You be the judge.
May I encourage you to be a Berean today. Examine its claims with the Word of God and then let me know your thoughts. And be forewarned: the way Mark refers to the Lord Jesus Christ is blasphemous; the way he wrests Scripture is unnerving; and the way he views the text of Song of Solomon is pornographic.
Well the Song of Solomon is basically talking about a married life between Solomon and his bride. The Song talks about their sex life. I also personally believe it tells us what kind of acts they were doing. John MacArthur does not believe that we can know what sexual acts they were doing. John MacArthur thinks that Mark Driscoll “raped the Song of Songs” read more here http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/sound-doctrine/the-rape-of-solomons-song-continued
I think Mark Driscoll may have gotten carried away with it when he did a sermon series but I do think Mark Driscoll did a pretty good job of interpreting the Song of Songs.
There are some out in this world that still want to believe what Heretics like St. Augustine said about the Songs of Solomon than what the scriptures actually says.
Here is the sermon series by Mark Driscoll on the song of Solomon http://peasantprincess.com/
What do u think about Mark Driscoll?
I really do not know much about Mark Driscoll. I only posted this because Steve Camp said that he was being blasphemous. All I said was “you be the judge”
John MacArthur had this to say about it.
”It’s frankly hard to think of a more appalling misuse of Scripture than turning the Song of Solomon into soft porn. When people can no longer read that portion of Scripture without pornographic imagery entering their minds, the beauty of the book has been corrupted, its description of righteous love perverted, and its role in sanctifying and elevating the marriage relationship deflected. That preachers would do this in public worship services is unconscionable.”
The video has been removed, so I didn’t get to see it, but after just reading what John MacArthur had to say about it in the quote above, I’m glad I didn’t get to see the video.
I’m not even going to read anymore than the opening paragraph by John MacArthur as even that will reveal too much. I would rather keep my mind unpolluted when I read Song of Songs.
I never seen the clip myself since I cannot download videos due to my bandwidth. I believed what Steve Camp said but did could not make a judgment myself so I said “you be the judge”.
Perhaps the video was pulled because Mark received the criticism and admitted that he never should have taught it. We can pray that this is what happened. He has admitted error in the past and that is good. John MacArthur has excellent discernment on biblical issues and I have no reason not to believe him. I hope that Mark will use his great Mars Hill platform to be a beacon of truth.
I agree with u about John MacArthur. He might be right and I being wrong. I am glad he is one of those that treat Scripture carefully and not twist Scriptures as many do today.
Now the KJV Cult on the other hand think that John MacArthur is a heretic http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-gods_blood.htm.
I know the KJV Onlyists think that themselves are right and those who disagree with them are heretics.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but is John MacArthur saying that Paul was wrong?
I am failing to see the reasoning for that question or who it is addressed to. All I can tell from what was said on this post is that John MacArthur thinks Mark Driscoll’s teaching on the Song of Song’s is wrong
It was addressed to anyone, who has read the article from the link that Justin posted.
”Paul believed so strongly in the unity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that he could speak of Christ’s death as shedding the blood of God – who has no body and hence no blood (The MacArthur Study Bible, note on Acts 20:28).”
John MacArthur does not deny the real union of the divine and human natures in Christ. Now you see what legalistic groups do. They like to read into want other teachers say to make them look like heretics when they themselves are the heretics. They strain to find gnats in others and swallow camels themselves. So why do you think they attempted to make John MacArthur look like a heretic here? Maybe because John MacAuther teaches against KJV only nonsense?
I’ve just been listening to John MacArthur for myself and reading what he has to say about the Lord Jesus Christ and he is a saved man, who knows that Jesus Christ is God.
I guess I didn’t need to ask the question, as I’ve just found out for myself. Thank you for your answer anyway.
I have listened to and read John MacArthur’s teaching for decades. It is my opinion is that John MacAuthur is one of the best teachers on earth today. By the way all heretics hate John MacAuthur because he does such a good job exposing them by using the scriptures.
THe KJV is heretical, king James didn’t have the right to authorize any Bible, only God has that right! He only used the KJV to his own glory instead of God’s ! We should use only Young’s Literal Translation! 😆
I read the KJV and will continue to as it is the best translation, but I’m not going to call people just because they use a different version. To say a person isn’t a Christian because they use a different version to me would be very wrong. It’s not a version of the Bible that saves a person, it’s the Lord Jesus Christ.
I was saved by hearing that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I didn’t even know the Scriptures. As far as I had ever got in the Bible was, ”In the beginning.” I just believed that Christ died for me a sinner and if I died without him, I was going to hell.
I was watching a video on youtube with John MacArthur talking to these priests and vicars and so on. I was really enjoying the way he was telling these men where they were going wrong and one of them asked him a question and the video ended, I would have really liked to see the whole thing.
You can find plenty of John MacArthurs teaching on the Internet. Here is link to his website
http://www.gty.org/
He has regular radio broadcasts and archives.
What is the best Bible translation is debatable. I like the New King James myself for casual reading because it is easier reading for English speaking people of today and many of the obvious minor errors of the KJV were resolved. On the other hand, the advantage of the KJV for a serious student is that a powerful tool like the strong’s concordance is available to look up all words in Greek and Hebrew. Of course those who studied and learned from the King James have much of that in their memory and are not as comfortable with other versions. The best translation is always the one you learn. Parallel Bibles give you several different translations of the same passage and I think that often helps in understanding. Remember there is no perfect translations but all good translations are totally reliable for what we need to know in faith and practice.
In any case, always read the foot and center notes if your Bible has them. Because there are alternate meanings on some words and differences in the major manuscripts. Do not read a paraphrase “Bible” unless you want someone’s opinion on what the Bible says instead of a real translation. Avoid “The Message” it is not a good paraphrase and often twists the meanings of certain passages.
That was a joke just to laugh at the ridiculous arguments used by people to dictate the use of one particular translation. I actually do read and like the KJV although I use the NKJV most often these days. And yes, I confess I sometimes check Young’s Literal Translation too. In fact I read the Bible in several languages and I read the more literal ones almost exclusively.
You did not have me fooled. I knew what you said was a rotten yoke. 😕
Reading the Bible in different language translations when you are multi lingual is very educational. My wife has a parallel Bible with Spanish and English she claims it helps in understanding.
I like the New King James Version. To me it is easier to read. The modern versions uses a bad text and what makes it worse is that they use “dynamic equivalence” when translating it. I have never read Young’s Literal Translation. Is the translation a good one?
nasrani, I knew you were joking too!
Every ”error” in the KJV that I’ve ever come across has always been expained, leaving it as no error at all, but that’s another debate and I don’t want to get into anymore arguments on here.
I love the KJV and my Bible has a dictionary in the back that explains the meanings of words that have changed meaning over the years. Goodnight, Rachel.
You might not want a argument but when you make false statements like the KJV has no errors at all you are starting one. It has errors and they have been well documented. Explaining errors in a translation does not make the translation error free. All translations from one language to another have errors unless you are saying God re-inspired the Bible to this appointed committee in the days of King James. Why then did they consult the different manuscripts for their interpretation and vote on the translation of questionable words and passages?
Even the Masoritc Text (used in the King James) in the Hebrew language has minor differences from much earlier Hebrew language Dead Sea Scrolls.
Gee, why didn’t God directly inspire all language translations why just old English King James?
If you believe in King James inerrancy you have bought into a totally ridiculous concept. There is no inerrant copy of God’s word because we do not have the original autographs and even if we did we would still have to have them translated. Only a committee of fools would say they could translate the whole Bible from one language to another without any error.
Read these links.
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/jrrice_some_questions_for_%20king_james_fans.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/KJV.htm
Yes, exactly. KJV overall is great but with translations there’s always some chance of errors or loss of the original meaning. That’s why it’s best to not rely solely on one translation.
Young’s Literal Translation is precisely what it says it is – a very literal word-for-word translation. It’s not easy to read when you’re not used to it because it is like reading the original Hebrew or Greek but with English words substituted for the original ones. Useful for comparing and if you don’t know Hebrew or Greek but want something that’s really close to the original text.
Being able to read the Bible in several languages is definitely helpful but of course you have to know the foreign languages well enough because there are many subtleties in languages where words or expressions may be quite different from their equivalent in your own language due to cultural differences, for instance. I can’t give a precise example but the whole discussion about the dual nature of Jesus in the Church (some Eastern Catholic churches reject Jesus’ dual divine and human nature) is said to be the result of semantics more than anything else. Language may have an influence on one’s worldview. Some say it determines your worlview but I wouldn’t go as far as saying that. In any case, language is a powerful tool and one that can also be easily manipulated.
Justin, I think Young’s never caught on because it is a word for word translation and strict word for word translations to another language become almost unreadable. The Best versions try to bridge the gap between word for word and and thought for thought but that is very difficult to do and it is also one reason why one Bible translation is quite a bit different different from another translation. The NIV is a good thought for thought translation but that means that certain words in the passage were not literally translated and even changed.
Now I just seen that Nasrani stole my thunder on Young’s a few minutes ago but it is good to see he is on the same page.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/young.html
Sorry, it’s not the Oriental Catholic denominations but the Oriental Orthodox churches rather, e.g. the Copts. The debate is about christology. Look up monophysitism, miaphisitism, etc. All these different “eastern” and “oriental” and “orthodox” labels get rather confusing at times.
That’s a surprise, starting an argument with you isn’t hard.
I’ve studied the so called errors of the KJV for some years now and so far, have found them to be no error at all. The KJV is the most attacked version of the Bible and I know why, it’s the one that satan hates.
Seeing as you, as usual want to argue with me, the Niv is probably the worst of the worst. I won’t go into all the details as to why , as you can easily find this information out for yourself.
I am not going to say that the KJV contains no errors, but I haven’t found any yet.
Many other translations take away from the word of God and change word’s, which change meanings and take away the deity of Jesus Christ.
The KJV is faithful to my Lord and untill proven otherwise, is staying the version I read.
Rachel you are always wrong, argumentative, contrary, and totally unteachable so either find maturity or go post somewhere else. Read my comment policy near the top of my sidebar before you make another post.
Your concepts on Bible translations is just as narrow minded as your comments on “once saved always saved” I know the stupid arguments that come from King James worshipers but they have little validity and I am not going down another rabbit trail argument here with you.
To say the NIV takes away the deity of Jesus Christ frankly is bull shit. Hope that apt description does not hurt your narrow sensitive ears. Also, the NIV is not the worst of the worst translations. How would you even know! The NIV is a very good thought for thought translation. I prefer more literal translations myself but to say the NIV is the worst of the worst tells me that you are legalistic.
I am just fed up with legalism and those who make comments as if they know something when everything they say proves that they never leaned anything! You told me you wasted your school years. I think you are still doing a real good job of not learning.
Thanks for the link Don. I think the NIV uses the Alexandria text for the new testament. The NIV and NLT are good though for thought translations but I do not like the text they use and I believe that dynamic equivalence should not be used in translating the Bible. I believe that Bibles should be translated literally as much as possible without making it hard for a reader to understand. KJV to me is pretty hard to understand at times.
I believe Rachel has been suck in that KJV Cult. I hope she gets out of that. I have been there one time but a friend of mine revealed me the lies the KJV morons were telling me and others. Yes the KJV is one of the best translations out there but it is not “inspired” by any means
The KJV onlyists and evolutionists have something in common. They both twist the facts so that they can make their deluded ideas as truth.
James Price is one of the NKJV translators and he has a website. He wrote articles refuting KJV onlyists claims http://www.jamesdprice.com/
This guy named Gary Zeolla did his on translation of the New Testament using the Majority Text. He has some articles about different Bible versions and the texts they use in translating
here is the link to Gary’s site http://www.dtl.org/index.html
I agree, When the NIV was translated the Alexandrian text had more weight because many believed it to be more accurate because that family of manuscripts is older. But since then scholars have found some proof that gnostic thinking had influenced it some. So the thinking again is that it is better to put more weight on the Received Text family but the truth is that any major translation looks at all the major manuscripts. They just put more weight on one or the other manuscript where the passage is not clear. All of these translations will give you the gospel and what Christians need for their faith and practice.
I also am not crazy about dynamic equivalence but like you implied we are stuck with it to some extent because a true word for word translation is unreadable, it cannot be understood. In my opinion, the best translations stay as close to word for word as they can and still make it very readable. The KJV did this but we do not speak in King James English today so a more modern translation like the NKJV would be better for some. Of course if you use the NKJV you will have to not look at the cover or that New Age symbol will blind you and send you straight to hell 🙄
I once was about to join a certain Baptist Church until the pastor started preaching on only King James. That was the last time I was in that church.
For real is that symbol is a New Age symbol? If so why would they put it on the Bible cover
I didn’t know about that New Age symbol. I better burn my NKJVs. Oops, I don’t own any. I read it online on the world wide web. Wait a minute! WWW = Vav Vav Vav = 666? Hmmm.. Let’s see. Uh oh, I think I got it now. Al Gore invented the Internet, which allows me to read the NKJV online. And he’s a New Age guru! Oh my eternal believer’s security! 😆 😉
KJO people would say the symbol is a pagan symbol and then go on to say that this proves that the NKJV translation is influenced by new age pagans.
Actually the symbol was chosen for the cover because the symbol was used by early Christians. The symbol on the NKJV is the triquetra, meaning “three-cornered” in Latin. To early Christians, it symbolized both the Trinity and fish, in this case, three fishes. During the times of persecution, the fish symbol became especially important as a way for Christians to find and identify each other. Without saying a word, the Christian who displayed the little symbol sent a a wonderful greeting: “I am a fellow believer!”
That is not saying that some similar symbol was not used by pagans. The meaning of symbols is often in the eye of the beholder.
Nasrani, lets not also forget that Al Gore’s mission is now to say the world if Pelosi does not beat him to it.
Correct, I’m familiar with the views on this by those who hold a KJV-Only position. So then arises the question whether it is okay to depict the Trinity, God, Jesus, etc? My position is that it may be best to avoid because of man’s falible mind and his inclination to idolatry. But the claims made by some that it is some New Age conspiracy is just ludicrous. Some people also assert that the Jewish six-pointed star is a pagan symbol brought from Babylonia and based on that claim they arrive at all sorts of conclusions about the Jews. And should we use the cross as a symbol for Christianity? Some say we shouldn’t and that it is idolatry. Anyway, I was refering to the whole debate about once saved always saved in my joke precisely because this is one of those issues you can get into very nasty arguments about. And all this isn’t even as crucial as soteriology, or how one is saved. :-/
I knew KJO self righteous folks say that but I did not know if that was the truth or not. Thomas Nelson said it was a symbol of the Holy Spirit. I would like to know why that these KJVO like to give us Christians a bad name for?
Here is a story I think is a big lie but I would say the story was interesting though. go on google and search for Bible Scholar loses voice
for some reason when I put the direct link on here it would not let me submit the comment on here
Why would any sane person believe anything that Texe Marrs says with his history? If people do not want to believe me just check his name at the biblical discernment sites. The guy is a clear nut case. Anyway, if you really want to know what Texe Marrs said happen on that show and what really happened on that show read this link.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/wilkins.html
I really knew nothing about Texe Marrs. I did believe that the story was a lie though. Thanks for the link so now I can know what the truth was. I wonder if a atheist can be more honest person than a KJVO person can be?
People like Marrs is what making Christianity look bad. I do not agree with John Ankerberg views of the six days of creation. His belief of the days of creation comes from Hugh Ross. I believe in the literal six days of Creation. Answers in Genesis has the same views as I do on creation days. But John’s site looks like it has some good stuff on there though.
Justin, I do not agree with John Ankerberg on everything and I am sure he would not agree with everything I say either. My main problem with Ankerberg is that he charges for just about everything on his website. So I and the poor of the world simply will not be hearing most of his teaching.
Well I am tight on my money so I guess I will not know what his teaching is on everything.