Posted on 04/01/2017 8:06:19 AM PDT by WhatNot
Does God's word honor people who are poor and condemn people who are rich? We know God denounces greed, oppression, selfishness, thievery, and not being charitable. But these things are attributes of morality, not issues of excess. There are rich individuals in the Old Testament, who God doesn't chastise for being well off. For example, God didn't condemn wealthy men like Job and Abraham, He honored them. Even with all they went through, those two Old Testament figures treated others according to what was morally right, and that's what God cares about.
Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Romans 12:18
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
But, what about the rich young ruler?
Luke 18:18-24
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
To help us understand the meaning of this account, let's look at what the rich young ruler actually asked Jesus. He didn't ask Jesus, "What shall we all do to inherit eternal life?" he asked, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life." His question was directed at himself, and Jesus being God knew this man's heart. This is why he was sorrowful when he heard Jesus' answer,"sell all that thou hast." His possessions were his god, and that fact meant he wasn't as righteous as he thought.
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Jesus never commanded that everyone who wanted to follow Him, had to sell everything in order to do so. He certainly never gave that command to the women of substance, who ministered unto Him.
Luke 8:3
And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
While being wealthy can bring the temptation of ceasing to recognize our total dependence and need for God, (which is very dangerous), anyone can escape temptation with God's power.
1 Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Proverbs 11:28
He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.
If you want on or off the ping list, please freep mail me, and have a great weekend.
I highly recommend the following video on a very thorough presentation on the history of the bible by Chuck Missler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsZLDWWZMs
Skip to 1:40 for a list of the topics he covers, including the origins of all the translations we are familiar with.
After watching this video, I’m confident you will understand WHY the King James bible is the most reliable.
"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather than silver and gold" (Prov. 22:1 AV).
Think of the reputation gained forever by the little old widow, who gave the Lord's ministry the last of her worldly riches, two mites:
"And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury
hath cast in all the living that she had" (Lk. 21:1-4 AV; cf Mk. 12:41-44).
No doubt the Lord Jesus saw to her needs that day, and gave her a place in the eternal rolls of the Book of Life.
So I feel a bit guilty, looking at that, because I've been up against it lately, and on the last Lord's Day I felt that I could not give in to the offering. Yet just yesterday, my loving daughter saw it fit to help sustain me financially. I need to trust the Lord more, even if it was only my last penny, or quarter, or dollar.
"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again" (Prov. 19:17 AV).
May the Lord bless my daughter richly, as I am blessed in her.
Thanks for link, watching it now.
Acts
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
The early Church members seems to be made up of those who sold their possessions and gave the proceedings to the Apostles.
If this rich young ruler would have sold all he had and gave to the poor he would have showed more faith than i would believe any one had.
But this man was obviously not a believer at that time, no more than any one else but that does not mean he could not become a believer.
He obviously had no way of knowing that Jesus was the very God.
Can you imagine the suffering he went through if he ever found out? and i have no doubt he would remember Jesus`s words to him.
WHY the King James bible is the most reliable.
= = =
No fighting intended, folks, just my experience.
Comparing the KJV with the Greek, as best I can, I find the KJV is accurate.
(Now we have a discussion about various ‘texts’, etc. which is second level effects in my perspective. Don’t use a few ‘questionable’ texts to undermine the plain Truth of The Word.)
Some of the English word meanings have changed since KJV days, and some phrasing is difficult, but that is for the reader to diligently persue. The Holy Spirit WILL help you here.
That all said, I am using the New KJV for daily reading. Minor adjustments for modern word meanings. The Poetic flow is still there. And the Holy Spirit still helps.
Remember God wants His Word out there. Folks who read most any version while seeking God WILL find him (God is not really hiding, we are). God then takes care of the details of the Believer’s growth.
Balaam’s talking ass will get the message across if it is really necessary.
The ABSOLUTE BEST VERSION of the Bible is the one you read.
Plenty of rich, righteous men in the Bible. Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, David and Solomon are just a few examples that come to mind. Money is a tool and can be used for good or evil.
Unless it's The Message :-)
>>> That all said, I am using the New KJV for daily reading.
The NKJV is one of the modern translations, and is NOT an improvement over the KJV. (many scriptures deleted)
It draws from the same manuscripts as the NIV and other modern translations.
(many scriptures deleted)
Do you have a list of them? Or a link? I am interested.
I do look at the asterisks which give some of these alternative texts.
>>> Do you have a list of them? Or a link? I am interested.
Chuck gets into it in the video I linked in my first post.
However, I think i have a list somewhere... more later.
>>> Do you have a list of them? Or a link? I am interested.
Ok... Lots of videos out there on this...
Just do a youtube search on bible translations missing verses
This is first one that pops up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifn9QfX3RPE
Skip to :55 to see the list.
(1) By removing the correct way to differentiate between second person singular and second person plural through keeping thee/thou/thy/thine versus ye/you/your, the reader cannot now develop a correct understanding of proper application. For instance, in Rev. 2:4 "thou hast left thy first love" is a reproach addressed to the "angel"--a principal leader--of the church, not to the church as a whole; although all the letters were circulated among the churches. The NKJV reader is going to wrongly assume that the church as a whole is the enitity being evaluated.
(2) When the AV/KJV translators felt that a "helper" word was needed for clarifying the sense of the passage, it was italicized. Thus they alerted the reader that this italicized portion was added, and not in the original text. In contrast, the NKJV freely adds or eliminates words thus making the volume an interpretation of the reviser, not limiting itself to being a faithful translation.
While the NKJV might be considered "easier to read," that quality does not make it a better document to guide the reader. In fact, one way or another, it will lead the Bible student astray. To think otherwise is foolish. And though the basis is nominally the Textus Receptus, a Byzantine/Majority textform (and NOT the Alexandrian Critical/Eclectic text), the typical full NKJV has marginal notes that argue against its genuineness, a deep flaw that diminishes the trust of the reader.
These sly detractors make the NKJV a poorer study Bible than the traditional version, IMHO.
I'm glad you brought this up, so that it can be supported by others. As your ROE state, this group is for KJV-lovers, not a place to try to supplant it or detract from it with some different version, even the "NKJV," which is not really a sequel to the KJV, but instead repeats some of the errors that "trying to make it easier to read" introduces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the first major book printed in the West using movable type. It marked the start of the “Gutenberg Revolution” and the age of the printed book in the West. Widely praised for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities,[1] the book has an iconic status. Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, in present-day Germany, in the 1450s.
No, this is not correct. The choice of the underlying extus Receptus of the NKJV was by its chief editor, Arthur Farstad, who is a proponent of the Byzanitne/Majority Textform. Farstad and Zane Hodges have in print their own Greek text that is NOT of the man-made (and to me, corrupted) Alexandrinian Critical Text that all other modern English versions are based on.
In fact, that Farstad chose the Textus Receptus (= Received, or Traditional, Text) from which the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Crown-Authorized Bible (KJV) were translated, is the only real claim to be titled "New King James Version." Otherwise, Farstad's supervision of translation led to generally following the KJV's phrasing. The idea seems to be to trade on the good will and good press for attaining such a demand as to justify printing it and make it a profitable venture. But drawing from the same manuscripts as the NIV--it does not.
But the KJV was added to and had Bible verses AND BOOKS taken out of it by Luther.
False, and in three ways:
(1) The underlying Greek was the Byzantine/Majority textform compiled by the Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus, chosen because it was predominate in the Eastern churches.
(2) The Alexandrinian NT textform used by Jerome's Vulgate was missing parts that were present in the majority of older Greek texts.
(3) Jerome's Vulgate NT had additions not present in the Byzantine, but which Erasmus felt compelled to retranslate back form the Vulgate and insert in order to get his Greek text published.
(4) Otherwise, Jerome rejected the Septuagint as a reliable text for the OT, and clung to the same text as standardized later on by the Masoretes, and used for the KJV.
(5) Up until the time Westcott and Hort's Greek text came out, the KJV was published with the deuterocanonical uninspired books; but economics in printing with competing modern versions necessitated eliminating these uninspired, non-doctrinal apocryphal books in later editions of the KJV.
(6) Luther was a German, and translated a German Bible. That had little or no impact on the form or content of the English Bible of a century later. One does not know why you even brought him into the KJV discussion as a negative factor.
The first complete Bible was the Vulgare compiled by St. Jerome.
Duh. The Vulgate is an uninspired translation of the already-known Greek NT Canon and the well-standardized Hebrew OT Canon. Jerome rejected the LXX as his source document for the OT. The Vulgate is in Latin. How could a translation precede the Canon of its source documents? At least the Codex Sinaiticus (containing both OT and NT in uncial Greek) preceded Jerome's work.
And the first Bible printed by Gutenberg Press was the Catholic Vulgate.
So what? this discussion in this group is about the KJV, not about some uninspired Latin version.
? Check it out on Wikipedia.
Physician, first heal thyself. The above assumptions show that you need more work in this area to make any claims, but the relationships to the Vulgate or non-doctrinal books will probably be unwelcome, eh?
Be aware, the desired topic was about the rich and the poor as found in the KJV, not a matter of textual criticism.
Doggone, this topic is not about Gutenberg or the Vulgate. Keep your thoughts on this for some other venue. How about some nice comments promoting and using the fine KJV as your spiritual guide? Quit entering distracting novelties that have no bearing on the intent of this discussion. Did you not read the title of this thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.