They are scholars so I trust them to get it right.No, I know they are a mess by the redefined Greek words they use.
They should be anonymous for shame.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They are scholars so I trust them to get it right.No, I know they are a mess by the redefined Greek words they use.
They should be anonymous for shame.
Of course I am! But only to those who will insist that no modern translation is good enough. I once got excluded from a so-called Christian forum because I preferred the modern ones and said that there were mistakes in the King James.Wrong.
The farther we get from history, the less we know.
That is exactly why the "Greek" word ALSO means this and this and this....
They keep redefining the text as if they lived 2000 years ago.
Many times in the Bible a chapter will go into a previous chapter with more detail.Why do people believe that? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were clearly individual people, Adam was the first MAN but not the first human. I see no indication that there is any reiteration. Eve became the mother of all living after the fall. Before the fall humans were just animals but God wanted to make them into His image and He started His amazing plan to accomplish that. If you look at what historians and scientists have found there was a fantastic leap for humanity about 6000 years ago with modern farming, writing and the first cities all coming from that time. The invention of the plough was about then and Adam was a farmer and before him there was not a man to till the ground. It all fits perfectly!
I am partial to ancient translators.Not us, them. But I almost didn't notice the dodge of the point that it applies to other translations EQUALLY.
Adam(and Eve) were made in the image of Jesus that was to come(Rom 5:14).Why do people believe that? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were clearly individual people, Adam was the first MAN but not the first human. I see no indication that there is any reiteration. Eve became the mother of all living after the fall. Before the fall humans were just animals but God wanted to make them into His image and He started His amazing plan to accomplish that. If you look at what historians and scientists have found there was a fantastic leap for humanity about 6000 years ago with modern farming, writing and the first cities all coming from that time. The invention of the plough was about then and Adam was a farmer and before him there was not a man to till the ground. It all fits perfectly!
Not under the inspiration of God.Of course I can!
The version that lodges in the memory is the one that you have most exposure to.
Which translation is the pure word of God, Wrangler?Yes, they reject the KJV template because it is wrong.
One of the biggest misconceptions of KVJ-only-ism is the idea that modern translations start with the KJV and go down hill from there.
That is not what happens in modern translations. They go back to the beginning. Not only do we know much more than half a millennia ago, the language we speak today is not what was spoken half a millennia ago. The introductions to some translations talk about how language has changed even since the 1960's.
You should never be excluded for being wrong.Of course I am! But only to those who will insist that no modern translation is good enough. I once got excluded from a so-called Christian forum because I preferred the modern ones and said that there were mistakes in the King James.
I am partial to ancient translators.
Modern translators are trying to make a buck with their PHD.
They just want to be "different" at the expense of misrepresenting the pure word of God.
Do notice, nobody claims the modern translations are pure, they just attempt to trash the KJV so they can keep quoting their Strongs.
Busted!Your bias is obvious.
AS IF there is something wrong with making a living and serving God.
Sir, this reveals your God complex. Only God knows their heart.
As another poster pointed out, have you ever read the introduction of these modern translations? They do a fair job of articulating their faith-based motivation and answering the call of God to do the work for another generation of image bearers of God.
Let me say two things right off the bat that appear contradictory.
Translations are not pure. This is why nobody claims it. And it has nothing to do with religion. There are often not exact word for word equating. The syntax of the FROM and TO language is not the same. And, there is a reasonable compromise between literal and readability that requires judgment. For instance, I am sadly reading the NSRV now in daily devotional reading.
- The KJV is the most significant, important book ever written in the English language.
- The KJV's time in the sun has come and gone.
The translators decided to use the literal translation of units of measure. I completed last year 2 wonderful thought translations that used modern units of measure. Such literal translation of archaic units of measurement is an incomplete translation, IMO. The translator is leaving up to the reader to complete the translation, e.g., cubits, talents, mite, dram, obsolete calendar references, etc.
If I may make a comparison. The job of a resume is to get the interview. The resume is not the end but the means to the end. The same with translations. The job of the translation is to bring people to God. It is not the end but the means to the end. I literally cannot read the KJV. Modern translations are for me and they have brought me closer to God. One cannot expect more out of a translation than that.
I said nothing of the kind. The proper way to read God's Word is with God's Spirit.Busted!
You just admitted that God's pure word does NOT endure forever.
Out of all the theological ideas and topics that I've come across over the years, the issue of KJV only is one that I have not encountered until recently. I do appreciate the KJV and have a few Bibles in that translation, but to say that it is the only true word of God in English seems to be a far stretch. Also, this opens up a can of worms.
a) Do missionaries that travel to foreign countries where English is not the language require the people to learn old school English in order to have God's true Word?
b) Is English the only language that the Bible must be in?
c) What about all the Bible translations before the 1611 KJV?
Those are just a few questions I have regarding this topic. I'd like to ask the members here, what are you thoughts on the subject?
You teach that the Church misses the wedding and supper of Rev 19, then meets up to return with Him somewhere.
Actually I do take it literally as far as I believe it is meant to be. If you mean six days of creation, they relate to a prophesy of six 1000 year periods which are drawing to a close as we speak. When Jesus returns, man will finally be made in God's image, creation will be complete and we will enter the Sabbath.Many times in the Bible a chapter will go into a previous chapter with more detail.
I would love to know your definition of human, since you say Adam was a man but there were humans before him. Why can't Genesis be taken literally?
I agree that Adam was in His image, not Eve. So were they individuals or do you think they are all people?Adam(and Eve) were made in the image of Jesus that was to come(Rom 5:14).
But she only became that after the fall and hence got her name. Before the fall she was just "woman" Adam's name didn't change. The fall was an essential part of God's plan.She was the mother of all the living and Adam was the father of all the living.
? OkayShe was not involved with another fella.
Aint nobody gonna talk about our mama.
Can you make out any discernible difference to the meaning of those two translations? Is one more correct for some reason?Lambano said:6:4 שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
should read
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one: