7 Responses to “October 22, 2009”

1. Gary Martin
   October 22nd, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

   Love your radio program – interesting and very informative!
   Question: what do you thinbk of the George Lamsa bible?
   translated directly from the Aramic language A number if pasages have enlightened me beyond the KJV. I’ll be listening.

2. daniel
   October 22nd, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

   Once again, appreciate your show and always value the information.

   1. Are you acquainted with the Wesley translation? If so, what is your opinion of it? Pro’s / Con’s?

   2. Is there any Bible that translates all of the Hebrew names/places so that the allegorical understanding may be understood as well? Like the King of Assyria’s name meant “Bramble of destruction”, etc., ?

3. Gary Martin
   October 22nd, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

   Love your radio program – interesting and very informative!
   Question: what do you think of the George Lamsa bible?
   translated directly from the Aramic language A number if pasages have enlightened me beyond the KJV. I’ll be listening.

4. Dr Michael L Brown
   October 22nd, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

   Gary an d Daniel,

   I’ll answer your translation questions during one of the Friday shows, probably the second hour (10-23). Thanks for asking!

5. daniel
   October 22nd, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

   Well, either way, my opinion of the Wesley translation is that, here we have a man who is bearing incredible fruit for God who is stirred to make a translation – I would lean towards wanting to know what this anointed man’s understanding of Scripture would be – since he has shown with his life a good example…

   “…considering the end of their faith…”

6. Bill Fawcett
   October 25th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

   A Bible burning promoted as a social event with a BBQ dinner. Wow.

   Would that be East NC BBQ (vinegar & red pepper) or West NC BBQ (tomato based) ?

   Let’s focus in on what’s really important here.

7. Joshua Harris
   October 27th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

   I am far more concerned about Christians reading and considering the bible in a context as a whole, than what version they read.

   I think in the controversy of bible versions there are extreme views on either side.

   i think it absurd burning an NIV, and insisting that the KJ translation itself is inspired; but i think it is equally absurd to call the manuscripts reliable final authorities that have resulted in so many missing verses of the bible.

   I agree with Dr. Brown There are areas the KJ should be translated clearer to today’s language. RL Dabney, and Dean Burgon, who were both critics of the RV, and critics of Wescott and Hort; they both (Burgon, Dabney) said that there were places that should have been corrected in the underlying text and in the translation of the KJV.
   However I don’t see the phenomenon of compromised translation in the KJ, ungodly people in the translation work, or missing portions of scripture.

   In the example of ‘the blood’ missing in one verse of other versions, but present in the KJ/RT, I think it is unscholarly to assume that scribes added the word to the manuscript, with out showing historical reference to back it up. There is an awful lot of history in the different streams of manuscripts that leaves the theory of one scribe’s addition totally untenable. I have heard the theory that some Greek monks added in verses about fasting, again with no corresponding evidence, just an empty theory. But it’s one of those things that could make sense, so people don’t look any further, and even scholars settle for ideas that are ultimately un-scholarly.

   Again, it is far more important for believers to read and consider the bible as a whole, whatever the translation.

Leave a Reply