Answer to another poster....

Hmph. And all this time I thought it was God who did all the saving...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

HAHA Trotter. I love reading your answers to these types of statements.

 

I will stick with the tried and true KJV. Millions saved under the preaching of this Bible .

James 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Looking at this verse, I would say the phrase 'saved by this Bible' would be just as correct as saying God saved them.

Jesus is the Word of God. Thy Word have I hid in my heart.

 

And praise God that millions have been saved through the testimony of a myriad of faithful translations of His perfect word.

What a mighty God we serve not to be bound my our human language limitations.

 

Amen, Roger! Amen.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Here we go again. I feel sorry for my poor Romanian friends that don't have the KJV translation. Bless their poor non-English speaking hearts. How in the world did they ever get saved?

By the preaching of God's Word in their own language and the testimony of other Christians.

I grow weary of those that believe God can only preserve His Word in English through one translation.

 

Praise God!

 

Diggin in da Word: //Jesus is the Word of God. Thy Word have I hid in my heart.//

So you are really diggin' in da Jesus???
Good, I dig Jesus also.

Where 'dig' means:
dig8 v.i. Slang 8a. to understand and appreciate

where 'dig' does NOT mean:
dig13 v.i. 13. a cutting sarcastic remark

(hense the need for one to define terms, so others can figure out
what one is talking about)

Jonah 4:11 (KJV1769):

And should not I spare Ninevah,
that great city, wherein are
more than sixcore thousand persons
what cannot discern between
their right hand and their left hand;
and also much cattle?

I discern a failure here to discern between
the right hand and the left hand:

1. the left hand,
'rhema' - the Written Word of God,
the Holy Bible

and

2. the right hand,
'logos' - the Living Word of God,
Messiah Iesus.

1, The Holy Bible used to be ink on paper,
but is now phospher-driven-pixils on screen (hopefully a flat, non-glare screen).
Not how the Holy Bible has changed over the years.

2. Messiah Iesus is the very living God and NEVER CHANGES,
being always steadfast and sure

 

You gotta love Ed Edwards. He's like an old scholar with a hip, childish, warped sense of humor.

BTW, this KJV lover has gotten himself a hardcover 1611 and is loving it!

 

Bwaaa haa haaa!!!!! me too.

 

would the KJV written in Romanian or Bulgarian be translated? or interpreted?

Interpretations are more accurate than translations, as we have seen from the many Bibles.

All claim to be the correct translation but they all differ in one respect or another.

Yet, interpretation is different. Hello is the same in any language.

One should write the interpretations instead of translations!

Just a thought.....

 

I'll give you to the count of TEN to quit
saying that. Year One, Year two, ...

Amen, Brother AresMan -- Preach it!

 

Please don't tell me you actually believe the Bible is God. That means that you do not believe in the Trinity. You would believe that the Godhead exists as, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, God the Son, and God the Bible.\

Please tell me you don't believe this.

Jesus is not in the form of the KJV Bible.

That is a very dangerous statement.

That is Bible idolatry.

I really don't think you meant that as it sounded. did you?

 

SirEdEdSrsir: There is some validity in what you say. However, I'm not sure that every instance of " lo'gos " can be said to refer, necessarily, to-
"lo'gos - the Living Word of God,".
I did a quick check in my 'Weak' concordance and found several instances of " lo'gos " being something other than "...the Living Word of God...". That statement appears much too general.

I'd also like to offer that I one time heard one of my closest friends say this: "Sometimes it is kinda' hard to separate 'the word of God from the Word of God.
In His grace,
Ed

P.S. I called it my 'Weak' concordance, for it is nearing 'life-supoport' status, and breaking down all over.

 

StandingfirminChrist: //Interpretations are more accurate than translations,
as we have seen from the many Bibles.//

StandingfriminChrist comparing to translation: //Yet, interpretation
is different. Hello is the same in any language.//

You lost me with this example. 'Hello' in English translates into
'yah-sue' in Modern Greek. (Though the folks in Athens figured I
must have learned my speaking on Crete, which I had - I guess it
was the Southern Greece accent )
But 'yah-sue' also means, according to usage: 'yes' and 'uh-huh'.
I remember listening to a Greek's end of a telephone converstation:
it was " 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue', 'yah-sue'"
(Maybe it meant more like 'Yes dear' than 'uh-huh"?)
But anyway, even 'Hello' means different things in different
languages. So where/what is your point?
I'll agree that interpretation is different from translation.
Translation takes the words in one language and converts them
to mean the same thing in another lanaguage.
Interpretation takes the words in whatever language to the
living of a Christian Life. I remember one guy saying:
the best translation (using 'translation' like we are meaning
'interpretation') of the Bible I ever had was Grandma (i.e.
how Grandma lived).

StandingfirminChrist: //Interpretations are more accurate
than translations, as we have seen from the many Bibles.//

I don't see how 'many Bibles' helps us show that 'interpretations
are more accurate than translations'. I'd like to, sounds like an
argument i'd like to use from time to time.

I know I'm the person here contending:
There are more doctrinal variations from variant interpretations
of the KJV than from various English translations reading 'different'.

I know many of the varian denominations created in the 19th
Century (1801-1900) were using the same KJV:
Christian Science, Adventist movement, John Smith Junior's many
denominations (Mormans;Reorganized Church of Christ of Latter Day
Saints, Temple Lot; etc.), Jehovah's Witnesses etc.

One doctrinal varation, both sides readable from the KJV (any KJV)
is the understanding of Hebrews 6:4-6.
Those who understand the locical argument reductio ad absurdum

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - Latin 'a reduction to an absurdity';
the refutation of a proposition by showing its logical
conclusion as absurd.

Those who see the interpretation properly see that
it proves one cannot
be lost again after having been saved by Messiah Jesus.
And a Believer can be secure in their Salvation BY JESUS.
Those who have an improper interpretation
(not even knowing about reductio ad absurdum) think it proves their
in-again, out-again, saved-again, lost-again, fin-again doctrine
of insecurity of the believer (AKA: conditional salvation).

Isn't it strange? The word thinks that it is good to be searching,
always searching for the TRUTH. But if you find the TRUTH is
a person named 'Jesus' -- the world will turn on you on a dime.