Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,227 Year: 22,263/19,786 Month: 826/1,834 Week: 326/500 Day: 25/64 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Favorite Bible Version
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 85 (192427)
03-19-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
03-19-2005 1:00 AM


Re: personal communication
i don't really either.

:x


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 03-19-2005 1:00 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 32 of 85 (192452)
03-19-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
03-19-2005 1:00 AM


Re: personal communication
LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 03-19-2005 1:00 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Angeldust
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 85 (192563)
03-19-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nighttrain
03-18-2005 8:08 PM


Re: personal communication
quote:
Who`s right?

All of us, and none of us. We've all got enough right to hit heaven, and please God and none of us have the market cornered on true interpretation.

I've been wrong about my doctrine in the past and I'm sure to change my mind about something in the future. I think when we get to heaven we'll be very surprised about what we were way wrong about.

He's seeking those who will seek Him, the rest He takes care of. Oh, and on favorite bible versions for the original question, I'm an NASB fan myself. I'm taking Greek right now though, so maybe someday years from now I'll actually get to read it in the original language. No guarantees with how my greek career is coming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nighttrain, posted 03-18-2005 8:08 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Angeldust
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 85 (192564)
03-19-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by trent13
03-16-2005 4:17 PM


Re: my favorite bible
quote:
For example, in one Protestant version of the bible the angel announcing the birth of Our Lord to the shepherds exclaims, "Peace and goodwill to all men." The Catholic version is, "Peace to all men of goodwill." That is a huge difference in the content of those two phrases. Thanks for the thread, it was interesting reading everyone's replies.

Yet another translation (not sure which one, just read it in a text book in a discussion on this verse) says, "peace to all men on who God's favor rests." It has something to do with the tense of some word in the original greek that's been misinterpreted (their opinion) by some translators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by trent13, posted 03-16-2005 4:17 PM trent13 has not yet responded

  
Dave
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 85 (258883)
11-11-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
03-08-2005 11:31 AM


In the last 100 years more then 220 translation (and counting) have appeared. That's one every six months. There are only two streams for the bibles that we have today. One stream is from Antioch and the other stream is from Egypt. The King James Authorised Version has 25,000 exsisting documents (98%) that are in agreement with it and the 220 translations have less then 2% that aggree with them. Of that 2% there are many disaggreements between them.

This is the most important issue after salvation because:

Being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory
of man as the flower of grass. The grass
withereth, and the flower thereof falleth
away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for
ever. And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto you. (1Peter 1:23-25)

Let's look at just two of these translations.

The NIV is missing 64,000 words and doesn't know who killed Goliath in 2Samuel 21:19 but did figured it out in 1Chronicles 20:5.

The NKJV omits "Lord" 66 times.
The NKJV omits "God" 51 times.
The NKJV omits "heaven" 50 times.
The NKJV omits "repent" 44 times.
The NKJV omits "blood" 23 times.
The NKJV omits "hell" 22 times.
The NKJV omits "JEHOVAH" entirely.
The NKJV omits "new testament" entirely.
The NKJV omits "damnation" entirely.
The NKJV omits "devils" entirely.

For a more indepth study go to these dial up links,

Let's look at just two of these translations.

The NIV is missing 64,000 words and doesn't know who killed Goliath in 2Samuel 21:19 but did figured it out in 1Chronicles 20:5.

For a more indepth study go to these dial up links,
Bible Comparison - http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Bible Words Removed - http://www.av1611.org/biblewrd.html
Bible Verses Removed - http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
http://www.avpublications.com/

New Age Bible Versions Intro - Fast connection. This audio exposes the men behind the Greek Text they fabricated and is used in all the 220 translations.
http://www.warneveryone.com/audio_NABV_intro.htm

Fast connection -
This link has 3 videos you may view on line.
http://www.warneveryone.com/newagebibleverisons.htm

The Muslims and Mormons (8th article) both state that there are errors in the bible and that their holy books are perfect (conviction). The Muslim I debated on line used many verse quotes and commentaries about these translations to attack the KJV1611. On a site for Muslims, a post titled 50,000 errors in the bible, used the same arguments.

In the last one hundred years or so there has been a drift away from conviction to preference concerning which Bible contains less errors and therefore is the best representation of the so called "originals". A typical statement such as "The Bible, in its original autographs, is without error" is the norm in most Christian circles today. While preference sounds appealing, and is used by us all in our day to day lives (meal selection, clothing, etc.), is it applicable to the words of God?

WEBSTER'S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY defines conviction as "strong belief on the ground of satisfactory evidence, without any implication of previous error and defines preference as "the preferring one thing before another". The preference definition is clearly the weaker position.

Does the decision of a believer to apply preference to Bible selection reflect on the character of an omnipotent ("Almighty; possessing unlimited power; all powerful; applied to the Deity.") God ? Or perhaps God was unable or unwilling to bring His words from the "originals" (verbal, 2Peter 1:21) to the present day believer thereby leaving to each one of us to decide.

Consider that if God was unable to preserve His words then His swearing by His creation to preserve Israel is suspect and therefore the enemies of Israel should be rejoicing.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night,which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: ( see Name’s Sake Ez.. 20:9,14,22,44 )

Jerremiah 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever

Jerremiah 31:37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.Or perhaps God was unable maintain purity in His words, as many say, because He had chosen men to record and therefore inerrant flaws are inevitable because of the sinful conditions of the writers.

JEREMIAH writes:

Jerremiah 32:17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: ( except for Psalm 12:7 )
GOD Says:
Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? ( except for Psalm 12:7 )

Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words [KJV1611]: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Let us assume that God has given some the task of searching through waste baskets and caves to secure His words and make changes while others spread the Gospel using what they believe by conviction is already in their possession.

FAMINE OF HEARING THE WORDS OF GOD
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and hall not find it.
Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it s not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

De 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who [the SS?] shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

As every Christians knows (Romans 8:16) salvation came by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and when we came to this knowledge it was most assuredly by conviction and not preference. Did we prefer the Lord Jesus Christ over Allah, Buddha, or some other alleged deity or by a heart felt conviction? But today, when it comes to the words of God, many have chosen to prefer the words of fallible man.

The Bible itself does not teach this preference about its' writings. This position must be taught and any who hold to a conviction (KJV1611) are ridiculed and charged with being part of a cult.

The day is approaching when we all shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ (Corinthians 5:10) to give an account for what was done in the flesh. The Lord Jesus Christ will judge us for the position we have taken concerning His words. Will He say to those who have a conviction that they were mistaken because He preferred not to preserve His words or will He say well done faithful servant. You decide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 03-08-2005 11:31 AM Monk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nighttrain, posted 11-11-2005 8:44 PM Dave has not yet responded
 Message 37 by jar, posted 11-11-2005 9:04 PM Dave has not yet responded
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 1:32 AM Dave has not yet responded
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 1:03 AM Dave has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2336 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 36 of 85 (258990)
11-11-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dave
11-11-2005 1:59 PM


KJV or not to KJV?
The King James Authorised Version has 25,000 exsisting documents (98%) that are in agreement with it

Hi, Dave and welcome. I`ve never been impressed with the argument of numbers. If there is a large family like the Byzantine, then there could be a variety of reasons why they exist in quantities (central authority, dedicated scriptoria, fiat to destroy heretical copies, etc. What is more important is the provenance back as far as possible to the autographs. Most scholars agree that the early centuries after the Gospels were written offer some of the most corrupted copies. So we have to transit that minefield to validate the later families. Even within the Byzantine (Antiochian)group we find 'the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies any attempt to group them'-Zuntz-The Byzantine Text in New Testament Criticism. Or Clark 'The main conclusion regarding the Byzantine text is that it was extremely fluid-----'The Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Or Metzger points out that scholars only compare a set number of texts for variations and no one has studied them in their entirety. (Text of the New Testament). To draw a conclusion that the BYZ family is closest to the originals might be a long bow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dave, posted 11-11-2005 1:59 PM Dave has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31777
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 37 of 85 (258994)
11-11-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dave
11-11-2005 1:59 PM


Since there is no such thing as "The Bible" regardless of translation, and since none of the originals have yet been found, is there any reason to care which translation is used as long as it is identified?

The Bible can never be more than a map a best, and all will have errors. Like all maps, whatever Bible is chosen must be checked against the actual territory.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dave, posted 11-11-2005 1:59 PM Dave has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 85 (259020)
11-12-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dave
11-11-2005 1:59 PM


accuracy
uh, i'm gonna take a crack at some of this, but not all. because i'm really tired tonight. (expect typos)

The NIV is missing 64,000 words and doesn't know who killed Goliath in 2Samuel 21:19 but did figured it out in 1Chronicles 20:5.

this is a very important point about the accuracy of translation. let's look at the kjv translation:

quote:
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

the kjv is a literal, nearly word-for-word translation. i say nearly, because they've added some stuff. for instance, hebrew tends not to us passive verbs, like "is" and "was." to my knowledge, there's not a direct equivalent, although the word for "exists" (part of god's name) does, well, exist. it's just a pain to take two syllables to add it to everything, i think. certain other words aren't usually present, either. articles like "a" and "an" tend to be implied. if you're talking about a specific one, you use ha- "the." but no a.

good copies of the kjv note where they've added something with brackets. notice which phrase is in brackets in this verse?

anyways, here's the appropiate phrase from the masoretic text, the source for the kjv:

quote:
וַיַּךְ אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן-יַעְרֵי אֹרְגִים בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, אֵת גָּלְיָת הַגִּתִּי

that says: vayak elchanan ben-ya'ary oregym beyt ha-lachemi, et galyat ha-gety or literally in english killed Elhanan the Son of Jaare-Oregim a House of Lehemite {direct object} Goliat the Gittite. since you probably like that arranged grammatically for english,

Elhanan Benjaaroregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.

i want you to note that the hebrew word for "brother," אח is not present. now let's look at the same phrase in chronicles:

quote:
וַיַּךְ אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן-יעור {יָעִיר}, אֶת-לַחְמִי אֲחִי גָּלְיָת הַגִּתִּי

or vayak elchanan ben-yaor {yayr}, et-lachemy achi galyat ha-gety or: Elhanan Benjair killed Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.

i've bolded the phrase in the hebrew that's been added. it replaced the description of where elhanan was from with a correction to who got killed. samuel says he killed goliath -- the direct object signifier is there to prove it. chronicles says he killed lachmi, goliath's brother. chronicles and samuel also disagree on the spelling of elhanan's father's name (chronicles provides two spellings) but that's ok. hebrew's pretty felxible, apparently.

the fact that chronicles changes the wording and subject of samuel is not suprising. they disagree a few times. this one's a famous one:

quote:
2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.


so the question is: what makes an accurate translation? one that is accurate to the sources independently? or one that modifies bits to iron out the kinks? personally, i think a translation should be as accurate as possible to what is actually written --

-- in this case, the niv would be MORE accurate than the kjv.

The King James Authorised Version has 25,000 exsisting documents (98%) that are in agreement with it and the 220 translations have less then 2% that aggree with them. Of that 2% there are many disaggreements between them.

as i've just point out, samuel and chronicles disagree. so i think it's a little disengenuous to say "all these copies of the kjv are the same" when the original sources don't line up themselves.

The NKJV omits "Lord" 66 times.
The NKJV omits "God" 51 times.
The NKJV omits "heaven" 50 times.
The NKJV omits "repent" 44 times.
The NKJV omits "blood" 23 times.
The NKJV omits "hell" 22 times.
The NKJV omits "JEHOVAH" entirely.
The NKJV omits "new testament" entirely.
The NKJV omits "damnation" entirely.
The NKJV omits "devils" entirely.

these are probably translation issues, not accuracy issues. i'm not familiar with the specifics, but i'll single one out because i happen to know what it's about:

The NKJV omits "JEHOVAH" entirely

the "name" JEHOVAH appears in the text of the kjv all of 3 times, if memory serves. this is strictly a translation issue: the name of god in the bible, everywhere it's used, is יהוה -- yahweh. whenever you see the word LORD in all caps, that's the hebrew that's used. the reason "lord" was chosen is because jews replaced the name of god with a title, אדני -- adonay, when reading the bible aloud. adonay means "lord."

since this practice was common, many early masoretic texts added the vowel points of adonay to YHVH to remind the reader to say "adonay" instead of "yahweh." but if the new jewish person tried to read this, unaware of the custom, they'd get "YaHoVaH." sound familiar? y = j in a lot of translations.

so for many years, english speaking people thought god's name was "jehovah." it's not, it's yahweh.

now, god is generally referred to two ways in the bible: yahweh elohym (lord god) and just elohym (god). but strangely enough, adonay creeps in once or twice combined with god's name. writing out "LORD lord" is a little weird, so the kjv went with "lord Jehovah." in another instance, it's a nickname for god (yah) combined with his name. it's only in these double-renderings that the kjv actually uses the "name" of jehovah.

but in reality, they're no different than any other time the bible uses the word LORD in all caps.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-12-2005 01:57 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dave, posted 11-11-2005 1:59 PM Dave has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-13-2005 1:18 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 61 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 12:56 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 62 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 12:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2270 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 39 of 85 (259076)
11-12-2005 11:15 AM


the solid book i use is a nkjv. it was a gift. it has reformation notes in it. it's pretty snazzy.

i tend to use blueletterbible.org though unless i feel important and bumish enough to grab the solid book. which is my favorite? i don't have one. i don't like the niv. never did. and i'm starting to not like the kjv on principle of avoiding the crazies. maybe i won't catch it... but especially, i've seen the specific errors in the kjv and it leaves out important cultural information. it's important that we don't turn ancient hebrews into wasps. they were semitic, they wore noserings when they got married (like arab muslims do now). if you can't learn about them as a people from their texts, then you can't understand how they interacted with god (which is what is recorded in those pages). if you can't understand that, then you can't separate their crazed notions from the 'reality' of who their god was.

you can't trust people to write accurate histories of themselves. they never do. everyone thinks the civil war was about slavery, and my brother's 7th grade history book proclaimed that mlkj had been president. people's opinions always taint what they write. the secret is to understand how people think so you can peel away the layers of bullshit and find the real meat.

This message has been edited by brennakimi, 11-12-2005 11:16 AM


And why you think you take a Ho to a Ho-tel
Ho-tell everybody, even the mayor
Reach up in the sky for the Ho-zone layer
Now C'mon playa wants a Ho always
And Ho's neva close, they open like hallways

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 40 of 85 (259262)
11-13-2005 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dave
11-11-2005 1:59 PM


changing words
alright, in the hopes that this was not a drive-by, i'll address some other points, as i'm reading through your seriously ludicrous links. [quotes are from the links]

The NKJV omits "hell" 22 times.

quote:
How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!

Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?


first of all, sheol (שאול) is the hebrew word that is translated as "hell" in the kjv. check your concordance if you don't believe me. it literally means "grave." they're simplying using the hebrew name instead of the anglicized one. why is that wrong? if we're gonna complain abotu accuracy, isn't it MORE accurate to use the word that's actually in the source text?

quote:
Matthew 16:18

KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Luke 16:23

KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."


this is the exact same case. it's not using a word from greek mythology, it's using a word from GREEK. the new testament was written in greek -- the word used here is adhz -- hades.

quote:
Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

because the word in hebrew can mean either. and traditionally, semitic people would wear nose-rings getting married. it's not a ridiculous idea, it's still in practice.

quote:
Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

שטן -- satan means "accuser" or "adversary." i bet the nkjv uses one of these words. when the bible is refering to a SPECIFIC adversary "Satan" with an uppercase S, it uses השטן -- ha-satan. THE adversary. you'll note that it doesn't remove it from job 1:6, where it has the ha- in front of it.

quote:
Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

that's a good point, i agree. but that's the same issue as adding the word "brother" to sameul (see above post). you see, jonah, whom this verse is about, spent 3 nights in the belly of a FISH.

KJV writes:

Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

oh, and that bit about the symbol was truly ludicrous. did you notice that one of the symbols they were taking offense to was a celtic CROSS? also, p.o.d. stands for "payable on death." they're a christian band.

quote:
But Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

similar to:

quote:
Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

that's fine. no symbols. no crosses, no fish. no "passion of the christ." you do realize that the symbol they don't like is three jesus-fish, right?

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-13-2005 07:22 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dave, posted 11-11-2005 1:59 PM Dave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dave, posted 11-13-2005 7:23 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 63 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:05 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 64 by brandplucked, posted 11-25-2005 1:10 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Dave
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 85 (259282)
11-13-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
11-13-2005 1:03 AM


Re: changing words
Thank you for the welcome.

This is a very volatile issue (which bible?) and in my opinion it is more of a spiritual question then an intellectual one.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

It appears there is a general agreement that no Christian any where, at any time has had access to the very words of God except for the so called "originals". This also implies that all the preservation verses are meaningless (which no one addressed) and Christians are left to the mercies of the Greek and Hebrew scholars.
If king Cyrus were alive today and believed God can you imagine the number of scaffolds.
Ezra 6:11 Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. Now I am certainly not advocating this but it was interesting to me how an earthly king regarded his word.

By the way, Rome has just joined in with a statement that the bible has errors and therefore science overrides the Genesis account of creation. I have an article from a well known creation ministry that bemoans the fact that people are rejecting the 6 day creation and then the past president wrote that there are errors in the KJV1611.

All the great revivals of the past were under KJV1611 preachers and today, 220 translations later, welcome to the Laodicean age ( Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them).

Today Muslims, Mormons, Rome, etc. plus countless Christians all are asking the question, "Yea, hath God said... ?"
It is such a blessing to me to know with confidence that I have the very words of God.
Regards,
Dave


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 1:03 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Nighttrain, posted 11-13-2005 5:45 PM Dave has responded
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 7:06 PM Dave has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2270 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 42 of 85 (259343)
11-13-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
11-12-2005 1:32 AM


Re: accuracy
if you're so intent on the real word of god, learn the languages it was written in. christ's sake. at least arach is bothering to learn hebrew. you just sit there in your english being a weirdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 1:32 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-13-2005 1:26 PM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 7:23 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31777
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 43 of 85 (259348)
11-13-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by macaroniandcheese
11-13-2005 1:18 PM


Re: accuracy
You might need to make that languages. It's unlikely that the parts that constitute a Bible, regardless of which canon is selected, were all written in one language. Hebrew, Aramaic (both Ancient and Imperial) and Greek were certainly used and it's very likely that there were many vaiants of all of them.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-13-2005 1:18 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-13-2005 1:32 PM jar has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2270 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 44 of 85 (259350)
11-13-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
11-13-2005 1:26 PM


Re: accuracy
i did say languages. read above. i only mentioned hebrew by name because it's the one being studied atm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-13-2005 1:26 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2336 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 45 of 85 (259398)
11-13-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dave
11-13-2005 7:23 AM


Re: changing words
It is such a blessing to me to know with confidence that I have the very words of God.
Regards,
Dave

You an angel, Dave?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dave, posted 11-13-2005 7:23 AM Dave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dave, posted 11-14-2005 5:58 PM Nighttrain has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019