Does the KJV introduce confusion? | Rapp Report Daily 009 | Andrew Rappaport | SFE | Striving for Eternity

1 view

0 comments

00:04
Welcome to the Rapid Bull, daily edition, where we provide a quick biblical interpretations and applications.
00:12
This is a ministry of striving for eternity. As we've already seen in previous podcasts this week, that those who hold that the
00:20
King James Version of 1611 was inspired have some serious problems. One of which being that because King James wanted one
00:27
Bible for all of England, he brought together the Roman Catholic Church and the
00:32
Protestants through an English translation that included the Apocrypha. Therefore, if the
00:38
Bible was inspired in 1611, then the Bible includes the Apocrypha and the argument that many
00:45
Protestants have against the Roman Catholics, well, that would fall flat. Is the King James Version the only
00:51
Bible we should have? Well, we've already seen there were other earlier English translations, but let me give you two reasons why
00:59
I think the King James Version of the Bible should not be seen as inspired, other than the fact that it includes the
01:05
Apocrypha. And that is that I do not believe that God is a God of confusion. What do I mean?
01:10
When we had the English translation, we had two words that were transliterated, not translated.
01:18
What does that mean? Well, simply put, we had the word baptismo and deaconos.
01:23
We have two perfectly good English words for both of them. Baptismo means to dip or plunge.
01:29
Deaconos means to be a waiter of tables. Why did we have to create new English words? Well, because if we translated the word baptismo into dip or plunge, we wouldn't be allowing the sprinkling that the
01:41
Anglican Church did. And if we use the word deaconos as a servant, well, then we can't use them as leaders like they were.
01:48
This shows theological issues that cause confusion. This podcast is part of the Striving for Eternity ministry.