Dr. Brown talks about faulty, shortsighted thinking among many believers today, discusses principles of Bible translation, and takes your calls and answers your questions. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: In our pursuit of true, spiritual, biblical, roots we can test them by seeing what kind of creed is produced!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is so many different translations, so many ways to get in the Word! Get in the Word, read the Word, study, learn, grow, and live life!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, you can pre-order a signed and numbered copy of Dr. Brown’s new groundbreaking book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, for $30 Postage Paid! (Release Date May 6th)
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
I personally really enjoy the King James (KJV) and use it primarily in my study and regular reading. I am not a King James only’ist but I do personally find it to be the most accurate, most of the time. I really appreciate the precision of the thee’s and thou’s, ye’s and you’s, etc. It really helps to distinguish who is being addressed. The language is a bit more majestic.
I also reference the ESV as I really love the structure of the sentences, the grammar structure makes it very easy for me to grasp (though I rely less on it due to biases and complete absence of certain verses without mentioning they have been deleted (except as a footnote) where as other translations do not delete the verses but italicize them so at least you know they are there. But I still enjoy the ESV. I also look at the NASB, The complete Jewish Bible and Young’s Literal.
Those are companions to my primary, the KJV.
I’m interested in checking out the Tree of Life version Mike has been talking about.
Not sure where today’s show will go, but here is a video I came across on youtube about discernment and unbiblical thinking titled: Seducing Spirits and Doctrines Of Devils, by Dave Hunt (1926-2013).
(Pastor’s Conference, 1987. 1 hour 43 minutes)
How should we interpret Matthew 8:26?
26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
Was this a natural storm? (the result of a fallen world?) A storm sent by God? Which we then have to consider that God rebuked the storm: did He send the storm only to come against it and rebuke it? Maybe satan was trying to cut-off the Messiah, trying to defeat God by drowning the Messiah? I’m not sure if he has that capability over the winds. But it is clear that Jesus rebukes the storm. What can we learn from this concerning some natural disasters?
Perhaps that particular storm was for the benefit of the disciples, to show who Messiah is.
By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness,
O God of our salvation,
the hope of all the ends of the earth
and of the farthest seas;
6 the one who by his strength established the mountains,
being girded with might;
7 who stills the roaring of the seas,
the roaring of their waves,
the tumult of the peoples,
8 so that those who dwell at the ends of the earth are in awe at your signs.
I think for the most part, God has allowed things to go on as they will and being on this side of the fall, death, sickness and disasters will happen until the Millennium begins. Messiah will then have control over all things.
Although there will be natural death during the Millennium. It’s a puzzle of sorts.
I guess I had missed that part about the guy and his computer. He has to be just making a point that the definition of marriage as it’s being redefined should include any and all sexual appetites that people choose to claim.
I mean, that’s got to be what he’s trying to demonstrate…right? I imagine they’ll leave this line out of the ceremony; “I now pronounce you man and…and…”
I agree with people who say that these tornadoes are the result of sin.
But, I don’t blame the gays. I blame greed.
(especially coveting cheap energy, at any cost to creation)
And, last I checked, this is still a sin, judged by God.
Were you raised on the KJV? If the language makes sense to you — then that’s what really matters, IMHO. Obviously, it is one of them most linguistically beautiful translations, ever.
The main problem with the KJV is that it was translated long before the church’s huge advances in textual criticism. There are a few points, in the text, that I can’t imagine any serious scholar defending.
I assume, that most modern printings of the KJV would point these out in the footnotes.
As for me, I’m a NRSV fan. I think it has a precision and elegance that keeps me coming back. I often read the news ones, at least once, when they come out but I go to the NRSV.
I do wonder about all the different translations in English — do we really need another umpteenth one? Wouldn’t the time and money be better spend on languages that have no good translations?
Greg, I was raised on the NIV. It was the first Bible given to me by my parents and my sole Bible until I was maybe between 28-30 when I purchased my first KJV. I do love the language and preciseness of the translation.
Sheila, That could be, but what makes me pause when considering that route is the fact that Jesus rebukes it. He doesn’t just stop it, he speaks against it. I am leaning towards it being a natural storm, a result of this fallen world. Which would also tell us that not all natural disasters are punishments from above.
I don’t think natural disasters are punishments from above. Otherwise God would have judged nations many times over for gross sin. The Holocaust, the Communist takeovers, where 10’s of millions of people were killed, and many other events in history should have been judged if that were the case. I lean towards nature being out of whack too. “The whole creation groans together.”
Of course, like Greg said, we’ve no doubt added to our own grief.
Some are we have to remember. The Flood for one, other nature disasters are yet future as described in the book of Revelation.
If humans abuse the creation God gave us to care-for and that abuse triggers a “natural” disaster — isn’t that a kind of judgment? Or at least a consequence of sin?
Obviously, the NIV is one of the all-time important translations into English. Second, arguably, only to the KJV.
I used it in bible school and used it for personal devotions and in church ministry for a long time afterward.
But, honestly, I now find it a little “flat.”
I just saw Sheila’s comments to me.
Generally, I share your opinion — I don’t think natural disasters are punishment from God.
For starters — where is the evidence? Can anyone point to some place of the world which sins less and thus has fewer natural disasters?
Oklahoma, in the heart of the bible belt, gets hit all the time. Here in “pagan” Oregon, we hardly get hit at all.
Is that evidence of our righteousness? I don’t think so. It’s topography, I believe, not judgment.
Any thoughts about Alexander Jones 1966 The Jerusalem Bible?
The NIV translation of the OT (like all the recent Bible translatins) is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, found a few hundred years after the KJV was written. Why then is the KJV bible considered more reliable than all the others?
I’m not a native speaker of English, so since I started reading the Bible in English, I’ve always preferred the NIV to the KJV (mostly for the plain languange used). I own the Zondervan Study NIV Bible, which in some passages has a slightly different translation from a regular NIV translation. And I’ve found these slight differences helpful, making the text at times clearer to read.
I have not done more than peruse the Jerusalem Bible. Do you use it?
I just Google it and see that JRR Tolkien translated Jonah! I didn’t know that.
There are so many good translations into English, it’s kind of absurd.
Here are the ones that I have used regularly, more-or-less in order of how much:
New Revised Standard Version
New Intentional Version
American Standard Version
King James Bible
Good News Bible
That seems like too many!
“But, honestly, I now find it a little “flat.””
I agree Greg, and for other reasons I no longer use my NIV. I may have not been entirely clear when I said, “I do love the language and preciseness of the translation” this was in reference to the KJV, not the NIV.
I’m with you in my Bible version preferences. I read the KJV as my main Bible and the ESV, Young’s, and sometimes others for a different wording. But never the NIV. There are videos on YouTube where the NIV is burned! I’d never go that far. My copy is on the bookshelf but I’ve picked it up maybe a half dozen times, and that was only to see the errors for myself.
There’s an informative Bible version chart here:
>> I may have not been entirely clear when I said, “I do love the language and preciseness of the translation” this was in reference to the KJV, not the NIV.
You were clear on that. I was just rambling about translations.
I remember the backlash against the NIV. It was before my time but I think there was a big reaction against the RSV, as well.
It was ridiculous… some people just react against anything new.
You said “It was ridiculous…some people just react against anything new” and I will have to disagree with you. I don’t think it was ridiculous. It was warranted. The reaction wasn’t against the NIV’s newness at all but its glaring and crucial omissions, like in 1 John 4:7 omitting “the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit” (the Trinity) and Colossians 1:14 omitting “through His blood” (Satan hates the blood of Jesus). There are about 300 mutilations in the NIV.
Sorry, I meant 1 John 5:7
KJV “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”
NIV “For there are three that testify:”
KJV “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
NIV “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
Do you really believe that the backlash against the NIV was really about textual criticism?
Textual flaws are the biggest weakness of the KJV. The NIV is much stronger, in that regard.
No. It was fear of change.
Christian conservatives have a whole lot of fear in them.
I don’t hang out with “Christian conservatives” so I can’t comment on their fear level, but it was no doubt 100% about textual criticism. I’m not KJV-only, I read several versions, but I’ll flip your statement by saying textual flaws are by far the greatest weakness of the NIV, and the KJV, while not perfect, is still the best version out there. Read Keith Piper’s SERIOUS OMISSIONS IN THE NIV BIBLE and check out Westcott and Hort’s Magic Marker Binge charts:
“Christian conservatives have a whole lot of fear in them.”
It is actually that liberal Christians have very little fear of YHWH in them that is the problem. They can accept any translation because the scripture is not their final authority for what they believe.
Comments are closed.