Your In Trouble

[Tim Wright]

{Post too large and completely off topic}

[ April 29, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Tim Wright]

{Post too large and off topic}

[ April 29, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Tim Wright,
You should limit your posts to something a little shorter than a book!

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
P.S.

Now I guess some one will say that we should take that word "BLOOD" out of the Bible, you know some one may be offended!

Nonsequitur, if not also reduction to the absurd.

So back to the original question..you've admitted you wouldn't use those words in public. So aren't you making my point and contradicting yourself(again)?

 

[TomVols]

We've reached three pages and are veering off topic. Let's start wrapping this up.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
P.S.
Now I guess some one will say that we should take that word "BLOOD" out of the Bible, you know some one may be offended!

We [Protestants/Evangelicals] take the blood out of the communion ['eucharist'], saying it is not real ['transsubstantiated'], even though Jesus said His blood is "drink indeed" (John 6:55). Does THIS offend you?

 

[swaimj]

We've reached three pages and are veering off topic. Let's start wrapping this up.

My point in the poll is that there is language in the KJV which was appropriate for public use when translated, but is no longer. Therefore it is, at a minimum, the better part of wisdom at least in some cases to use a more modern translation. Others will have to read and decide for themselves if the point is valid.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
I could simply say, that "he that urinates against the wall" would make the same distinction, but to relate the passage in the original Hebrew, and then translated into English, that can't be done without stating it exactly as it appears in the King James Bible.

If you said, "He that urinates," I am pretty sure the maleness of it would come out. Second, the Hebrew word means to urinate. Therefore, "urinate" would be an accurate translation. Third, this is a masculine particple which seems pretty well to limit it to males.

HOwever, what basis do you have for saying that this word is strictly a male word?

But now that is what is happening here, it's not what the passage says, as much as it an attempt to correct the KJB by society's dictates, It's no wonder so many feel justified in their opinion that the Bible is the word of man and not the Word of God! So many people are bowing down to society instead of declaring the Word of God.

You are right that it is not what the passage says. It is how the KJV translated it. This is not a bowing to society. They don't care whether one uses that word or not. In fact, they use it all the time. This is a matter where the word has become slang and could be better translated by a word that is not slang.

I could make the argument that you want to leave the word there because you refuse to make a difference with the filthy vulgar ways of the world. I bet you couldn't disprove me by your actions. My translation has made that difference with the world; yours has not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Alcott:
We [Protestants/Evangelicals] take the blood out of the communion ['eucharist'], saying it is not real ['transsubstantiated'], even though Jesus said His blood is "drink indeed" (John 6:55). Does THIS offend you?

Actually Christ himself is the one that took it out. If you read the LAst Supper passages, you will that it is fruit of the vine that was drunk from. Transubstantiation is a myth. No wine has ever been turned to blood by the incantation of the priest.

 

[Alcott]

My question was rhetorical, and I do not accept the 'transsubstantiation' tenet. One of the posters, who refutes modern translations to begin with, purports to be concerned that newer translations may remove the word "blood." I was pointing out how this was already done, from literal to metaphorical, as a move away from Catholicism.