> I have read with interest several of your articles on the Bible Versions controversy. I appreciate all the research you have done. The question I have is, are some of the versions so bad that they cannot find Christ nor accept Him in truth?<
I have been asked variations on this question many times. Yes, God could save someone while they are reading just about any Bible version. However, God could also save someone through a sermon, book, Web site, a commentary on the Bible, or a variety of other methods where little or no scripture is actually being quoted.
In other words, the Gospel message can be presented in a variety of methods. I would place most Bible versions being produced today in the category of commentaries. In other words, they are not translations of what God said, but the opinion of the translator/ commentator as to what the scriptures mean. And God can use the reading of the "meaning" of scripture, if it is accurate, to lead people to Himself.
But does this then mean such a translation is proper? Or does it simply mean God can utilize anything that presents His message? In other words, if God saved someone through the reading of one of the articles on my Web site, does that then elevate the article to the level of scripture? I think not!
However, if someone is saved by the reading of one of my articles, I would immediately recommend they begin reading the Bible, and an accurate translation of it. Similarly, if someone was saved by reading say the New Living Translation (NLT) I would recommend they get themselves a "real" Bible like the New King James Version (NKJV) and begin to read it. I would view the NLT in the same category as one of my articles, an exposition of scriptural ideas, but by no means a translation of the scriptures.
> If a person is led to Christ through one of these other versions do we not accept them as Christians?<
Of course. I would not judge the method by which someone is saved, but I would be sure they accurately understood what "salvation" meant.
> I have to believe in several principles; we are human and as such we stumble and fall and there are things we will not understand until we meet Jesus Himself. I have never been a KJV only type of person only because the Lord Himself was a Jew and spoke Hebrew and not the King's English. Having traveled with a gospel quartet for several years we have visited many denominations and what I have learned from that is that we believe in the basics: virgin birth, death , burial and resurrection , and that we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ through grace of the Father.
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Tommy 6/17/1999<
To respond to the verse you quote, I am not "forbidding" people from reading non-literal Bible versions, but I am trying to help people understand the difference between literal and non-literal versions, and the importance thereof.
Many non-literal, Bible versions fail to translate thousands of words from the Hebrew and Greek texts, while adding thousands of words that have no basis in the Hebrew and Greek. What does this teach the new Christian? That God's exact words are not that important? What about verbal inspiration? Can it be upheld if the adding and omitting of thousands of words is considered proper? And what about verses like Rev 22:18,19? Are we teaching the new Christians that such verses are simply irrelevant?
My point is, the Bible is not just a sermon. God can use a sermon to bring someone to Himself. But when it comes to the Bible, it is unique; every word of it is the very word of God. It is our final authority. These basic Christian principles cannot, IMHO, be taught using most modern versions.
-From Here > I have read with interest several of your articles on the Bible Versions controversy. I appreciate all the research you have done. The question I have is, are some of the versions so bad that they cannot find Christ nor accept Him in truth?<
I have been asked variations on this question many times. Yes, God could save someone while they are reading just about any Bible version. However, God could also save someone through a sermon, book, Web site, a commentary on the Bible, or a variety of other methods where little or no scripture is actually being quoted.
In other words, the Gospel message can be presented in a variety of methods. I would place most Bible versions being produced today in the category of commentaries. In other words, they are not translations of what God said, but the opinion of the translator/ commentator as to what the scriptures mean. And God can use the reading of the "meaning" of scripture, if it is accurate, to lead people to Himself.
But does this then mean such a translation is proper? Or does it simply mean God can utilize anything that presents His message? In other words, if God saved someone through the reading of one of the articles on my Web site, does that then elevate the article to the level of scripture? I think not!
However, if someone is saved by the reading of one of my articles, I would immediately recommend they begin reading the Bible, and an accurate translation of it. Similarly, if someone was saved by reading say the New Living Translation (NLT) I would recommend they get themselves a "real" Bible like the New King James Version (NKJV) and begin to read it. I would view the NLT in the same category as one of my articles, an exposition of scriptural ideas, but by no means a translation of the scriptures.
> If a person is led to Christ through one of these other versions do we not accept them as Christians?<
Of course. I would not judge the method by which someone is saved, but I would be sure they accurately understood what "salvation" meant.
> I have to believe in several principles; we are human and as such we stumble and fall and there are things we will not understand until we meet Jesus Himself. I have never been a KJV only type of person only because the Lord Himself was a Jew and spoke Hebrew and not the King's English. Having traveled with a gospel quartet for several years we have visited many denominations and what I have learned from that is that we believe in the basics: virgin birth, death , burial and resurrection , and that we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ through grace of the Father.
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Tommy 6/17/1999<
To respond to the verse you quote, I am not "forbidding" people from reading non-literal Bible versions, but I am trying to help people understand the difference between literal and non-literal versions, and the importance thereof.
Many non-literal, Bible versions fail to translate thousands of words from the Hebrew and Greek texts, while adding thousands of words that have no basis in the Hebrew and Greek. What does this teach the new Christian? That God's exact words are not that important? What about verbal inspiration? Can it be upheld if the adding and omitting of thousands of words is considered proper? And what about verses like Rev 22:18,19? Are we teaching the new Christians that such verses are simply irrelevant?
My point is, the Bible is not just a sermon. God can use a sermon to bring someone to Himself. But when it comes to the Bible, it is unique; every word of it is the very word of God. It is our final authority. These basic Christian principles cannot, IMHO, be taught using most modern versions.
-From Here |