Adventist Online

does anyone know if there are any transcripts of veiths talks? i dont want to listen to any of the talks, and i dont particularly want to read what he has to say either, but i do need it for research. :)

Views: 17748

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Guys, grace and peace.

 

I think there is a great difference between "interpreters mistakes" in translation, of which the KJV has its share, and "intentional errors" with an agenda to mislead and deceive, such as are in abundance in, for example, the NIV. Would you not agree?

 

Blessings, Scott.

The KJV only crowd are not correct. See the often linked in this thread article from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Bibilcal Research Institute for all the reasons.

 

The KJV is my favorite version. But a KJV only stance is not correct.  Stewarts post did support the position that the KJV only crowd are not correct.  I did not find that misleading.  He and Matt have given lots of SOP and historical quotes that support this position.

 

God bless

Vincenzo, grace and peace.

 

Instead of just assuming things, like for example that one, some or any of us belong to "the KJV only crowd", which you arrogantly do, why don't you try entering into a DIALOG, and try responding to something that somebody ACTUALLY said, like for example...

 

I think there is a great difference between "interpreters mistakes" in translation, of which the KJV has its share, and "intentional errors" with an agenda to mislead and deceive, such as are in abundance in, for example, the NIV. Would you not agree?

 

Now, just for your information, Dr Veith, as far as I can tell, has not taken a KJV only stand. I beleive he has said that it is the best and most reliable English translation. This, in NO WAY, contradicts SOP. If however you are keen to read historical facts about our Bible then please read "THE BATTLE OF THE BIBLES" by Vance Farrell. You can google it, it is readily available to read online and free to download as a pdf file. That way, you are informed and can take an EDUCATED stance in the subject about Bible versions.

 

What was this thread about again........

 

Blessings and a very happy Sabbath, Scott.

Scott,

I assumed nothing.  Nothing I said was arrogant nor intended to be so.  If you would read the passage from Irish that I was responding to, you will see that she/he used the phrase "the KJV only crowd".  I used it in my response because of that.  I made no assumptions as to who was a part of that group.  I was not responding to you (you can figure this out by the way my response is indented below Irish's and not yours).  But you disparage me personally anyway.  (This seems to be a common tactic for those who cannot answer the questions I ask.)

 

I have read "The King James Bible and the Modern Versions" by Vance Farrell.  I have not read "THE BATTLE OF THE BIBLES" nor can I find any book or article by that name by Vance Farrell (does it exist?).  Farrell's book that I read has not changed me into  "KJV ONLY" or even a "KJV BEST" believer.  It has illuminated issues with many versions as have other books and articles I have read on the subject.  Farrell's book deals with those who discredit the KJV.  I am not among those - it is my favorite translation.  But other translations are also useful and inspired.

 

I don't read the original languages but I know people on this board that do.  I trust in analysis by those scholars that do.  My studies have not shown that we should favor the KJV or the textus receptus.  We should be aware of various challenges in many different translations.  As for KJV / textus receptus only (or whatever you want to call the position Dr. Veith has taken), the SDA church, through the Biblical Research Institute has responded very clearly to Dr. Veith's position.  (See "The Textus Receptus and Modern Bible Translations" beginning on page 6 of BRI newsletter.)  Which part of their article do you not agree with?  It is clear from this article that Dr. Veith's position does contradict our denominational position on this issue.  Dr. Veith's position contradicts EGW's behavior of using various translations as well.

 

I will continue to study this issue but rest assured by Ellen G. Whites statement (emphasis mine):

"Some look to us gravely and say, "Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God’s utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth." [1SM 16.2]

 

Based on this, I know that the true gospel of Jesus Christ can be presented from any Bible translation.

God bless.

Vincenco, grace and peace.

 

Firstly, my most humble apologies. You are correct about  "The King James Bible and the Modern Versions" by Vance Farrell.

The book "Battle of the Bibles" was written by H.H. Meyers. Here is the link.

 

http://www.temcat.com/04-Bible-versions/Bible-Battle/BibleBattleTOC...

 

I am sorry if I have caused any confusion. I think booth books are valuable and recommend them to all.

 

Secondly, again I apologize for misunderstanding you with regard to "KJV only crowd", I can see how you were replying to Irishtiger.

I retract "arrogantly" .

However, I have made an effort to answer your questions regarding Dr Veith, even twice sofar in this thread. I have also asked a question regarding the NIV. Both of these questions remain unanswered.

I pray you accept my sincere apologies, and that we can resume our dialog.

 

Blessings, Scott.

 

 

 

Scott,

This large discussion about the NIV should answer some of your questions:

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/the-niv-attacks-ellen-w...

I write about my beliefs regarding the NIV (and other translations) in that thread extensively.

 

You asked:

"I think there is a great difference between "interpreters mistakes" in translation, of which the KJV has its share, and "intentional errors" with an agenda to mislead and deceive, such as are in abundance in, for example, the NIV. Would you not agree?"

 

Yes, I agree that interpreters mistakes are a far lesser evil than intentional errors.  I just disagree with you on what to do with the knowledge of those errors.  You suggest (I think) in the case of the NIV, rejecting the whole translation.  I do not.  I suggest KNOWING what the problems are and studying many varying translations.  Only then will you have the whole picture.

 

The problem with your solution of rejecting a certain translation is that it would cause you to reject the KJV!  The biggest "intentional error" (an attempt by the translator to bolster the opinion and beliefs of the translator) is in the King James Version:  1 John 5:7-8  (Adventists don't object to this "intentional error" in the KJV because we agree with the translators opinions of what the meaning 'should' be.  We only object when the "intentional errors" don't agree with us.  :-)

 

I don't want you to throw away the KJV.  It's too wonderful and my favorite translation!  But I do suggest that we study so that we know the problems in any one version... then read the Bible all the time!  Be prepared to study with others in ANY version.  Knowing many versions will help us know the true word of God and help us overcome the weaknesses of any one version, KJV included.

 

As Ellen White said regarding translations:

"All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth." [1SM 16.2]

Well stated, Vincenzo.

If the people at the first SDA church I attended were of the KJV only crowd, I wonder where I would be today.  At the time I had a KJV (and I still do), but I was not very comfortable with it.  I was using a modern translation that I had been using for years.  With time and repetition (for want of a better word), I became more comfortable with the KJV.  I have many different translations in my library.  I can easily use 3 or 4 when doing a study to get the best feel for what the passage means.  So, thank you, Vincenzo for your comments.  I totally agree.

 

I think if my 9 year old can do ok with a NKJV that is good enough, because it is still from the received text. So in answer to that question I would have to say you would have been fine with the KJV only crowd, because all they (my self included) are mainly concerned with is that it is from the received text and not the Alexandrian scrolls.
The NKJV is a great translation, but it was not available back then.  At that time, I was using an NIV exclusively.

When was that?

 

Oh, also since we are talking about Vieth on this thread he said him self that he first came to the Lord with an NIV, but still thinks if possible we should have the better version.

Honest question:  Does it really matter that everyone does or does not believe the teachings of Walter Veith or ANY speaker? I am not understanding the "GroupThink" mindset at all.  Bottom line:  If it helps you (individually) in your walk with Christ listen to it, receive it....If you find that it is in error with what the Holy Spirit tells you (individually), leave it alone and "shake the dust" on it.  Everyone does not have to agree with either or any side!  This is not a salvation issue, nor is it a "heaven or hell" issue.  It is simply a matter of personal conviction and preferences, based upon one's individual research.  

 

If both sides would stop trying to make this personal issue of one man's ministry a denominational issue of endorsement, there would not be a problem.  The General Conference has not taken a position on it so it is strictly a matter of personal preference and relatability.  Agree to disagree as Christians, in Jesus' Name, and stop (both sides) trying to convince the other of something that apparently is not going to change either mind. 

 

Since this discussion has continued, there have been earthquakes, floods, deaths, rapes, murders, missing children, but one man (who most do not know and may never meet) has been the focus of this debate.  It is time to agree to disagree and as scripture states: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind". (Romans 14:5b).

 

 

 

 

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service