The Chapter and Verse Numbers in the KJB Appear to be There by Divine Placement.

[quietthinker]

The 'brother' (Bible Highlighter, I assume bro.) is not saying that the Bible, or the words of God themselves, did not exist before AD 1611, and did not exist in other languages (besides English). All that 'BH' is saying, is that God's words have come down to the modern day, preserved (by God), and happen to be in the "common version" (sister E. G. White) known the world over in the common language of the world (English). The common language among the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews was "Hebrew". The common language among the Romans, Greeks, and even many Jews, etc was "Greek" during the first century. The common language (notice, I didn't say 'primary' language) of the world today, even in deep China, and Russia, is English, and even for international travel.

Most peoples of the world, didn't have access to the Bible or words of God, pre-printing press. There were of course mss (manuscripts), codices, etc floating around, and hand-printed/written of course, but these were not primarily circulating in the America's, China, Slavs, Rus, Australia, South Africa, varied Islands, etc. The words of God were primarily circulating in Europe, Asia, and north Africa, and eventually made their way to the "America's" and other places later.

The same question, or comment, as made by yourself, brother, could be likewise 'charged' upon God, for not circulating the OT (written in Hebrew, and a little Syriack) in many languages in the world while the "oracles of God" were in the hands of the Levites.

Even Wycliffe's English, is primarily from the Latin (Catholic) 'Vulgate', which was altered by Jerome, as Helvidius states, among others, and needs to be corrected, as it contains the errors and alterations of Romanism. The real Latin 'vulgate', the Vetus Latina, came through into the Vaudois, Waldensian (etc) line, and when Luther and others met with these, they already had Bibles in their own language. Erasmus himself, didn't go entirely with the Latin 'Vulgate' of Jerome and made many alterations based upon the many mss he had access to.

No. There is always going to be an element of faith. But the evidence for Biblical Numerics is mind blowing and should could convince the most hardened skeptic that the Bible is God’s Holy Book. But because men do not want to hear the truth, they just speak words without knowledge (without even hearing the case for Biblical Numerics). All I can do is encourage you to check out the videos.

you're a man aren't you?....or do you consider yourself exempt?

 

[quietthinker]

I can say the same for you, and yet we both cannot be right. I believe evidence is on my side here and yet you will not even look at that evidence (like many who believe as you do).

you're self justifying statements are just that.

 

[quietthinker]

The 'brother' (Bible Highlighter, I assume bro.) is not saying that the Bible, or the words of God themselves, did not exist before AD 1611, and did not exist in other languages (besides English). All that 'BH' is saying, is that God's words have come down to the modern day, preserved (by God), and happen to be in the "common version" (sister E. G. White) known the world over in the common language of the world (English). The common language among the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews was "Hebrew". The common language among the Romans, Greeks, and even many Jews, etc was "Greek" during the first century. The common language (notice, I didn't say 'primary' language) of the world today, even in deep China, and Russia, is English, and even for international travel.

Most peoples of the world, didn't have access to the Bible or words of God, pre-printing press. There were of course mss (manuscripts), codices, etc floating around, and hand-printed/written of course, but these were not primarily circulating in the America's, China, Slavs, Rus, Australia, South Africa, varied Islands, etc. The words of God were primarily circulating in Europe, Asia, and north Africa, and eventually made their way to the "America's" and other places later.

The same question, or comment, as made by yourself, brother, could be likewise 'charged' upon God, for not circulating the OT (written in Hebrew, and a little Syriack) in many languages in the world while the "oracles of God" were in the hands of the Levites.

Even Wycliffe's English, is primarily from the Latin (Catholic) 'Vulgate', which was altered by Jerome, as Helvidius states, among others, and needs to be corrected, as it contains the errors and alterations of Romanism. The real Latin 'vulgate', the Vetus Latina, came through into the Vaudois, Waldensian (etc) line, and when Luther and others met with these, they already had Bibles in their own language. Erasmus himself, didn't go entirely with the Latin 'Vulgate' of Jerome and made many alterations based upon the many mss he had access to.

Hey Advantageous
If you are interested or could be bothered, The Learner posted this link below. I downloaded it. It has a very interesting Forward and Introduction regarding translation. I thought it was worth the read.

Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words - PDF Drive​

Авторы: W.E.Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr.Год выхода: 1940. — 1602 p.Язык: EnglishThe Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament will be a useful tool in the hands of the student who has little or no formal training in the Hebrew language. It will open up the treasur

www.pdfdrive.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you're self justifying statements are just that.

You’re still speaking without really knowing my side of the case. Have you ever run into someone who thinks a belief you hold to is ridiculous and yet they will not examine the evidence for your belief?

 

[quietthinker]

You’re still speaking without really knowing my side of the case. Have you ever run into someone who thinks a belief you hold to is ridiculous and yet they will not examine the evidence for your belief?

why not be courageous and check out the Forward and Introduction of

Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words - PDF Drive​

as suggested to Advantageous? It's a free and safe download.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

why not be courageous and check out the Forward and Introduction of

Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words - PDF Drive​

as suggested to Advantageous? It's a free and safe download.

According to Vine:

“The ‘blood’ of Christ stands for his death...”
“The blood does not simply denote the physical material, it stands for the death of Christ” (vol. 4, pp. 137,251).

Vine writes heresy about “the blood” in his essay entitled, “The Table of The Lord and The Lord's Supper.” He feels that the ‘blood’ is simply used to “illustrate” his death, just as the term the “table” of The Lord illustrates the communion. The blood was not merely a ‘picture.’ It was God's blood offered for our sins.

So if you want to drink from the corrupt well such as that, be my guest. I want know part in it. If a person denies the blood, there is a big serious problem with their thinking.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

That’s a tall order @Bible Highlighter

A tall order indeed.

The KJB is my preferred translation, but this is over the top a little…

Interesting though…

 

[Adventageous]

We agree on the KJB being the pure Word, but Ellen G. White is a false prophetess and you cannot add her writings to the Bible. That would destroy the idea of following what the Bible teaches. The Bible warns not to add any words to the prophecy of this book (i.e. speaking ahead prophetically of the Bible itself). This is the case because Isaiah 34:16 is clearly speaking to those in the End Times and telling people to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read. It’s not telling you to seek out a Bible AND Ellen G White’s prophecies. But this thread is not about her but it is about the Bible.

I thank you for your comments, sentiments, and appreciate the words to not stray from the original topic.

If you would, I would be glad to speak with you about what the Bible (KJB) says about prophets, testimony, in the last days, as well as historically in another thread, if which you will start, I would be glad to join and share with you, and we can discuss what you think we need to, as I am not opposed to openly, publically, engaging in such a wonderful subject. I would be delighted to have you begin such a thread, as I think we can cover some great ground there, you and I. Let me know if you are amenable to that, and if so, please link me to the new thread. I would only ask that in as much as it is possible to/for you, that you begin the thread with as little bias as possible, though I understand the strong emotional, and theological position from which you are coming from. I will not hold it against you brother 'BH' (I hope you do not mind me shortening that, but if so, let me know, and I will write the whole name each time).

I will leave you with:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.​

Just like Inspiration and Preservation, God gave both

​

[1] Law (written word)​

​

[2] Testimony (spoken word, which was always subject to the written word).​

The Sadducees, fell into the same ditch, in that they rejected all the prophets that came after Moses, and only held to the teachings as they seemed to find in the Torah, which is why Jesus had to prove to them, from Moses (Torah) the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead:

​

Mat_22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.​

​

Mar_12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?​

​

Luk_13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.​

​

Luk_20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.​

If we go with the same ideology as the Sadducees, then why as Christians do we accept the writings of the Nevi'im (prophets), who all came after what Moses specifically wrote, and had, dreams, visions, and additional instruction by those prophets / messengers, like Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the rest, even into the NT, like John the Baptist? Jesus Himself was "that prophet", and was one of the major reasons that the vast majority of the Sadducees rejected Him, as He was not the written Torah, but came nearly 1500 years after Moses. To the Sadducess, Jesus (and the other prophets) was / were extraneous, and not to be trusted. It's why Jesus proved to them from the Torah, that Moses wrote of Him (Jesus). This may be done for sister White also, as needful, but not in this thread.

If we only were to accept what was written, we could only accept the Ten Commandments, as they were specifically written by God. We know they are God's words. Why would we accept the material which came after by Moses (a prophet / messenger)?

We could then say the same of Moses' writings, and that which came after by Joshua or Samuel.

We could then say the same of all that, and that which came after by David (Acts 2:30) and Solomon.

We could then say the same of all that, and that which came after by Isaiah.

... then by Jeremiah.

... then by Ezekiel.

... then by Daniel.

... then by each of the other prophets / messengers (Hosea - Malachi).

... then by Simeon (in the temple) (Luke 2:25,34).

... then by Anna (in the Temple) (Luke 2:36-38).

... then by John the Baptist (Mark 11:32; Luke 7:28, 20:6).

... then by Jesus (Luke 13:33; John 4:44, 6:14).

... then by Agabus (Acts 11:28, 21:10).

... then by Philips four daughters (Acts 21:9).

... then by the others like as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (Acts 13:1).

... then by others after which can be pointed out as needful.

As requested, I will not derail this thread unto that subject (E. G. White, and prophets), as I appreciate the topic in itself. I just hope that this one response may give you something to consider if you desire to begin the new thread. Thank you so much for this opportunity to share with you and others.

 

[Adventageous]

I have been on this forum for about a year and there has yet to be anything that QuiteThinker has said that I agreed with. While I strive to be loving with others, when others appear to continually mock the truth of God’s words on other topics, they do sometimes need a cold splash of water to wake up them up to the truth of His Word (That they are refusing to see).

Even so, grace upon grace. Perhaps you might try with some simple questions that we can all easily answer, with something simple.

There are interesting things in God's word, that I cannot explain, and even random chance cannot explain.

TORH - תורה

Every 50th letter (49 letters in between, the "-" and ":" are not letters, just punctuation and are skipped) beginning from the first "T", "ת".

Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃

Gen 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשׁך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃

Gen 1:3 ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי־אור׃

Gen 1:4 וירא אלהים את־האור כי־טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשׁך׃

Gen 1:5 ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשׁך קרא לילה ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום אחד׃


TORH - תורה

Every 50th letter (49 letters in between, the "-" and ":" are not letters, just punctuation and are skipped) beginning from the first "T", "ת".

Exo 1:1 ואלה שׁמות בני ישׂראל הבאים מצרימה את יעקב אישׁ וביתו באו׃

Exo 1:2 ראובן שׁמעון לוי ויהודה׃

Exo 1:3 ישׂשכר זבולן ובנימן׃

Exo 1:4 דן ונפתלי גד ואשׁר׃

Exo 1:5 ויהי כל־נפשׁ יצאי ירך־יעקב שׁבעים נפשׁ ויוסף היה במצרים׃

Exo 1:6 וימת יוסף וכל־אחיו וכל הדור ההוא׃



YHVH - יהוה

JEHOVAH. Every 8th letter, with 7 letters in between, beginning with the 1st "Y", "י".

Lev 1:1 ויקרא אל־משׁה וידבר יהוה אליו מאהל מועד לאמר׃


HROT - הרות

Torah, TROH, backwards, HROT. Every 50th letter (49 letters in between, the "-" and ":" are not letters, just punctuation and are skipped) beginning from the third "H", "ה", which is after the name of God, JEHOVAH, "יהוה".

Num 1:1 וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדשׁ השׁני בשׁנה השׁנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים לאמר׃

Num 1:2 שׂאו את־ראשׁ כל־עדת בני־ישׂראל למשׁפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שׁמות כל־זכר לגלגלתם׃

Num 1:3 מבן עשׂרים שׁנה ומעלה כל־יצא צבא בישׂראל תפקדו אתם לצבאתם אתה ואהרן׃


HROT - הרות

Torah, TROH, backwards, HROT. Every 49th letter (48 letters in between, the "-" and ":" are not letters, just punctuation and are skipped) beginning from the 5th verse 4th "H", "ה".

Deu 1:5 בעבר הירדן בארץ מואב הואיל משׁה באר את־התורה הזאת לאמר׃

Deu 1:6 יהוה אלהינו דבר אלינו בחרב לאמר רב־לכם שׁבת בהר הזה׃

Deu 1:7 פנו וסעו לכם ובאו הר האמרי ואל־כל־שׁכניו בערבה בהר ובשׁפלה ובנגב ובחוף הים ארץ הכנעני והלבנון עד־הנהר הגדל נהר־פרת׃

Deu 1:8 ראה נתתי לפניכם את־הארץ באו ורשׁו את־הארץ אשׁר נשׁבע יהוה לאבתיכם לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לתת להם ולזרעם אחריהם׃

ישׂראל [Israel at +7 and -50 interval]​

There is also the spelling of "Israel" in Genesis 1:30-2:3 two ways. The first at +7 and the second at -50 (going backwards) with a shared letter "R":

ישׂראל [Israel at +7 and -50 interval]

+7 ישׂראל

Begins in the Genesis 1:31, last letter "Y", "י", working forwards into Genesis 2, ending in Genesis 2:3 . Both "Israel", "ישׂראל" (forwards and backwards) share the central "R", "ר" of Genesis 2:1. Count every 7th letter working forwards.

-50 לארשׂי

Begins in Genesis 2:3, being the 7th letter "Y" from the start of that verse, working backwards into Genesis 1, ending in Genesis 1:30. Both "Israel" (forwards and backwards), "ישׂראל" share the central "R", "ר" of Genesis 2:1. Count every 50th letter working backwards.

Gen 1:30 ולכל־חית הארץ ולכל־עוף השׁמים ולכל רומשׂ על־הארץ אשׁר־בו נפשׁ חיה את־כל־ירק עשׂב לאכלה ויהי־כן׃

Gen 1:31 וירא אלהים את־כל־אשׁר עשׂה והנה־טוב מאד ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום השׁשׁי׃

Gen 2:1 ויכלו השׁמים והארץ וכל־צבאם׃

Gen 2:2 ויכל אלהים ביום השׁביעי מלאכתו אשׁר עשׂה וישׁבת ביום השׁביעי מכל־מלאכתו אשׁר עשׂה׃

Gen 2:3 ויברך אלהים את־יום השׁביעי ויקדשׁ אתו כי בו שׁבת מכל־מלאכתו אשׁר־ברא אלהים לעשׂות׃​

According to the modern day Jews, these are the exact 4 verses recited at kiddush for the Sabbath. There is an interesting tidbit which seems to correlate, in that there is the 7th day Sabbath, and the 50th year Jubilee sabbath

Anyway, for what it's worth. There ya go.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That’s a tall order @Bible Highlighter

A tall order indeed.

The KJB is my preferred translation, but this is over the top a little…

Interesting though…

May I encourage you to watch these videos?

 

[Adventageous]

Hey Advantageous
If you are interested or could be bothered, The Learner posted this link below. I downloaded it. It has a very interesting Forward and Introduction regarding translation. I thought it was worth the read.

Thank you, but I have studied Vine's background. Do you know what he believed?

If you do not know, you can read about it here - Book Bible Gail Riplinger Hazardous Materials : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The "Learner" is mistaken about a lot, and he needs to change his name.

I recommend starting from here, rather than learning what "The Learner" needs to unlearn.

User Account

archive.org

 

[quietthinker]

According to Vine:

“The ‘blood’ of Christ stands for his death...”
“The blood does not simply denote the physical material, it stands for the death of Christ” (vol. 4, pp. 137,251).

Vine writes heresy about “the blood” in his essay entitled, “The Table of The Lord and The Lord's Supper.” He feels that the ‘blood’ is simply used to “illustrate” his death, just as the term the “table” of The Lord illustrates the communion. The blood was not merely a ‘picture.’ It was God's blood offered for our sins.

So if you want to drink from the corrupt well such as that, be my guest. I want know part in it. If a person denies the blood, there is a big serious problem with their thinking.

I'll need to leave you with your love for controversy. I will not engage it!

 

[quietthinker]

Thank you, but I have studied Vine's background. Do you know what he believed?

If you do not know, you can read about it here - Book Bible Gail Riplinger Hazardous Materials : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The "Learner" is mistaken about a lot, and he needs to change his name.

I recommend starting from here, rather than learning what "The Learner" needs to unlearn.

User Account

archive.org

I don't give a rats about what Vine personally believed or didn't believe nor do I want to talk about what Learner needs or doesn't need to do.
We are talking about translations. Staying appropriate for the discussion is helpful unless one is given over to hurling grenades.

 

[Adventageous]

I don't give a rats about what Vine personally believed or didn't believe nor do I want to talk about what Learner needs or doesn't need to do.
We are talking about translations. Staying appropriate for the discussion is helpful unless one is given over to hurling grenades.

I can see that you are affected by my statement. It was not meant to be harsh, but be true to evidence. Vine is mistaken, and his beliefs brought him to wrong conclusions.

 

[quietthinker]

I can see that you are affected by my statement. It was not meant to be harsh, but be true to evidence. Vine is mistaken, and his beliefs brought him to wrong conclusions.

stick to the topic of translation. Understand its principles......and allow me ask, do you speak a language other than English?

 

[Adventageous]

stick to the topic of translation. Understand its principles......and allow me ask, do you speak a language other than English?

brother quietthinker, I was sticking to the topic. I did not bring up Vine. I responded to a post about Vine and why he erred about translation.

I understand translation. Feel free to ask me what you need to. I will respond as I am able.

I can speak a little of other languages (French, Spanish, Samoan, and a few others (moreso in writing than speaking it), German, Latin, Hebrew), though I am not 100% proficient in them. I understand enough to get by when I need to, and I understand translation in each. I also know persons whose primary language are those languages, Samoan, Spanish, and other, and can verify anything I put into print. For instance, my uncle (by marriage) was mexican and speaks fluent Spanish and I grew up around him, along with my neighbours, who were husband and wife, one from Mexico, the other from Spain, and their Spanish, though slightly different from each other, was similar enough. One of my co-workers, when I was with Amazing Facts, spoke fluent German (and I was able to double check my Lutheran German sources with him). I presently live with Samoans (and there are also Fijians, Tongans, Philippines, Chinese), and have been around them for several years.

For instance, I can tell you:

Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

Job 6:6 Pe 'aina ea le mea ua le namumea pe a le inā le masima? Pe ai ea se manogi i le niu o le fuāmoa?

The Google translation of Job 6:6 in Samoan is in error, as it says:

Do you eat the unripe if there is no salt? Is there a smell in the coconut of the egg?

The word "niu" doesn't really mean "coconut" (which in Samoan is actually "popo" (hence the "Popo Savai'i coconut milk in cans sold in stores). It refers to the whiteness of the internal fruit of a young coconut and the clear liquid juice of it. fuamoa, means a female chicken's egg, a "moa" (hen), and male chicken, a rooster, is moa koa.

 

[quietthinker]

brother quietthinker, I was sticking to the topic. I did not bring up Vine. I responded to a post about Vine and why he erred about translation.

I understand translation. Feel free to ask me what you need to. I will respond as I am able.

I can speak a little of other languages (French, Spanish, Samoan, and a few others (moreso in writing than speaking it), German, Latin, Hebrew), though I am not 100% proficient in them. I understand enough to get by when I need to, and I understand translation in each. I also know persons whose primary language are those languages, Samoan, Spanish, and other, and can verify anything I put into print. For instance, my uncle (by marriage) was mexican and speaks fluent Spanish and I grew up around him, along with my neighbours, who were husband and wife, one from Mexico, the other from Spain, and their Spanish, though slightly different from each other, was similar enough. One of my co-workers, when I was with Amazing Facts, spoke fluent German (and I was able to double check my Lutheran German sources with him). I presently live with Samoans (and there are also Fijians, Tongans, Philippines, Chinese), and have been around them for several years.

For instance, I can tell you:

Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

Job 6:6 Pe 'aina ea le mea ua le namumea pe a le inā le masima? Pe ai ea se manogi i le niu o le fuāmoa?

The Google translation of Job 6:6 in Samoan is in error, as it says:

Do you eat the unripe if there is no salt? Is there a smell in the coconut of the egg?

The word "niu" doesn't really mean "coconut" (which in Samoan is actually "popo" (hence the "Popo Savai'i coconut milk in cans sold in stores). It refers to the whiteness of the internal fruit of a young coconut and the clear liquid juice of it. fuamoa, means a female chicken's egg, a "moa" (hen), and male chicken, a rooster, is moa koa.

Addressing the publication of Vines which I suggested; there is translation and there is interpretation. One is quiet distinct from the other. I'm assuming you are aware of this just so we are on the same page? So, if you know why I have suggested reading the forward and introduction of Vines expository I suppose you know but if you haven't you do yourself a big disservice by speaking poorly of it.

Speaking other languages would give you an understanding of the complexity of translating in a way someone who only speaks one language could not understand, so in that sense you would hopefully have an advantage.

I have no beef with the KJV apart from its antiquated language however, other translations are equally as valuable from the perspective of seeing the elephant from another angle, so to speak.

I find riding the KJV as if other translations are second rate errs on the side of foolishness. Even though I find some sections of some translations a stretch, that does not mean all of it is. What I don't feel comfortable with I let slide, I don't damn it to hell and call it 'of the devil'....that is unwise.

 

[Adventageous]

2Co_2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.​

There are indeed corrupt mss. They "take away" ("diminish") and/or "add" to God's words.

​

Exo_5:8 And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God.​

​

Pro_30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.​

Eve did it at the beginning:

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:​

She "diminished" "freely":

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:​

Then she added:

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.​

​

Satan has multiplied 'bread' that is corrupt, and even placed two false witnesses in the two places Jesus foretold:

Mat_24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.​

​

[1] Sinaiticus (desert, St. Catherine's Monastery)​

​

[2] Vaticanus (secret chambers, Vatican vault)​

Both preach a false Christ Jesus, having diminished and added to God's words.

 

[Adventageous]

Addressing the publication of Vines which I suggested; there is translation and there is interpretation. One is quiet distinct from the other. I'm assuming you are aware of this just so we are on the same page? So, if you know why I have suggested reading the forward and introduction of Vines expository I suppose you know but if you haven't you do yourself a big disservice by speaking poorly of it.

Speaking other languages would give you an understanding of the complexity of translating in a way someone who only speaks one language could not understand, so in that sense you would hopefully have an advantage.

I have no beef with the KJV apart from its antiquated language however, other translations are equally as valuable from the perspective of seeing the elephant from another angle, so to speak.

I find riding the KJV as if other translations are second rate errs on the side of foolishness. Even though I find some sections of some translations a stretch, that does not mean all of it is. What I don't feel comfortable with I let slide, I don't damn it to hell and call it 'of the devil'....that is unwise.

You mistake my position (on the KJB) and do not understand it (my position), and denigrate the KJB ("antiquated"), when it is (in general) up to date, with common every day used English. I provided the evidence on Vine. You may continue as you were, as is your prerogative. I know better (now).

Other translations (in English) are not simply 'equally valuable', as the majority of English translations that are proffered are based in the corrupted ('emended') texts. I have demonstrated this with detailed evidence in several threads now, beginning with this post and continuing - Help police! KJV is taking away my freedom of religion in USA reading another Bible versions!

I am not interested in opinion, only evidential facts. One may call it "foolishness", but that is simply opinion, not evidenced or documented. I have, however, demonstrated my point over and over, and could many times more.

What amazes me, is that some think that the devil never had a hand in attempting to corrupt God's words, even from the beginning. Some things are indeed, "of the devil", when it comes to translations. The Bible even foretold of it. Sister White even spoke of it, but who believes her any more, right? I will cease from this conversation, as I do not think it beneficial to you.

 

[quietthinker]

.