KJV translators weren't KJV only!

  • 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.
John146 said:
You danced around the question. Which one is it, or neither. It obv cannot be both. My point, two versions cannot both be called the word of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. Your ignorance of translational issues limits your understanding of this matter.
 
Dino246 said:
I have read the entire Bible many times. What is your point?
Click to expand...
My point is in the scriptures that I referenced to you.

If you think that you do not need to read them because you already know the Bible, perhaps they apply to you more than I previously thought.
 
Icedaisey said:
I didn't see where you pointed out my observations prior to my quoted post.



I don't know that his work drives people from the faith. Ehrman was a Christian, now turned to Agnostic.

He's a scholar and professor of NT studies and invests in the field of textual criticism.

Teaching the history of how the canon came to exist shouldn't turn people from wanting to learn about Christ.

And we know no one can take us from Christ.
Click to expand...
… Perhaps; I’m not interested in arguing that point. Like the rocks, birds and weeds in the parable if the sower, Ehrman steers people away from Jesus.
 
justbyfaith said:
My point is in the scriptures that I referenced to you.

If you think that you do not need to read them because you already know the Bible, perhaps they apply to you more than I previously thought.
Click to expand...
Snark and personal attacks will get you absolutely nowhere with me. Don’t be a jackdonkey.
 
Dino246 said:
No, it doesn’t at all. Your view is based on the presumption that the KjV is correct, and your reasoning is circular.
Click to expand...
Your view is based on the presumption that the kjv is incorrect. How is your reasoning also not circular?
 
Dino246 said:
Go back and read the OP.
Click to expand...

The OP is wrong in his thinking. That's the point. Duck and diving the question at hand. Can more than one version be the word of God when they contain different words and different truths?

Do you believe the KJV is the word of God?
 
John146 said:
The OP is wrong in his thinking. That's the point. Duck and diving the question at hand. Can more than one version be the word of God when they contain different words and different truths?

Do you believe the KJV is the word of God?
Click to expand...
I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John146
John146 said:
The OP is wrong in his thinking. That's the point. Duck and diving the question at hand. Can more than one version be the word of God when they contain different words and different truths?

Do you believe the KJV is the word of God?
Click to expand...
No, the OP is not wrong. He is making the point that even the KJV translators themselves did not hold to the idea that any translation was perfect (and I don’t mean ‘complete’ or ‘mature’) and they did hold the idea that various translations are actually the word of God even if they are considerably less than perfect.

I’m not going to answer your leading question.
 
Dino246 said:
No, the OP is not wrong. He is making the point that even the KJV translators themselves did not hold to the idea that any translation was perfect (and I don’t mean ‘complete’ or ‘mature’) and they did hold the idea that various translations are actually the word of God even if they are considerably less than perfect.

I’m not going to answer your leading question.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we are getting somewhere...you and the OP do not believe the word of God is anywhere to be found in any translation. At least that's settles. Was that so hard to finally admit?
 
John146 said:
Ok, now we are getting somewhere...you and the OP do not believe the word of God is anywhere to be found in any translation. At least that's settles. Was that so hard to finally admit?
Click to expand...
Wrong again… as usual.
 
Dino246 said:
No, the OP is not wrong. He is making the point that even the KJV translators themselves did not hold to the idea that any translation was perfect (and I don’t mean ‘complete’ or ‘mature’) and they did hold the idea that various translations are actually the word of God even if they are considerably less than perfect.

I’m not going to answer your leading question.
Click to expand...

You are in agreement with the OP. The OP clearly stated that the word of God is not found in any translation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back