gb93433 said:
Mormons would agree with you. They believe in continual revelation.
I believe in completed revelation, not as the mormons do. You err.
If the KJV translators were perfectly “inspired” the first time why did they make changes later?
The KJB translators made no changes. Only the Apocrapha was later omitted. It is proven good reference for historical reasons.
Again I ask you as I did before, how would you translate Como estas and Como esta from Spanish to English? The problem is they translate with the same words but have a very different impact. If you went back from English to Spanish you would need to know more about the culture to translate the one phrase in English back into Spanish.
The same way anyone would, using the right words.
How would know how to translate love from English into Greek. Several Greek words are translated by love. You claim that one English word correctly translates them giving the same meaning and impact.
The same way you do. You bring accusation against the word of God. You would also like to limit study of the passage to mere words and forget the impact of what Jesus said unto Peter.
In many cases translation can be differences like someone passed away, someone died, someone was killed, and someone was murdered. The end result is that they died but the impact of how they died is much different.
And each has their proper meaning in context to the account, seems you like to forget that.
I will give you another example. In England they would say they went on holiday. How would you translate those words so an American would know the meaning of that statement?
The same as anyone else would, one must take into account the culture.
It is a fact that the translators did make a statement though. Obviously you have never read what the translators wrote in the beginning of the KJV and are simply letting someone mislead you to believe something they did not claim for themselves.
You are obviously presumptuous and WRONG.
I read what they said with an open mind, you come to thier words with a preconceived notion/ Error.
You would also like to place a higher authority on what you understand of what you think they said above the very word of God. Error.
You seem to believe God said it once in that language and gave everyone else the burden of translation so men can argue over what God really meant to have said. That is called serpentology.
It is not about argument. It is about study to get it correct.
You have used a new word for me. Could you educate me on what serpentology is? [/quote] serpentology: the study of God's word with an intent to corrupt the thinking of mortal man to the effect to cause him to err.
My Bible says something quite different in James 1:22, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
James 1:22 teaches that those who are hearers only and not doers are those who are deceived. Am I to assume that you believe a perfect Bible read by someone makes a perfect Christian?
Assume or presume? All Christians are being perfected by what is understood as turning back to the old paths of holiness unto the Lord, otherwise they are slipping off into ungodliness.
If a modern translation misleads people to ungodliness. What did most (about 98%) of the early Christians do who could not read and write? Do you not know that during the time of Jesus there were more than two translations?
I would have to say they followed something known as the Spirit and the teachings of the Apostles and not the teachings of men.
I have never met a godly person who was proud of their godliness and humility.
We agree.
What I read in scripture seems to agree. I am unable to find that kind of godliness in the Bible. What I find is quite the opposite in 2 Tim. 3:2-5, “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
Yes, that's exactly right, men are. Men also portray what is on the inside by what they appear as on the outside.
As the modern versions of today take the place of the KJB we see much akin to worldliness, so far to the effect that men of just 100 years ago would have to backslide just to fellowship with most of today's "Christians".
You're speaking to a man who was out in the world for 32 years. I know much about worldliness/ungodliness, but to the contrary, since I have been saved, I have learned to differentiate between the two opposing lives.
As men depart from the word of God they depart from godliness.
The more men attempt to play God to make it easier for unlearned men to "know" more about God, the less they truly know.
Remember, the letter of the law killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. The more men attempt to determine exact wordings to today's level of evil speaking, the more man as a whole departs from the Living God.
Of course that is on a spiritual plain, I don't expect too much from the carnal mind in understanding what I just said, but with God, there is still hope.
raying: