Maybe he knew the entire Christian world was going to call it Easter... I don't know.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
We have probably different view on what the accuracy is, what 100% means and what "to know" is.
For example this is not an accurate description for me:
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." (KJV Hebrews 11:5)
"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (KJV Gen 5:24)
"And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him." (LXX Gen 5:24)
Well, KJV translators could be consistent on the names forms, at least.
Hebrews 5:6 Melschisedec
Psalm 110:4 Melchizedek
We do have very different view on inerrancy. I'm looking for accuracy in the message, your looking for accuracy in words. There are hundreds of words that can convey the message from God so I don't get hung up on what words were in the copies of the "originals".
From the LXX and the LXX only, what does "translated him" mean?
Actually they are consistent with the names because numbers in the bible mean just as much as words do. For example Holy Ghost is found 90 times in the KJV because the number 9 in scripture represents fruit bearing. The Holy Ghost causes us to bear spiritual fruit. Holy Spirit is used because it's found 7 times in the KJV. The Holy Spirit is the 7 spirits of God.
If the KJV translators had used the same words for each translation of phuema ( or whatever the word for spirit is) the number patterns would have been destroyed.
I don't know the specifics for Melchisedec but it's found 9 times which means fruit bearing, while Melchizedek is found 2 times. 2 in the bible usually represents the bible Old Testament and New Testament i.e. cloven tongues in the book of Acts.
The KJV translators either knew about the meaning of the numbers and translated via their own knowledge or God inspired them. What you do with the number patterns is your business, but the existence of the patterns in the KJV can't be denied.
This is a question for some native English speakers
I am not good in definition of English words.I can give you only reference to Strong´s lexicon: Strong's Greek: 3346. μετατίθημι
But I can clearly see that the author of Hebrews says "before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God".
Your KJV does not give such testimony.
Last edited:
If you read the passages from the King James instead of LXX you can know what it means.This is a question for some native English speakers
But I can clearly see that the author of Hebrews says "before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God".
Your KJV does not give such testimony.
Translated means God took him.
And we can know what "pleasing God" means... it means walking with God. It doesn't mean our works please God, walking with God pleases God.
If you read the passages from the King James instead of LXX you can know what it means.
Translated means God took him.
And we can know what "pleasing God" means... it means walking with God. It doesn't mean our works please God, walking with God pleases God.
You are very benevolent regarding KJV readings
If you will apply your sharp stance like against "modern translations" you will find hundreds of clear errors... so its very much about your personal preference, I think.
If you want to be just and use the same requirements you use for modern translations (change of verses, missing words etc) your KJV will fail too. And soon.
Last edited:
This how we get weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts. Here a little and there a little. A little Old Testament here and a little New Testament there. Notice the patterns of two in those verses, the two's are referencing the bible - Old Testament & New Testament.If you read the passages from the King James instead of LXX you can know what it means.
Translated means God took him.
And we can know what "pleasing God" means... it means walking with God. It doesn't mean our works please God, walking with God pleases God.
Isaiah 28:9-10 KJV
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. [10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
This how we get weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts. Here a little and there a little. A little Old Testament here and a little New Testament there. Notice the patterns of two in those verses, the two's are referencing the bible - Old Testament & New Testament.
Isaiah 28:9-10 KJV
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. [10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
You show clear favoritism for KJV. What you do not allow for NIV you are advocating for KJV.
I do use the same requirements on the modern translations and they don't hold up. That's why I don't read them any more.
But I do allow for the NIV just like I allow for the KJV. What I can't accept from the NIV is blatant errors and contradictions. Gods doesn't have one and only son, Jesus did not have an origin. And there are hundreds perhaps thousands more errors like that.
Number patterns exist in all translations, and the most profound of them are in the original languages.
The problem is that you want the NIV to be full of errors and contradictions.
Thats why you are not inventing explanations "how it is actually OK" for NIV like you do for KJV.
Its only about your belief. Facts show that there are errors in every translation, KJV included.
"It is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (KJV Gal 3:10)
"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." (KJV Dt 27:26)
"Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them." (LXX Dt 27:26)
Again, different doctrinal meaning. And I am sure you will find an "explanation" again, because you want to (like confirmation by continuing).
Remember that it is a quote - "it is written". So your KJV makes Paul to be a liar (this way you would say that about NIV).
But others can see that the KJV Old Testament is not 100% accurate and without any error.
Last edited:
Why would I want the NIV to be full of errors? I read the NIV for 15 years, the NIV was my bible. Why would I just toss it out for no reason? I don't own stock in the KJV lol and I don't follow any KJV Only cult leader. I came to the KJV on my own, nobody brainwashed me into it. I found contradictions and errors in the NIV that I could not reconcile. That's why I'm KJV only.
I do not know why. But I can see that you do try to reconcile contradictions in KJV but not in NIV.
But the style of your explanations you do for KJV would have the same value for NIV too.
The LXX doesn't match Galatians 3:10 either, why are you not concerned with the LXX not matching perfectly?