Only one version?

[B][QUOTE]NIV psalms make me want to puke, as if they were written by those who don't have heterosexual preferences,[/B][/QUOTE]Examples? How would you identify the sexual preferences of an author through thier translation of the psalms? Remember, if you think that Shakespeare (who had little Latin and no Greek according to his friend) influenced the translation, his own work is rather rich in homosexual overtones.
[B][QUOTE]But despite the translational errors that occur in all translations: the KJV has a no really proven transcriptional glitches. It's translation suits our frolic-driven adulterous generation, being most pure, unadulterated, grave, poetic, and abruptly to the point while taking translational liberties insofar as redemptive poetry becomes enhanced.[/B][/QUOTE]Perhaps you mean the way it flattens out the tone, diction and rhythm of every passage until it all appears much the same - to the extent that one cannot easily distinguish stylistically between a 1st century AD letter written in Greek from classical Hebrew panegyric.[B][QUOTE]The same is true of the "Chinese Union Version", "Luther's German Version", etc. Every major language is blessed with a peculiarly powerful version, usually in an older tongue of that language.[/B][/QUOTE]My my - quite the polyglot aren't we? You are in a position to evaluate the subtle distinctions of translations from Hebrew and Greek into these languages, and have enough knowledge of them to distinguish between the different linguistic phases they have passed through? Please, please post more on this - as a mere amateur in this field I would be fascinated to know more.
[B][QUOTE]Those versions, like the KJV, inexplicably utilize inspired (if you will) translational liberties to impart additional redemptive excellencies of Jesus Christ in both testaments.[/B][/QUOTE]I think you mean, "these versions make inexplicable errors in translation which happen to fit my view of Christianity." If they include "additional redemptive excellencies" then they are heretical: adding to the Word of God and presenting it as the Word of God - unadulterated in your phrase - is just about as heretical as you can get!

ws, your last post is totally irrelevant to the previous posts in the threads. Most will grant that in the verses you quoted, Jesus refers to men who set themselves up as Gods. So what? It does nothing to show that in the numerous examples quoted by drbill and others, plural gods are not referred to in the sense of deities.Logic escapes your grasp again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
[B][QUOTE]I would suggest you try finding a bona fide Jewish Hebrew scholar who has gone on record as interpreting elohim as an acknowledgement of actual living beings qualified as gods like their god Jehovah, sitting equal to Him in some cosmic courtroom. I am not aware of any.[/B][/QUOTE]I noticed the attempt at bait and switch - now it is show other gods "sitting equal to Him." Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.Meanwhile, you would do well to read some Jewish scholars who comment on the polytheistic interpretation of Elohim ...Jon Levenson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard, in his book "Creation and the Persistence of Evil."Diana Edelman in her book "The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms"Tzvi Howard Adelman of the The Department for Jewish Zionist Education in Jerusalem.and so on ...You might even like to check good old Gensenius on this, where he says that bene 'elohm "properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of 'elohm of 'elim"Again and again you take the attitude that your ignorance of opposing scholarship has some significance in favour of your viewpoint - again and again we show that in fact you are simply ignorant. If only you would do more studying and less pronouncing, you might get somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
What dedicated Jewish Hebrew scholar would openly accept the trinity?

---

You think accepting the plurality of elohim means accepting the Trinity? Well I suppose you would, given the simplistic scholarship you tout. I don't suppose you have any understanding of henotheism? Look it up.[B][QUOTE]people as ignorant, moronic as yourself about these matters.[/B][/QUOTE]I see. Well, myself and other morons have corrected you on numerous factual matters over the last few days, especially in those areas where you profess to some scholarship. As one of the root meanings of idiot in Greek is a layperson lacking the specialized knowledge to represent an argument in court, I am surprised you point the insult at us. You protest too much.[B][QUOTE]It is actually sin for me to continue with you past this point, having to depart from the company of a fool.[/B][/QUOTE]It's a shame your commitment is as weak as your scholarship, but not surprising. You have shown only a veneer of learning, and an utter lack of that agape that the Corinthians were told is the very hallmark that distinguishes Christian thought.pantote manqanonta kai mhdepote eis epignwsin alhqeias elqein dunamena