Search results

The word 'adamah (Strong's #127-- ground, land, earth) is "ground" not "dust" in Genesis 2:7 -- And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Soil is alive with microbes; dust is dry and lifeless. The...

A similar idea is found in John 13:16 (KJV) -- Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

You're absolutely right, Amy. While some people smooth over differences in Bible version by assuming that they just restate the same idea in different words, in reality there are many completely divergent readings. This can be based upon differences in underlying texts or the translators...

It is; I personally like White, but his book may not be the very best on this subject. I think I preferred D.A. Carson's King James Version Debate. Another I can vouch for is King James Onlyism which was more recently written (2006) by James D. Price.

Honesty is always the best policy. You do not need to intentionally hurt her feelings, but make no mistake, there likely will be hurt feelings regardless. You should check with the pastor and deacons to confirm the 'official' position of the church. BTW, in the past I've read and researched...

Thank you for your comments, John. I agree that in contemporary speech "jot" and "iota" have basically synonymous meaning. However, when speaking technically (literally) there is a distinction. Actually, it seems that "jot" comes to us through the Latin jota (although the Vulgate seems to have...

I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce a specific example of literal translation contrasted with interpretative rendering using your reference to Matthew 5:18 (KJV) -- For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till...

Of course. If God created it, it was perfect in its original form. How could it not be? God also originally perfectly created the heavens and Earth (and everything in them). But some angels fell. Humans sinned. The Earth is now scared. And God ordained marriage. Are marriages today still...

"502" is rather precise. Does it really have to mean that a child was born immediately after Noah turned 500? Why couldn't Shem have been born, say, when Noah was 530? That is still "after" he became 500. That could make Shem only 70 years-old going into the ark. Also, does the phrase "after...

All this seems to say is that sometime within the approximately 100 years following Noah's 500th birthday (and before the Flood) he fathered three boys. Taking into account that all three men were married at the time of entering into the ark, we might speculate that the youngest could be at...

A genuine spelling difference (not affecting the word's meaning through a change in it's tense/inflection) should really not affect translation. Word order in Greek is also extremely flexible. How about showing us a couple of examples of omitted words?

No. The Greek text itself likely didn't change at all. The changes in the latest editions have been primarily in the apparatus (footnotes), formatting, and possibly punctuation. These changes do not affect translation.

Key differences shown in blue. Verses below are from the KJV -- For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, -- for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: (Acts 2:25) I have set the LORD always before me: because [he is] at my right hand, ---- I...

Typically, the order given in genealogical lists is considered chronological (although not always-- see I Chronicles 1:28 where Isaac is listed before Ishmael). The order throughout Genesis for these Noah's sons is Shem first, then Ham, with Japheth last. This order could be taken to indicate...

There is indeed a past connection between the LCBP of Lansing MI and BPS (Milford, OH is a suburb of Cincinnati). Unfortunately, LCBP sells Gail A. Riplinger's books. In my opinion, she and her books have fully discredited now and therefore her products ought not to be offered by honest...

By using these definitions as implied in some posts, then EVERY Bible translation (after the prophets and apostolic writers themselves) could be called a 'paraphrase'. Since translators do render the meaning of the biblical text (Hebrew, Greek) into another form (like English) it would be a...

There is a significant difference between the vernacular of a language's literary form and it's common everyday speech. The KJV was not written in the language of privately spoken 17th century English, but rather composed in the style of published English (actually, more like 16th century)...

I found this interesting, John. I hope you won't mind that I'm taking a closer look at it here. Of course, it probably was not God's intention that they literally bound it to themselves. For example, I've never seen a Jew physically put a book of the Scriptures into their mouth, or suggest that...

Yes, I appreciate your apology. I knew you had renounced the act before I posted, but I wanted to show a specific example of an error 'placed into the record.' Indeed, Logos. Additionally, the KJV itself renders the same Greek word as "Sir/sir" rather than "Lord" in other parables where the...

Are you quoting the Cambridge Edition KJV or Webster's 1833 version (they seem to be exactly the same)? Interesting, but not unique: I quickly found "bottles" used also in the American KJV and the Douay-Rheims.