Another one on NC .. the KJV

[New_Adventurer]

Why is a book necessary for salvation?
What if the person cannot read?

[Jim]

Why is a book necessary for salvation?
What if the person cannot read?

I think you are right. The message contained in scripture, the truth contained in scripture, not the book, is what is necessary. We know that word is true because of scripture, BUT we know that scripture is true because of the Spirit, who still speaks to people.

[Petros]

Of course scripture - writing - is not essential for salvation. In the temporal and spatial totality of humanity, literacy is rare, often restricted, and even in supposedly literate societies many do not read much more than stop signs and price tags. As communication, reading is a limping substitute for real talk - which is not THAT perfect as communication in any case.

But God built into our hard and software human language, which is structured to work on certain areas of our brain. About as primitive as Fortran - but the right programmer can do quite a lot with Fortran. And one thing we know about human language - the invention of written records made a change inthe cultures that had it. Instead of relying on traditions passed parent to child, elder to disciple, it became possible to pick up a book and find out what Aristotle or Jefferson thought and knew. There have been fairly advanced illiterate civilizations - but space shuttles and the PDF and serious history - which we are not doomed to repeat though too often we choose to - don't seem to happen without a certain level of literacy.

Hence the scriptures, which almost anyone in the world can consult with yellow highlights from the Spirit. A reference to check and the solid basis for leaps forward. And which the Spirit can spotlight to save a person who reads a verse witgh understanding for the first time,

[bn2bnude]

The Apostle Paul admonished the Bareans for testing everything he said against the Scriptures.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

I don't think admonished is the word you want..

The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).

I'd like to challenge this a bit...

Unlike Luther, we tend to use the 3 (or 5) sola's in a vacuum without context. For instance, I don't think "Sola Scriptura" was as much about the Bible and it attributes as it was a commentary on the state of the church at that point in time. For example, from what I've read, the concern Luther had was people honoring traditions that were contrary to Scripture.

I believe the same context discussion could or should be considered when using any of the others.

[Ramblinman]

Apostolic Succession is a doctrine that I believe, but not so literally that I obey a priest, bishop or pope who teaches false doctrine.
Our Roman Catholic friends will insist that even the apostate popes never spoke heresy when exercising magisterial authority.
That claim seems to fall short in my estimation.
BUT, if we broaden the concept of Apostolic Succession such that the church fathers had the duty to preserve the gospel, but did not individually proclaim it with perfection in every instance.
And that includes a few regrettable papal statements "ex cathedra".
THEN, if we choose this broader meaning of apostolic succession, we can acknowledge the ongoing role of the Church in the chain of succession of the message, without trying to hammer the occasional square peg into the round hole.
God can and did preserve his Church through the ages, even though individual popes did not.

On the other hand, we have seen what happens when private interpretation of the gospel is taken to extreme: heresy.
The Church must be involved. (and I don't mean to dismiss the other vehicles for the message: nature, inner revelation, scripture, etc) as long as these extra-biblical revelations do not contradict the scripture). At this juncture, it seems clear that the role of the Holy Spirit is NOT to reveal new doctrine, but to clarify existing truth in the language of our day or to give us wisdom in applying the Truth to our unique circumstances.

[jay_p]

Thank you.
I think that is the key point. The Holy Spirit DOES Illuminate things and in the absence of the copies of God's word (whatever language you speak) reveal truths, These revelations will not contradict the Word. They will not supersede the Word and replace it with New Revelation.

[natman]

The Apostle Paul admonished the Bareans for testing everything he said against the Scriptures.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

I don't think admonished is the word you want..

Yes. I should have said "extolled". (Thanks).

The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).

I'd like to challenge this a bit...

Unlike Luther, we tend to use the 3 (or 5) sola's in a vacuum without context. For instance, I don't think "Sola Scriptura" was as much about the Bible and it attributes as it was a commentary on the state of the church at that point in time. For example, from what I've read, the concern Luther had was people honoring traditions that were contrary to Scripture.

I believe the same context discussion could or should be considered when using any of the others.

??? I think we are saying the same thing or something similar.

I think that Luther was as concerned about church leaders elevating ANY tradition not explicitly defined in Scripture above Scripture itself, the same thing that the Pharisees had done. These were some of the same issues that Paul dealt with in the early church Judaizers who insisted that in order to be a Christian, one had to first become a Jew through physical circumcision.

...Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).

Natman, please help me to understand.

If it is true that grace, faith, and Christ alone can be experienced through natural creation, why would God bother revealing Himself through prophets, revealing His righteousness, our incapacity for it and His grace through Torah; revealing Himself in the Word made flesh, revealing atonement, resurrection and eternal life through Jesus' work? Why would Jesus tell us to spread this message to all the world if the gospel is able to be completely experienced through creation?

If only natural creation is capable of revealing all of this to a suitable extent, Scripture and all that was involved in bringing it to us is redundant at best.

CO, in part, the Scriptures ARE redundant. However, God, in His infinite wisdom provided a MORE EFFECITVE way of communicating and AFFIRMING His attributes that are also displayed in creation.

As a "Calvinist" who believes that God has already chosen those whom will receive His grace and election, I am often asked, "If God has already chosen, why do you evangelize?". The patent answer is, "Because God tells us to." He has already worked out who will hear the Word and come to Him.

[jdb]

Afternoon all.... I haven't read up on all this and kinda think its useless for the most part. But here's my thoughts and testimony.

For some words I go to the KJV, naked, fornication and a few others I cant think of at the moment. I use the NKJV since I feel it is a little easier to understand. I used to have a list of words from the KJV that we have no idea what they mean, I image they are out there somewhere if you want to chase them down. And the context doesn't help.
I had gone to the Medina County Fair in Hondo, Texas with a display that said, Three Things God cannot do. Door one, God cannot change, Two, God cannot lie. Three, God cannot let you into heaven unless you're born again. (That's my belief and we'll know the answer after death) So I went to get a burger and a lady said she was an Independent Baptist so I asked, So what sets and Independent Baptist apart from other Baptist? She said, We use the KJV only, not like you Southern Baptist. Get the picture, I was trying to share the gospel, she was just having an outing with her kids. I couldn't understand the animosity toward what I was doing. I guess if you hear the gospel from the wrong version or translation, you aren't going to make it into the pearly gates?? Got me.

Here it is... Salvation is Free but not cheap. The privilege of having the scripture was not cheap, men gave their lives so we could have it.
Hebrew was the language of the OT, Greece was a world power, we had the Greek NT. God saw fit the world could have the scriptures to read and study, English and English was the world's language. Free to us. Every translation and version is copyrighted. Ask google...
Every translation but the KJV. For ever I guess the Gideon's International has been printing the KJV without copyright restrictions, And giving them away FREE !! Yes it's free but some business man has helped take care of the cost of paper and printing. The KJV is my go to scripture but if the News Paper version will help someone know Jesus.... Praise God.

John

[bn2bnude]

The principle of Sola-Scriptura does not indicate that the Scriptures are the ONLY means to salvation. It merely asserts that everything must be examined in light if Scripture and Scripture alone, rather than any traditions or works of mankind. However, Scripture points to the other "solas", Sola-Gratia (Grace alone), Sola-Fide (Faith alone) in Solus-Christo (in Christ alone) for Soli-Deo-Gloria (for the glory of God alone), all of which can be experienced in the absence of Scripture, through God's natural creation (again, according to Scripture itself).

I'd like to challenge this a bit...

Unlike Luther, we tend to use the 3 (or 5) sola's in a vacuum without context. For instance, I don't think "Sola Scriptura" was as much about the Bible and it attributes as it was a commentary on the state of the church at that point in time. For example, from what I've read, the concern Luther had was people honoring traditions that were contrary to Scripture.

I believe the same context discussion could or should be considered when using any of the others.

??? I think we are saying the same thing or something similar.

I think that Luther was as concerned about church leaders elevating ANY tradition not explicitly defined in Scripture above Scripture itself, the same thing that the Pharisees had done. These were some of the same issues that Paul dealt with in the early church Judaizers who insisted that in order to be a Christian, one had to first become a Jew through physical circumcision.

Could be.

[Ramblinman]

I really like the idea of an open source Bible, and I read KJV for my own use, but I probably would NOT preach from it.

It is said to be the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, but authorized by whom?
It was translated by a committee that compromised many times over with a power-hungry king and with a majority on that committee having a Church of England bias. Not good!

Could a new committee of evangelicals give us a translation for our day?
I don't think the New King James Bible goes far enough.
Let's go back to the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew source materials armed with the additional manuscripts available to us and with the additional insight into the Koine and Classical Hebrew.
English has changed quite a bit in 406 years.

I realize that translators deserve to be paid for their work, so maybe give royalties to them without prohibiting the free publication of the Bible in that version.
We need an open-source Bible again!

[Jim]

I really like the idea of an open source Bible, and I read KJV for my own use, but I probably would NOT preach from it.

It is said to be the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, but authorized by whom?
It was translated by a committee that compromised many times over with a power-hungry king and with a majority on that committee having a Church of England bias. Not good!

Good point. Many take "Authorized Version" to mean more than just King James I authorized the translation.

Could a new committee of evangelicals give us a translation for our day?
...
We need an open-source Bible again!

See the Open English Bible http://openenglishbible.org/ for one attempt.

[bn2bnude]

I really like the idea of an open source Bible, and I read KJV for my own use, but I probably would NOT preach from it.

It is said to be the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, but authorized by whom?
It was translated by a committee that compromised many times over with a power-hungry king and with a majority on that committee having a Church of England bias. Not good!

Could a new committee of evangelicals give us a translation for our day?
I don't think the New King James Bible goes far enough.
Let's go back to the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew source materials armed with the additional manuscripts available to us and with the additional insight into the Koine and Classical Hebrew.
English has changed quite a bit in 406 years.

I realize that translators deserve to be paid for their work, so maybe give royalties to them without prohibiting the free publication of the Bible in that version.
We need an open-source Bible again!

Have I got the Bible for you... From Bible Gateway:

The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible. That means that you may freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. The World English Bible is based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament. It is in draft form, and currently being edited for accuracy and readability.

I've met the guy who worked on this. He also posts other public domain bible versions in other languages out to a website for people world wide to use.

[c.o.]

Have I got the Bible for you...

By any chance do you have a vacuum cleaner, aluminum siding, something that slices and dices, or a used car to sell?

[jay_p]

Have I got the Bible for you...

By any chance do you have a vacuum cleaner, aluminum siding, something that slices and dices, or a used car to sell?

I do have a Bridge
slightly used

https://photos.app.goo.gl/kCzoZwteRwIt5AbF2

[bn2bnude]

Glad you're having a bit of fun... To get serious and to explain why I have so much respect for the WEB..

This link has access to all the various published open source translations http://ebible.org...

The FAQ shows the heart of the group doing the translation.