Search results

The 7 yr period of Daniel is never called 'the tribulation' in scripture; that is simply manmade hogwash. Jesus only spoke of the 'great tribulation' which begins at the AoD (Matt 24), which, per Daniel 9, is at the midpoint of the last 7 yr period. The GT is cut short by the signs of the sun...

There is no 7-yr tribulation so-named in scripture.

I don't agree to this at all - it's exactly what I am arguing. 'im' can be interpreted a singular, but the burden of proof is on you to show from scripture why the KJV's interpretation in the singular is preferred. True, but irrelevant as to establishing which translation is correct. As I said...

Again, the point is not whether it can be translated as singular, it is whether it should be. I can post a list of translations that all translate it as 'heavens' but that doesn't settle the point. The question is context. The context of Gen 1:1 is a banner statement of the initial primordial...

The question is not can Hebrew masculine forms be translated into English singulars; rather, the question is if it should be in the case of Gen 1:1. The context would demand plural, not singular. Gen 1:8 is appropriately singular because samayim is referring to raqia, which itself is singular...

ok, to be clear - ha'shemayim means 'the heavens' not 'the heaven' as KJV has it. The -im ending is the masculine plural indicator in Hebrew. KJV is simply in error at this point. I don't know how much simpler to make it. Granted, this is a small error, but it easily dispels the notion that the...

The error in Gen 1:1 is documented in one of the links provided previously. Did you even look at the links?

See the links previously provided

400 years rather

I'd be surprised if any one can stand behind a 'pure' KJV only when we have literally 10s of thousands of documented changes that have been made to it in the last 500 years. Doesn't say much for the 'purity' of the KJV. No one uses the original 1611 KJV in middle-English; not even KJV-onlyists.

Nor did I claim it was part of scripture. Rather, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of alleging inlfuences of the translators of modern bibles while ignoring the same for the KJV. We can't have it both ways and be honest inquirers. What's good for one is good for the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_James_VI_and_I There seems to be good evidence that he was bi. So if we're going to castigate modern translations for their supposed 'influences', let's be consistent and point out the 'influences' of the people behind the KJV.

I'll do you one better: the KJV translators were ALL sinners guilty of murder, hate, lust, dishonesty, etc., etc. (i.e. they were sinners). Therefore, by your logic, we shouldn't trust their translations because they may have 'influenced' the text as they were translating.

Another for consideration: https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

"The Preface to the 1611 KJV is eleven pages in length. It gives glory to God for his Word, while at the same time defending its own translation of the Scripture. However, the 1611 KJV translators state that while there are "imperfections and blemishes" in other translations of the Bible that...

https://superiorword.org/errors-in-the-king-james-version/ Just for consideration.

"Which KJV do you use? The OFFICIAL 1611 or the 1769 Blaney edition? Furthermore, do you use the Cambridge edition or the Oxford edition? If the Cambridge edition, which ONE? 1629: Cambridge KJB 1638: Cambridge KJB 1760: Cambridge KJB 1769: Oxford KJB (This is the Benjamin Blayney...

And again you sidestepped the question. I'm not asking about translations that was done by the authors within the text; I'm asking about the method the KJV translators used to translate from the Masoretic - was it literal or dynamic equivalent, and why? Where in scripture does it indicate which...

....wondering if Jesus knew He quoted from the 'wrong' version when He quoted from the LXX instead of the non-authorized/non-finalized Masoretic....hmmmmm......