Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[KJV1611]

And yet the more early manuscripts we find the more we have to compare, and by comparing we can come closer to the originals.

I thought you were smarter than that Crossnote. There are just as many copies of corrupt "originals" as there are genuine copies. You trust some MAN to tell you which bible verses SHOULD BE in the bible and which ones shouldn't be. Pure insanity!

 

[John146]

You showed a difference but proved no error from either side.

I guess you didn’t see it. In one place the new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, and in another place of the exact story it states Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. The truth of God’s word tells us that David killed Goliath.

 

[John146]

You use a KJV and you've got the most screwed up interpreations that I've ever seen. Nobody interprets the word of God, we just believe every word AS IT'S WRITTEN.

Thanks for the compliment. 😉

 

[tourist]

Yeah right, God is so inept that he couldn't prevent a HUMAN BEING from screwing up his word. Where do you people come up with this BS? Just because yall's pea brains can't understand the supposed discrephencies doesn't make it an error.

The key phrase is 'supposed discrephencies". When considering the context of the Word of God as a whole any supposed contradictions or errors will vanish. The problem with the perception of contradiction and error in the bible is a lack of understanding of the context in which it is presented.

 

[KJV1611]

That puts us back to the false assumption that only English speakers have the advantage of 'sheer perfection from cover to cover' with the KJV.

The KJV is only the English version of the inspired word of God, English speakers aren't "God's chosen people". God gave his word to all people in their own languages.

Read the book of Acts, those people speaking 'the wonderful works of God" in their OWN LANGUAGE is proof that God gives his word to all people in their own languages.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Are you serious? Your statement that any translation of God's word is the word of God is meaningless. A translation is by definition, not the original. In fact, there is no such thing as the original word of God that exists today. There are many fragments from various time periods that translators must put together to create a Bible. There are a slew of translations precisely because it's impossible to create an English Bible (and other languages) that is exactly like the originals.

Blasphemy!

Jesus said that man lives by EVERY word of God.

Jesus lied?

I think not!!

 

[crossnote]

I thought you were smarter than that Crossnote.

When losing an argument resort to ad hominems. tsk tsk.

There are just as many copies of corrupt "originals" as there are genuine copies. You trust some MAN to tell you which bible verses SHOULD BE in the bible and which ones shouldn't be. Pure insanity!

By comparing multiple early manuscripts they are able to weed out scribal additions and deletions etc.

 

[John146]

Correct. That is why there should not be a single translation that claims to be the word of God; it is impossible. People think that the King James is the word of God, but it isn't. All translations are different interpretations of the earliest and best texts available when the translation was done.

There will always be different interpretations of what the Bible text means.

The very same God who gave man His holy words, commanded man to live by them, was not able to perfectly preserve them for future men. Is this your stance?

 

[John146]

The key phrase is 'supposed discrephencies". When considering the context of the Word of God as a whole any supposed contradictions or errors will vanish. The problem with the perception of contradiction and error in the bible is a lack of understanding of the context in which it is presented.

This is only applied to the KJV.😉

 

[KJV1611]

Thanks for the compliment. 😉

That was in no way a compliment. You're probably the worst enemy of the KJV only crowd with your beliefs and "defense" of the KJV.

 

[crossnote]

The KJV is only the English version of the inspired word of God,

Those poor Hebrews with their corrupted Torah.

Read the book of Acts, those people speaking 'the wonderful works of God" in their OWN LANGUAGE is proof that God gives his word to all people in their own languages.

Funny, those words in Acts were originally written in Greek, not the 1611 KJV.

 

[crossnote]

I've wasted enough of my time for now. Cya

 

[jaybo]

You use a KJV and you've got the most screwed up interpreations that I've ever seen. Nobody interprets the word of God, we just believe every word AS IT'S WRITTEN.

Of course, 99.99% of us aren't professional translators, so we must choose which translation(s) that we prefer. If you aren't an expert in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek, there is no alternative. The words are chosen by others to mean something to us in our native language, so we can't "believe every word AS IT'S WRITTEN". We have to believe every word, phrase, idiom, etc. as it's been translated for us.

Another point is that English is a dynamic language that changes considerably over time. The language that we speak, hear, and read -- the one with which we form our thoughts and ideas -- is very different than the English used by our grandparents, never mind four centuries ago.

 

[KJV1611]

When losing an argument resort to ad hominems. tsk tsk.

By comparing multiple early manuscripts they are able to weed out scribal additions and deletions etc.

So what you are saying is that God is not able to use men to translate the bible EXACTLY the way God wanted it done, but "bible scholars" are smart enough to discern what God really said and what he didn't say, and what God "really meant to say".

Is this what you're saying?

 

[John146]

That was in no way a compliment. You're probably the worst enemy of the KJV only crowd with your beliefs and "defense" of the KJV.

Lol, I believe every word and take it literally as the text provides. I never spiritualize the clear meaning of the text.

 

[John146]

Of course, 99.99% of us aren't professional translators, so we must choose which translation(s) that we prefer.

Ok, then when you come across a blatant contradiction then you should dump that version for another.

 

[KJV1611]

Of course, 99.99% of us aren't professional translators, so we must choose which translation(s) that we prefer. If you aren't an expert in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek, there is no alternative. The words are chosen by others to mean something to us in our native language, so we can't "believe every word AS IT'S WRITTEN". We have to believe every word, phrase, idiom, etc. as it's been translated for us.

Another point is that English is a dynamic language that changes considerably over time. The language that we speak, hear, and read -- the one with which we form our thoughts and ideas -- is very different than the English used by our grandparents, never mind four centuries ago.

What you are saying is that God A) isn't capable of bridging language boundries or B) God doesn't want us to have his inerrant word today.

I don't believe either of those are true.

 

[jaybo]

And yet the more early manuscripts we find the more we have to compare, and by comparing we can come closer to the originals.

I agree 100%. 8^)

 

[KJV1611]

I agree 100%. 8^)

Jaybo did you know that false gospels were in circulation at the same time the real gospels were being written?

 

[jaybo]

Ok, then when you come across a blatant contradiction then you should dump that version for another.

Can you give an example of a "blatant contradiction"? If two translations don't agree then obviously you must prefer one over the other. I intentionally read several translations; I prefer the NET, the NIV, the NRSV, the ESV, and the 1599 Geneva Bible, in that order.