Please explain this.

[GodsGrace]

breaks the Hebrew rule of "last object" see, not disagreeing though.

See bb.
It's better not to know the rules.
!!

 

[GodsGrace]

breaks the Hebrew rule of "last object" see, not disagreeing though.

Where are you getting the Hebrew from??

 

[bbyrd009]

Let me say this:
I agree with you that the KJV is difficult to understand.
To me, a charger is a car. I'm living NOW, not 400 years ago.
Language needs to be updated.
Nobody I know speaks like Shakespeare used to.

ah, ya, but more than that even imo "KJV" has implications, real-world implications, that we do not even consider, i mean the English, the um British Empire, is famous for...certain stuff, right, so to insist upon the KJV which i think i can safely say is the most Insisted Upon of the insisted upon translations in English, right, i mean we maybe get a few insisters at the other xlations but its like...i dunno, Titleist to every other ball right?

Anyway to insist on the KJV, esp "KJV ONLY," well see a certain other statement is being made right, even though the stater is usually oblivious to that?

 

[bbyrd009]

See bb.
It's better not to know the rules.
!!

ha well you dont have to know them, but see how you will have to construct the sentence some kind of way, as you have just done iow, in order to even get a first reading? So you have assumed "the Lord" there which ok with me ok, but the original does not say that, nor does it not say that, but the whole point here at this mostly irrelevant to this issue v is that you have been put in a position, see, and you had to make a choice here, of translation, and the other choice kind of fell by the wayside, see.

So again doesnt matter too much here, but at other vv see once youve heard the xlation that was scribed for you about fitty times, any other completely valid xlation will not even be possible see, at least for you to hear? I mean dont you prolly still hear "easter" at the passover spots?

 

[bbyrd009]

Where are you getting the Hebrew from??

the interlinear link i just posted

 

[bbyrd009]

which sorry dint mean to get all off into a crack here lol, dunno why this came up really

what you are reading in English is reliably not what the sentence was constructed to impart though, is the point. Information is lost when the deliberate strange constructions are "repaired" by scribes with two eyes, which "rampant" is not even the best descriptor of that imo, more like "done as a rule?"

 

[bbyrd009]

i guess this is coming from feathers, wings i was doing last night. Feathers are like meh to us, right, bird-hair or whatever, but they did not hold the same opinion at all i guess. Feathers are amazing, over the top amazing really, feathers have zippers, and have you ever seen a "broken" feather? Ever? Unzipped maybe, but thats it right. Feathers do not break.

...mount up (with) wings, like eagles is strictly what you read in English, ok, lots more goin on there see Strong's Hebrew: 83. אֵ֫בֶר (eber) -- pinions

 

[marks]

man, i'm still not getting what the diff in plate or platter have to do with any point, yet i see there is a point to be made apparently

It's about the readability of the King James. She brought his head on a charger. Talk about rabbit trails!



Eternal, immortal, the bottom line is God has caused me to know He is real, and I'm His child, and I know Him. And next to that, it all will be fine.

Much love!

 

[GodsGrace]

ha well you dont have to know them, but see how you will have to construct the sentence some kind of way, as you have just done iow, in order to even get a first reading? So you have assumed "the Lord" there which ok with me ok, but the original does not say that, nor does it not say that, but the whole point here at this mostly irrelevant to this issue v is that you have been put in a position, see, and you had to make a choice here, of translation, and the other choice kind of fell by the wayside, see.

So again doesnt matter too much here, but at other vv see once youve heard the xlation that was scribed for you about fitty times, any other completely valid xlation will not even be possible see, at least for you to hear? I mean dont you prolly still hear "easter" at the passover spots?

Have you ever used the YLT?
Youngs LITERAL translation.

It makes one wonder how the bible was able to be translated at all.
This is why I like to go with a general view and not hang on to every word, or even sentence. And from what are we working? Original manuscripts?
I don't thiiiiiink so.

 

[GodsGrace]

i guess this is coming from feathers, wings i was doing last night. Feathers are like meh to us, right, bird-hair or whatever, but they did not hold the same opinion at all i guess. Feathers are amazing, over the top amazing really, feathers have zippers, and have you ever seen a "broken" feather? Ever? Unzipped maybe, but thats it right. Feathers do not break.

...mount up (with) wings, like eagles is strictly what you read in English, ok, lots more goin on there see Strong's Hebrew: 83. אֵ֫בֶר (eber) -- pinions

Just looked at it.
Wow.
This is why I say we need to understand the culture and language of that day.
Do we realize the O.T. was written about 3,000 years ago.
Sometimes I think we lose sight of this.
I usually don't even post verses from it.

 

[atpollard]

No you didn't miss anything. It all began with one man trying to point out that the KJV uses words some don't know. He used charger as an example. I'm the dummy who said I didn't think charger was an archaic word and that most would know it was a big plate or platter. It was all my fault.

I should have just picked another example.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I should have just picked another example.

Haha atpollard. I'm sorry. The dumb thing is that I agreed with you about the KJV. I was just being a bonehead at the particular example you picked. I even annoy myself.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I mostly read NLT. Bible for dummies. Lol.

 

[justbyfaith]

What exactly does it mean to put my faith in Jesus Christ alone?
Does it mean I should give up doing good deeds because then the Holy Spirit will likely leave me if I DO the good deeds?

It means that you don't trust in your works to save you; and that you place your trust wholly in Him and what He did on the Cross, to save you.

You told me the Holy Spirit probably left me when I switched to doing good deeds.

for your salvation.

There is nothing wrong with doing good deeds. Keep doing them. Just do them realizing that you aren't keeping yourself saved in the doing of them.

The only thing that will keep you saved is continued genuine faith, after an initial faith that is genuine.

What is legalism? One who believes good deeds are a hinderance to our faith?

Really, it is one who believes that doing good works will somehow affect your salvation in Christ.

It is not that doing good works are a hindrance to our faith. You are slamming that opinion on me as a straw man argument. I do not hold it to be the case; so stop using it as an argument as though I did.

I believe that the motivation for your good works is what matters. If you do them to obtain or otherwise maintain your salvation, then you are no longer saved by grace. Because grace and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation (and yes the latter part of the verse (Romans 11:5-6) does matter in the kjv; as it helps to make the case).

If you do them because you are thankful over the fact that He has saved you, then you are coming from the perspective of not attempting to earn acceptance before God. Thus you are not saying to God, "you owe me salvation because I did such and such and such". God will not owe any thing to any man...see Romans 4:4.

Let me say this:
I agree with you that the KJV is difficult to understand.
To me, a charger is a car. I'm living NOW, not 400 years ago.

It is only obvious from the context of what is written, that charger means gigantic plate. I can imagine someone putting the head of John the Baptist on the hood of a car; but you are not going to get that impression from reading the story in the NT. The impression that you will get is the intended meaning of the author, however; if you will simply think of what is being said by the "archaic language" that is presented. You can either get a dictionary or else you can compare it to a more modern translation. But I don't suggest relying on the more modern translations for personal reading; because you will only be asking for spiritual malnourishment.

 

[justbyfaith]

BTW-I believe the Holy Spirit can certainly work through other bible versions and, we cannot know if someone has or does not have the H.S...He teaches all of us differently, it seems. Who is 100% correct in every single biblical truth? Have not met a one yet far as I can discern.

How would you know unless you yourself were 100% correct on biblical truth?

 

[Grailhunter]

How would you know unless you yourself were 100% correct on biblical truth?

Sorry for hitting you up on the free-will thing. By the style of your posts I thought you were Calvinist.

 

[justbyfaith]

I have no idea what POTS is.

POTS is Perseverance of the Saints.

It seems many of us make up our very own theories about God, and your is based on 1 John 2:17

1Jo 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

to be compared to:

1Jo 3:6, Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

And, if my "theory" is based in scripture, then I didn't make it up.

YOU do the will of God?
You just got thru telling me if I depend on my good deeds then I must be lost...and yet YOU are depending on doing the will of God??

Here, doing the will of God is not defined as doing good works. Rather, it is defined by

Jhn 6:40, And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You are rather confused.

See Matthew 7:3-5.

Romans 8:1
What changes? In other places it says that we walk after the flesh and not the spirit.

Whether the latter phrase is included in Romans 8:1 does have a bearing on the meaning of the entire text. In one case, there is no condemnation even if you walk according to the flesh (which is denied elsewhere; but you can get the wrong impression from this text if the phrase is missing). In the other, one must walk according to the Spirit in order to be free of condemnation.

If the latter meaning is true, then someone could miss out on salvation itself if they put their trust in the former meaning and presumptuously walk according to the flesh thinking that there is no condemnation for them.

Luke 9:55-56 some bibles have this in brackets...which means it was NOT in some manuscripts.

And the issue that I have is with the faulty manuscripts themselves: which take out specific words and phrases so that the potency of the scriptural message is lost.

Do you know WHY there are different manuscripts?
How could we know FOR SURE which ones are the correct ones?

If the manuscripts that lack information are correct, then the manuscripts that do not lack information were added to. Why then were not the plagues of the book of Revelation added to the people who translated them? But if the manuscripts that do not lack information are correct, then the manuscripts that lack it were taken away from. And the only evidence of that is that the translators will have their names taken out of the book of life and their part in the holy city is no longer secure.

Now the latter thing is invisible; but we can determine by the former thing that those who used the textus receptus did not add to the word of the Lord when they translated such versions as the kjv. It only follows that those who translated the texts that lack information took away from the word of the Lord; and also that, if a person holds the translations that are lacking to be authoritative over and above the translations that include the information, that they also are taking away from the word of the Lord.

Consider my Bible text for this reasoning:

Rev 22:18, For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[justbyfaith]

Sorry for hitting you up on the free-will thing. By the style of your posts I thought you were Calvinist.

And what a slam that is in my opinion!

I do believe in POTS, but most of the other tenets in TULIP I hold to about 1/2 of each letter as being doctrinally correct.

 

[Grailhunter]

And what a slam that is in my opinion!

I do believe in POTS, but most of the other tenets in TULIP I hold to about 1/2 of each letter as being doctrinally correct.

Sorry....lol Did you get an owner's manual with that religion.....? Good luck.

 

[justbyfaith]

Sorry....lol Did you get an owner's manual with that religion.....? Good luck.

No owner's manual...but the layout of their doctrine is quite simple:

T)otal depravity
U)nconditional Election
L)imited Atonement
I)rresistible Grace
P)erseverance of the Saints.