Search results

Agreed. Minor issues.

You are calling your opinion a fact. I have given many newbies the NLT. They love it and have not got lost. That is a fact!

So do I my friend. So do I speak from experience. Beyond that, you replied way before being able to read the link and understand the objective analysis.

It's a matter of opinion. You've made unsubstantiated claims. Why the NLT is Good, actually

Yet, you claims was KJVO-ists falsely claim, that all modern Bibles copy from KJ rather go to the source manuscripts.

APPEAL TO DIVERSION. This has nothing to do with whether or not you read modern translators notes. And I seriously doubt punctuation is the same when the sentence structures are different. In fact, I know it is not true. Still, it is besides the point.

1st, my comment was regarding the options besides the trinity. 2nd, no one called the son of God Emmanuel. His name was Jesus, don't you know?! This is one of my favorite rationalizations to support the trinity and the most absurd.

100% False. I recall KJVO-ists saying this for decades. Have you ever actually read translator notes from modern translations? I have.

Not an intellectually honest answer to my question. The trinity is not in the Bible. Citing something as though it supports the trinity cannot be substantiated by invoking other verses in a unitarian book. The claim has to stand on its own. That's why I asked what other options are there in...

I did understand why you cited GE 1:26. Believe it or not, you are not the first to cite that as a poor attempt to justify the Trinity to me. Yes. See my previous responses since you are doing laps on ground already covered, e.g., #506.

Hmmm. I see that as backwards. The NLT corrected the major errors, especially of any translation with "James" in the title. Do you speak Swahili? I don't speak Middle English. I know NKJV is not technically Middle English but it is still virtually unreadable to me. The sentence structure is...

IMO, the best way to understand your point is to read John's preamble through the prophecy that came true; namely, Deuteronomy 18:15-18: 5 Moses continued, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what...

Take this thought to Christ.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can, at least, read the NIV and NLT. (And I think the NLT is the very best translation available in English. The very best - unless you are doing a word for word analysis, which most rarely do.) It doesn't help me to say the best translation of the Bible is in...

What are the options besides the trinity? Do you notice the present tense? Isaiah was written 500 years before Christ, referring to a child born in his day. Jesus is not called any of the things Isaiah then lists. Profound.

So sad! Trust in government is misplaced.

Why would anyone do that when there are FAR better translations regarding both, the FROM and the TO? Today's translators have better mastery of ancient languages and older manuscripts (Dead See scrolls found in the 1970's, etc) than the KJ translators. Regarding the TO, the KJV translates to...

You're just doing laps on ground already covered. Re-read my response to post 505, etc.

A different line of talk going on? The implied premise of your question below is the testimony of yours that I have disqualified as definitive by referring to the authoritative reference. sml In response, you went from the authoritative reference to a red herring about the book of Enoch...

No. The word is best translated "through." This means Jesus was the means or purpose by which the Creator created. Sons are created beings, not the creator.