Help with Bible study material please

[Cato]

I am a co-leader of a small group Bible study class. Of course there is no substitute for the Bible itself, but I find various materials by various authors are very helpful and insightful in getting the most out of Scripture. Our class has used material by Charles Stanley, Andy Stanley, Chuck Swindol, Tony Evans, D. Martin Lloyd Jones, and others.

Can any of you guys suggest anything that might be condusive to a weekly small group study that you found to be good?

Thanks
Cato

[Esquire]

Cato,

"Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis is a very insightful look at temptation and pretty enjoyable to work through.

Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy" is excellent, really fine stuff.

"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis also lends itself well to such a setting.

Mike

[mwc]

I was apart of a group that used "Experiencing God" once. It was good.

MWC

[Ray Cover]

Cato,

Holly and I teach youth sunday school and we found a study bible that has been very helpful to us. Its called the "Serendipity Bible". It is an NIV translation with very informative intros, study questions and Life application questions right in the columns. The questions are there for every chapter. of the Bible. It pretty much does everything but the lesson plan. I like it because they tend to be questions that make you think about the spiritual content of each chapter rather than just being questions about historical or narative facts.

While it isn't a study guide we have found it to be a great help to the study programs we have used in our classes.

Our men's group did a sutdy out of "The Man God Uses" by Henry and Tom Blackaby that was pretty good.

Ray

[K31Scout]

I share small group Bible study leadership through my church. We do 6 week programs that meet Thursday nights in our homes. We've been using A Purpose-Driven Group Resource study from Rick Warren which has 6 parts for a total of 36 weeks. Every week we try and ask new people to join (friends, neighbors, seekers) and my group has grown from 7 to almost 20 regulars. It's a good study of scripture with life application relevance. Our group has really gotten close and we are all very connected with each other and it's a great way to get people into a relationship with Christ.

Week 1. Beginning Life Together
Week 2. Connecting With God's Family
Week 3. Growing To Be Like Christ
Week 4. Developing You Shape To Serve Others
Week 5. Sharing Your Life's Mission Everyday
Week 6. Surrendering Your Life For God's Pleasure

Warren has a new series coming out soon but I'd like a change in style and will look into Charles Stanley and others.

[Eaglearcher]

Marsh Robert
I could never call myself a true Christian, but i have always tried to live by the broad message of the bible.
However, my question to you is why you shun the writings of others.
Shouldn't we try to listen to the thoughts and reasoning of other people. Isnt this the way we learn. Isnt this the way we gain an understanding of how the rest of the world thinks.
Of course its good to read the bible and live by its message, but shouldnt we also take time to see how others interpret the same messages.
If you only teach from the Bible then surely all you are teaching is your interpretation of it. As one man, you are fallable, as are we all, These other writings are only another voice within your study group. Dont you think that they have anything to bring to your class?
After reading all your posts today i can tell that you are a man of strong beliefs. And although they do have the ring of truth to them, this does not necessarily make them correct in the eyes of others.
We all have the right to be heard. And it is our duty to listen.

[Ray Cover]

Why King James? Why not one of the more accurate word for word translations that were translated from the actual Greek and Hebrew text rather than the one that was translated from the Catholic Latin volgate ( which gives you a translation of a translation)?

I would also ask that if you do not feel that what others teach out of the bible is valuable, how do you feel about those who have been given the spiritual gift to be pastor teacher? Are such spiritual gifts a falacy? What is the difference between listining to a pastor rightly teach the word of God from the pulpit and reading the same teaching on written form?

If each individual is to read only the King James version with its antiquated language (which most children can't even follow) and derive from that the knowledge of God, would that not be more conducive to having more individual interpretations of Chrisitanity? I would also like to point out that most cult groups you refer to use the KJV because the language is hard to grasp for many. Groups such as Christian Scientist and the Jehovahs whitnesses. I know the JWs have their own New world Translation which does promote their herresy but when they use a non JW bible it is always the KJV because the language is easy to misunderstand.

I would agree that scripture is always the "final word" and it is best to let scripture interpret scripture to properly understand biblical teachings. But I disagree that each Christian should be an island unto himself with his bible where biblical understanding is concerned. :2cents:

Ray

[Ray Cover]

Marsh,

I need some clarification on your questions so I know exactly what is being ask. I do plan to answer but I want to make sure I fully understand what is being ask of me.

In question #

1. Are you asking if I am claiming to be able to "Correct" the bible?

2. What do you mean by a "perfect" bible?

3. What exacly are you asking here? Not sure I follow the Question

4. Again what do you mean by "Perfect bible" and how does that correlate to being Gods word?

5. I understand this one.

6. I understand this one

7. I think I understand this question but just to make sure I know where you are coming from, how do you define the "One true church"? what I mean is do you define that by denominational bounderies or by some other deffinition.

8. I understand this one.

9. I understand this one.

10. I want to see valid statistics backing the claims made in this question. Do you have valid statistical information showing how many were saved before 1881 verses post 1881 or better yet by decade over the past several hundred years? By what standard do you label a translation a "Perversion"?

I do plan to address each and everyone of these questions later tonigt but I want to make sure you and I are on the same page as far as what is being ask in each question so we are not wasting time spinning our heels over semantics.

God bless,

Ray

[Cato]

First of all, thanks so much for the responses. We have already used some of the material suggested; some we have not, and I will investigate. I am encouraged by the number of suggestions.

Marsh I hear your legitimate concern over being unknowingly and maybe unintentionlly misguided by the writings of others. However, our approach has been to basically use their ideas for outlines and thought questions to create our own study guides, to inlcude our own class study of related Scripture.

I find these resources very helpful in connecting various passages to the same topic, and in helping come up with thought provoking questions. But as you said (Marsh), everything must be based upon Scripture to have value.

As for translations, I wish I could read Hebrew and Greek. Generally, we use the NAS as I have been advised that it is fairly accurate to the original. I do welcome any input.

Again guys, thanks for the help.

Cato

[K31Scout]

I have e-Sword downloaded to my computers and have the KJV,MKJV,ASV,GNB and BBE Bible versions on there. When I get to a scripture I want to study I compare all versions. We use the NIV in church and I have a copy of the NKJV and NCV as well and of course the KJV! I'm not convinced the KJV is the most accurate text from the translated Hebrew and Greek and like Cato wish I could read those languages myself. That said I believe the Holy Spirit promotes understanding through many versions and not KJV exclusively.

BTW, how are the non English translations of the KJV considered the same as the English KJV? Is the Spanish or French or Eskimo translation bogus? Does salvation hang on speaking and understanding the Queens English? I'm not convinced it is.

[Cato]

Marsh,

Please don't worry about the sidetrack. I think we can all learn a lot from each other by discussions like this. Your word of caution is timely, appropriate, and well received.

Cato

[Ray Cover]

Cato,

I also want to apologize that we veered off your original topic.

Marsh,

I don’t have anything against the KJV. I do think the antiquated language is hard for many to understand. However, the message it contains is timeless the same as many other translations.

What does bother me is the misconception that the KJV is the only translation that is blessed of God and useful for Christian salvation and growth. I first assumed that is the stance you were taking. If I misunderstood your position I apologize. However, I do believe that many of the statements you have made about modern translations are very misleading and some of them blatantly and wrongly accusatory.

I agree that there are SOME liberal translations out there that have (in my opinion) been translated to a liberal theological bent. However, you cannot lump all modern translations in the same liberal pile. To compare the NIV, NRSV, and NASB which are accurate translations of the original text to the New World Translation of the JWs which was a rewriting of the KJV by the 13 grey heads in Mass, (no Greek Scholars were even involved in that project, written for the sole purpose of promoting their heresy) is a very big leap…A false leap at that.

When you make statements like “…you also need to be aware of the fact that many so called Christian Bibles that have recently come out have, including the NIV, openly deny the eternal nature of God, call Jesus and Satan by the same name, and deny the Blood of Christ.”

And…“You will find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a living Bible, a New Century Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of Scripture, you are going to see the Devil hard at work on the revision committees of the new translations.”

You are making false and misguided accusations against some very fine and good translations of the Greek and Hebrew texts. I have used the NIV to defend the deity of Christ, the Trinity and many other doctrines dealing with the nature of God. They do not “openly deny the eternal nature of God”. Let me give you an example. Lets look at John 1:18.

I do not believe in proof texting without contextual reference. This first chapter of John is dealing the deity of Christ, the incarnation of God in bodily form(Jesus) and the revelation of God to man through Jesus.

The NIV reads: 18. No one has ever seen God but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

The KJV reads; 18. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.

Now is it accurate for me to take this text and make a claim that the KJV openly denies the deity of Christ because the word "Son" is used rather than "God" ? Of course not! No more accurate than it is for you to take the snippets you posted above and claim the other translations attack the truth of scripture and openly deny the eternal nature of God.

By the way, in the above example the NIV is by far the most accurately translated. I looked it up in both my Greek –English Testament and in my Strong’s Concordance. The Greek passage uses the phrase “ monogenes Theos” which does translate “only born or only begotten God” not Son. The Greek word for son is "Vious" not "Theos".

There are other instances of the translations you attack as “perversions” being more true to the Greek Codexs and manuscripts than the KJV. Your example above from I Timothy 3:16 is one of them. The Greek text reads “hos phaneroo en sarx” which literally translates “who was demonstrated in flesh”. That little word “hos” is a Greek pronoun that can be translated; who, which, what, that one, other, and some. The use of “He” for this pronoun is not a problem and does not change the meaning of the reading.

The modern translations did not (as you claim above) “throw God clear out of the verse”. “GOD” was never in the verse. The KJV inserted “GOD” in the text. Is it a problem that the KJV translators made this insertion? No its not, the insertion does not change the meaning of the passage as a whole. Is the modern translations’ use of the accurate translation a theological problem? No its not, the accurate translation doesn’t change the meaning either.

What you did above was take a very small snippet from the modern translations and compare them to the KJV in convenient verses that appeared to support your claims. However, if you look at the whole context of the new translations you will see that they do not contradict what the KJV passages say.

In I Timothy 3:14 -16 the NIV reads
14. Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15. if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

When you read it in context it is quite plain that the “HE” who appeared in a body was God in His incarnation. To call that a perversion is out and out false on the face of it, especially when you consider that it is closer to the original texts than the KJV.

Let’s look at Colossians 1:14 you mentioned above.
In the Greek text it reads “ en ho echo ten apolutrosis ten aphesist ton hamartia” Which literally translates “in whom we have the redemption, the sending off of sins.”

Again we see that the newer translations did not “get rid of the blood” but rather the KJV inserted it. Again it is not a problem either way because the “WHOLE” passage in both KJV and modern translations convey the same meaning.

KJV Col 1:12-14 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son; 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NRSV 12.giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13. He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Both of these translations say the same thing. Having the KJVs insertion of the word “blood” does not add any extra to the verse beyond what modern (more accurate to the Greek) translation says.

This is especially true when we do as you recommend and let scripture interpret scripture. For in other places , where it is accurately in the original text, these modern translations tell you that it is by the blood of Christ that we have redemption.

To accuse a translation of being a perversion just for being more accurate is to falsely accuse both the teams that translated them and the original language texts.

If you are going to make such accusations you need to back your accusations up with more than just “sound bites” taken out of context. That is the way Pseudo Christian cult groups argue for their heresies from scripture. It is also lazy scholarship.

I have to respectfully disagree with your position that the modern translations are perversions. Some of them are.... but certainly not most of them.

God bless,

Ray

[Eaglearcher]

I think the side track was my fault anyway.
But it has been interesting to follow the thread and read your replys to each other.
My church lives in my heart, my visits to the house of god are probably further apart than they should be and I find your depth of knowledge and passion for the teachings of the lord quite humbling.
A visit to this part of the forum is always a learning experience.

[Esquire]

Ray,

While I appreciate Marsh's desire to take a cautious approach to the use and misuse of God's Word I am grateful to you as well for taking the time to put together such a thorough response. I have read it carefully and you have saved me a fair bit of typing.

Eaglearcher,

I always appreciate your input in this forum.

[Ray Cover]

Marsh,

I have no delima at all. I do not beleive that the KJV or any other English, French , German, or Brazilian Pymgy translation is "Inspired" in that they were handed down from God in that language. I don't have to choose between the KJV being the inspired word or it being a antiquated translation.

Now let me tell you what I do beleive about the inspiration of scripture. I beleive that God inspired the prophets and apostles and a few other historical biblical figures to write scripture. I beleive He did this by the Holy Spirit leading and guiding those biblical figures to write His message to mankind.

Now it is true that we do not have any of the original autographs, that is the actual scrolls that the prohets and apostles themselves wrote. What we do have is copys that were faithfully copied by scribes and monks throughout history. Some 24,000 copies all together. These copies agree to such an extent in their content that we can be pretty sure of what the original autographs did said even though they have been lost to history. The autographs have been lost but God has preserved his message in the copies.

Throughout history those copies have been translated into many languages. The latin translation was used by the Catholic church for years. Translations have been made into many other languages all over the world.

The original autographs were inspired, we have accurate copies of the inspired text from which all other languages have been translated. So no I have no delima. The translations are not the inspired text they are translations of copies of the inspired text. To lay the claim that a translation is the word per word, punctuation per punctuation, words that God gave to the prophets and apostles is a mistake. A very good book I would recomend on this subject is "The Text Of The New Tesatment" by Bruce Metzger (one fo the greatest Greek Scholars of our day and a conservative Christian).

When you translate from a basal romantic language like Greek or the Roman Latin into a Germanic language like Elizibethan English or modern English you cannot get a word per word punctuation per punctuation translation because the two language systems are too different in their gramtical and vocabulary structures. The best that can be done is to make sure the sense of what is being said in the original text comes through and to try and stick a close to the original as you can and still have the grammer make sense in the translated language.

As far as why do we need other tranlations? Maybe we don't. However, that does not mean that the other translations are corrupt and not valuable. I doubt many of us would stick to that same reasoning when our wives ask, " why do you need another bow or more arrows?"

Again I do beleive that many of the modern translations do a better job of comunicating God's message in modern English. Over the past 400 years our language has evolved and developed in such a way that some of the vocabulary of the Elizibethan English does not have the same meaning it does today. Not to mention that many of the idioms, expressions and phrases are not used in the modern language.

I do beleive that God can use the KJV and he can open a childs eyes to understand it. I also beleive He can open a childs eyes to understand the Latin or the Greek if He so chooses. Can we use that as an argument to not have any translations, just keep it in the original language? I think the Middle ages pretty much gave us the answer to that one.

I'm not bashing the KJV but at the same time I cannot stand buy and let someone bash some of the good modern translations with the type of accusations you have given above.

You lay these accustaions with nothing more to back them up than snippets taken out of context and attacks on the character of a couple guys involed with the revised version. You lay these accustaions but you don't give even one source document to back any of it up. For all I can tell you copy and pasted that info from a "KJV only" website or book somewhere without even checking their sources to see if the info is accurate.

If your going to make such accustaions the burden of proof is on you to provide references to source documents so that the rest of us can go and check them out.

Ray

[Esquire]

Nothing wrong with cut and paste, I do it myself from time to time. But the source should be provided for the reasons cited by Ray Cover. In this case I think the cut and pastes likely came from one of the following two sources:

Why_Trust_King_James (http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/kjv02.htm#stop2)

Fighting_Back_(a_reference) (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html)

Marsh can tell us for sure if it's one of these or another.

Mike

[Ray Cover]

Marsh,

I respectfully wish you would stop putting words in my mouth that I never said. The blind delimas that you have set up in this last post are not valid arguments.

Therefore you are in effect saying that God originally gave man a flawed translation in the KJ Bible, or that the King James was not of God. Which is it?.

I have not once said that the KJV was a "Flawed" translation nor have I once said that it was not of God. Making the statement that the old language is hard for some people to understand is not calling it a "flawed translation". For the people speaking Elizibethan English 400 yerars ago it was great. I never said it wasn't useful today, just a little hard for some to understand. Thinking that there are other translations that are accurate that are easier for some people to read is not denying the books validity. Stop putting words in my mouth and accsuing me of saying things I did not say. And please stop setting up blind delimas to try and stick me in a corner. Please, I enjoy debating with folks over scripture. Iron sharpens iron and now and then I learn something. I just ask that folks debate fairly and not resort to tricks like blind delimas.


You accuse the modern translations of changing the text to suite one denomination or dotrine over another. But you refuse to see that the KJV has words and phrases added (that are not in the originals) that do that very same thing. Does that make it bad? NO! does that mean that God didn't lead the translators of it? No! because it still gets the right message across.

I have repeatedly stated that the KJV was a valid translation even though it does interject words and passages that are not in the original text.


I will look for the information and try to find the sources you refer to even though you won't to provide them. I intend to take a serious look at it and give your position the beneft of the doubt. It will probably take me a few days to look it all up and process it, so it may be next week before I can get back.

Ray

[Ray Cover]

Marsh I almost missed it. :o

I let myself get a little flustered with the false delimas you proposed that i almost missed the big picture. There is a premise that you made in your last post that I totally disagree with. I beleive this proimise is at the root of our disagreement over the differing translations.

Here is the primise: You say that devine inspiration is needed to accurately translate the greek and hebrew text into another language. I disagree with that premise. I do not beleive that any translation is "Inspired" or needs to be to be accurate.

Here is why I beleive that.

My wife speaks, reads and writes in four languages. If someone writes her a letter in Russian or French she does not need the "Inspiration" of God to accurately translate that letter into English or Spanish. The Inspiration of God is not needed to accurately translate a document from one language into another language.

As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say that the only reason God would need to "Inspire" a translation in the sense that He inspired the original documents is if He wanted to change what he said the first time.

That being said, A heathen, child sacrificing, pagan, atheist could "ACCURATELY" translate the original Greek and Hebrew text into English if his Greek and Hebrew scholarship were good. (though I doubt he would want to :D )

So actually, even if the accusations against the men above is correct and they were sinners of the highest kind, if their scholarship was good and accurate their translations can very well be accruate to the originals.

As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say that God may even use sinful inperfect men to do such a task. After all he used an adulterer and murderer to write a large protion of the Psalms. He used a womanizing party boy to write Proverbs, Eclesiastes, and the Song so Soloman. He used a murderer to write many of the epistles. He even used a man who denied even to know him to write scripture and preach at penticost. Men fall, its our nature when we take our eyes off Him. If God only used perfect men nothing would ever get done.

Translating is translating. Just like painting is painting, and accounting is accounting. If your a good accountant you don't need "holy inspiration" to keep good books. Likewise if you are a good Greek Scholar you don't need inspiration to accurately translate a document.

Am I saying that God did not "inspire" translations like he did the originals? That is exactly what I am saying. That being said, I do beleive God lead men to work on these translations. Several of them. Did he only need one? Sure. Why did He make so many different kinds of catipillers when we could get by just fine with one kind? I don't know but He had his reasons. Just because we only see a need for one doesn't mean God doesn't see multiple reasons for many.

I still plan to look up the info you refered to because I am interested.

Ray

[K31Scout]

Interesting discussion guys.

I got married in 1980 and we got a KJV Bible that I read once in a blue moon. When I got serious about God and salvation I tried the KJV again but had trouble with it. I was given an NIV Study Bible and it was like a bright reading light was turned on and I couldn't get enough. It lead to my salvation, and maybe the KJV lead me to the NIV. Whatever. Lots of times I have the NIV and KJV side by side in my study.

Billy

[Ray Cover]

That feeling is mutual Marsh. It is hard in our modern society to find people who are willing to debate such issues without getting angry with one another. When you do find such a person it is a pleasure to discuss these issues even if you don't agree on them.

I would disagree that it makes a difference whether the original document was inspired or not. To translate a document is to translate a document. Inspiration of the original does not change the meaning of either of the languages.

I don't beleive that God plays games with us in such away that He would hide meanings in text that needed special inspiration to unlock. It makes more sense that He would want to make His message straight forward and plain to the point that anyone translating the original inspired document accurately would still keep the message the same.

Ray

[Swanny]

I researched this issue fairly heavily of whether I was going to become a KJVO ("O" stands for 'only') advocate at one point in time during my walk with Christ. What covinced me most why I wasn't going to become one was reading the interpreters own preface to the 1611 Bible (and reading a book by James White on the subject...his was one of the most insightful).

It's a long read (difficult for me at times), but profitable....especially when you read very cleary that even they themselves did not consider their work as the 'supremely inspired translation'...as if no one in the future would be able to improve upon their choices of words in various contexts. As far as I recall....they clearly admit someone could improve areas where they had difficulties in translation.

You can read the preface starting here (it's 10 pages long):

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm

I agree with you, Ray, regarding the assumption that the KJV is 'inspired'. We don't have the inspired texts....only copies. I suppose God's wisdom in doing so would prevent folks from worshipping the very documents.

BTW: I have a good friend/mentor who was given the NIV (before it was published) for his critique on the finished product. He made some recommendations on more than a few texts....to which they corrected only a handful. I personally like the NIV, but realize it has its weak points.

[Ray Cover]

Swanny,

Good to hear from you again. I got swamped for a while and had to lay off the net to catch up on work and have not ran into you since I have been back.

Thanks for the insight. I agree with you that the NIV and all translations have a few weak spots. Frankly, thats why I bought a Greek-English Testament and tried to learn Koine Greek at one time. After about a year and a half of messing with that I figured I better leave the langauge studies to my wife. I'm not wired for it. :) :amen:

One thing we can be sure of is that the autographs were inspired and the copies we do have are very accurate copies. Yes, there are spelling mistakes and such in them but with the volume of them we have that agree in content, we can be certain that our combined text is accurate.

Again, its good to hear from you again.

God bless,

Ray

[Swanny]

Hi Ray, Glad to 'see' you again too. Sorry to hear the situation with your wife's mom...but do certainly appreciate your overall perspective on the matter.

Blessings in our Christ to you and yours...
Swanny

[Garry]

I am with Marsh on this subject.

The mountain of evidence published on the Bible Wheel web site shows that the KJV is indeed God's Authorised Version.

Bible Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_God.asp)

[Deerslayer32]

Look into a bible study by an international group called Bible Study Fellowship. It is a nondenominational bible study. If you do a search for them on the internet you can find out where near you they meet. We have over 100 guys in our group. We break down into study groups of around 8. This study has been around since the 50's. It is a 7 yr. study. I know you were looking for study materials. But I was compelled to share this because of the excellent study course this group puts out for us.