What makes this verse different than the other verses that use the same Greek word translated as offend. I'm pretty sure the other occurences mean offend as in how we use the word today... why is this one different?
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
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.
Which is why God published the Authorized in English so as to bypass the philosophers.
Wow you got me man. I don't know why God made it so I would have learn the bible from smart guys like you.
I do not believe that God directly inspires any translator's choice of words. The translators of the KJV give evidence in their preface that they didn't think so either. I believe that God preserves His message only to the extent that He does not allow human error to pervert his intended meaning. He does NOT prevent human error from occurring in ANY translation.
This is absolute twaddle - with bells on!
God did not publish the KJV.
It was a translation from Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts to English.
It was undertaken by men who were those very philosophers you appear to have a problem with.
They had great knowledge of the original languages as well as a theological position that influenced their approach to translation.
Like everyone else they were human and subject to human foibles.
Did they do a great job given what they had?
Yes!
Is it a perfect translation?
Absolutely not!
You call it anthropomorphic I call it spiritual or symbolic, either way the right hand is symbolic or anthropomorphic of Jesus Christ, the one who saves the body from hell.
I have no problem if you read it as addressed to Jesus. I base it on subtle differences in the Hebrew text.
Back to making silly statements I see!
You are the one who made a claim that you cannot in any way substantiate.
You claim that current translators somehow do not understand the original meaning of words in the original languages - a claim that you are profoundly unqualified to make.
Perhaps if you were an expert on Koine or Hebrew someone might actually take you seriously.
As it is.....
So at least you agree there is partial inspiration in that God wont allow mankind to screw it up too bad.
How can one’s own hand offend it’s master?
Paul reasoned his own flesh offended him because it was the master over him.
Thus he concluded that he needed a deliverer and found that only Jesus Christ could save him from his own flesh.
The finished work evidences the handiwork of the Holy Ghost not the work of man.
No, I don't put my faith in James Strong's ability to understand a 2000 year old language. I admit I know absolutely nothing about Greek and Hebrew and I could care less what the original languages say because those writings were written for that day and time.
All I have to do is pick up my KJV and believe every word is right and God does the rest.
The results produced by the modern translators is what proves them corrupt.
I have no idea and even more silly than that, how does cutting off a body part save the body from hell?
The bible is a book of symbolic language that conceals the meat of the word of God, the KJV maintains the symbols and makes it possible to decipher the meaning. This is why people fight and argue over this stuff. Some people see the symbols and some people don't.