hebrew, many creationist would contend that dogs make up a “kind” with specific species, such as german shepherd, that are closely related to one another). As the animals from this “kind” spread out across the world, they differentiated into location specific species.
That tends to be where I land. Species do change over time, so it makes sense that after several thousand years a bird-type would change into the dodo based on its environment.
Since this is their amazing, easy, Bible memory plan does that mean they are of the devil?
These fools (and I use that term with its entire weight of Biblical application) deny that the any English translation other than the KJV contains God’s word. They have their pathetically weak designer god who fits in their god-box. What a small god they serve.
God says his word is established forever and it will accomplish his purposes according to his will. He is not the God of the King James version only! O, the ignorance! The arrogance! The shame, that Bible versions have so divided the body of Christ. Is Christ not in the NIV? Is the sacrificial death of Jesus not told in the NLT? Is his burial not documented in the pages of the ESV? Is his triumphal resurrection not proclaimed in the CEV?
O, foolish KJV only believers, which is greater the Translation of inspired scripture or the one who inspired it? Which is your god?
/rant
So true, Don. Thank you for speaking the truth, passionately and vehemently but honestly.
Most excellent rant!
I think this is a satire. Their point is that since memorizing the NIV is easier, it is the Devil’s memory plan.
Welcome back, Darrell. You were missed.
“These verses are completely missing from the NIV”.
As is usual with the KJVO types, this assumes what needs to be proven – that the verses were part of the original. One could just as easily (and correctly) say, “These verses were added in the KJV”. Contrary to the impression the KJVO types give, modern versions don’t start with the KJV and then decide what’s in and what’s out. The KJV is not the standard, the manuscripts are.
This. So, so much this.
Yup.
Never try to argue someone out of a position they were never argued into.
Absolutely, the whole thing begins by begging the question. The question of course being whether or not these verses belong in the Bible. I tend to a rather conservative position myself, but on no theory other than assuming a Version (whether the KJV or the Latin Vulgate) to be the standard can 1 John 5:7 be declared original.
The grammatical argument does not work: the New Testament is full of what any classical Greek tutor would consider grammatical blunders, and no-one has ever suggested that the text be amended as a result of them.
I kind of love how you didn’t have to include any commentary with this post. It speaks for itself quite well.
Wait, is that how it works now? The Bible with the most verses is the best? ‘Cos I could add a few more if that’d improve matters…
oh and I love the “god vs the devil” dualism in this poster. God wants A . . . the devil wants B . . . it’s up to YOU to break the stalemate. Sigh.
The farther that I am away from Fundamental Baptists, the more it annoys me when people claim to “speak” for the devil.
Should we ask them how they know what the devil wants?
For all I know, maybe the devil wants to make Bible memorization hard so 1) people won’t do it and 2) the people who do it feel proud of themselves and superior to others.
The simple and obvious just doesn’t work on these KJVonly’s. Every verse they have ever, or will ever quote from the bible in English, was “inspired” in another language. They cannot seem to grasp this!
God did not inspire “one” word of “any” English translation. Every single English translation that we use today, went through a “translation” process.
“A variety of translations is necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”……..the KJV translators in “The Translators to the Readers”
What?!? You haven’t heard of “secondary inspiration” where the “translators” CORRECTED the original?
Kind of Orwellian isn’t it?
My church preached that. They called it double inspiration. One inspiration for God dictating the original, a second inspiration for translating it into English by the KJB translators. The more I learn about translating, the crazier this whole concept sounds!
Apparently it takes somewhere between 0 and 10 minutes for the fundies to memorize nothing. What a useful insight into the workings (or lack thereof) of their shrivelled minds.
Well, I’m sold. ‘Cause, as we all know, if I don’t agree with the NIV relegating those verses to footnotes, the only other possible version available in the English language is the KJV. Not faulty “reasoning” at all.
Actually, I’m intrigued by the implication that God wants everything to be as hard as possible for us.
I guess when you’re working hard to earn God’s favor through your good works, that makes sense…
Good point!
Absolutely correct, Miriam. In fact, your observation goes beyond this silly issue, and to the heart of why fundyism is a different religion. Their god is so foreign to Christianity, that he appears to be much more like a pagan deity, placing burden after burden on his followers, apparently for sport. Reminds one of Zeus’ dealings with Odysseys…
I agree. They add to the gospel and make a man’s salvation depend on his good works. They also have faith in their faith, not in Christ. Whatever they might say, it’s not His objective work in history, sure promises and almighty power that they look to for assurance: it’s the strength of their own sincerity when they prayed a certain prayer or walked the aisle. That’s a different gospel.
Not that I don’t think there are many true believers in the fundy world. I think there are. But what’s being taught, preached and written is a false gospel–either directly or by implication.
If I begin with the ESV, can I accuse the KJV of adding to the Bible? Or of taking the word ‘God’ out of John 1:18 and replacing it with ‘Son’, thus obscuring a vital testimony to the deity of Our Lord? I mean, there are many who call Jesus the Son of God who won’t call him God, so obviously they changed the text. Can I get an Amen on that? (no, because it’s silly)
I did this to a Ruckmanite once. The answer was…amusing.
I don’t get the point of the flyer. What if the NIV took OUT the verses because the KJV added them when they weren’t they’re in the first place? Their using faulty logic in there flyer.
Ask a KJV Only person what conflation means. Most don’t know because they have no knowledge of textual issues. If they do know, there is at least a starting place for a conversation.