Jump to content

OK, so who of you are there?

Caid Ivik

By Caid Ivik
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

is there a translation of the KJV into English anywhere? You know, in all honesty, I like the KJV, except that it is in a different language- one that I do not speak nor read. I wonder if anyone has translated the KJV into English?

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

actually there is. My bible is the New King James Version. Basically updated to our english style.

Also the english versions of the bible do have flaws and errors unlike the original coinae greek of the new testament books and letters.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

well sure, Acriku, intellectually you have a better understanding of text, but there is a spiritual understanding that does not occur in any form of literature. Illumination is not a term I was using that referred to intellectual comprehension, but spiritual comprehension.

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

it doesnt mean anything to you acriku, thats the point. Its meaningless what you feel is important or not.lol its just an opinion.

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

No, not to me, it's no meaning to anyone, except an overwhelming amount of emotion. They have a surge of emotion and call it spiritual understanding, or spiritual feelings. Mixing emotions with something higher is an ignorant mistake.

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

lol but that is your opinion and others as well. Not to many people though. You are only thinking about your own ideas. I could see how people who dont believe in a diety would see it silly. But to people who do and believe that diety hears our prayers, it is only logical to talk to him.

sneezer3

sneezer3

Posted
Posted

Well TMA. then your useing a bible with errors in it that twists verses. etc etc.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp

NOw lets see those errors in the NASB. finly a chance to prove something wrong! >:D ^-^ ;)

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."<NASB>

Everlasting seems easyer to understand to me. along with beliveith

Now lets look at what according to the tract the attack< http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp at the last few parts> Says 80% of other bibles mess with it.

<KJV>"1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear the record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one,"

<KJV>"1 John 5:7

For there are three that testify:"

<Note i came up with these on my on. if you wish to see further errors in that bible go to http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/newamerican.asp

Emprwom. if your are truly seeking the truth on this matter. i know it costs a little bit. but belive me its worth ever penny. i recomend you buy this book. it has clear answers on that subject. and it don't cost that much just 14 95$ + shipping.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0170.asp

Or if you want a much cheaper and stright to the point shorter book.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp

or order a comic about this subject

http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0111.asp

Also if you don't belive God perserverd his word go to this link

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp#dontbelieve

is there a translation of the KJV into English anywhere? You know, in all honesty, I like the KJV, except that it is in a different language- one that I do not speak nor read. I wonder if anyone has translated the KJV into English?

If there was a translation it wouldn't e KJV. by the way. all of the other bibles are translations of the KJV. i could be wrong with this one.

And it is not hard to understand. nothing behond fourth grade level.

See, having several different translations can be an advantage in understanding the true meaning of the verses.
emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

sneezer, now you arent seriously going to say that the NAS translated John 3:16 wrong? Are you going to say that it is "corrupted?"

Believeth is an archaic word. The English translation of "believeth" is believe.

Perhaps you BELIEVETH in God, but I BELIEVE in God. Am I corrupted now?

You tell me, Sneezer: Which of the following people (if any) are deceived: Someone who believeth in Christ, or someone who believes in Christ? Or perhaps there is simply no difference at all. If there is, please explain how the man who "believes" in Christ is lesser than the one who "believeth"

If someone asked you: "Do you believe in God?" How do you respond? Do you say "NO"?

Lol, cmon now. You arent seriously going to call "believe" a MISTRANSLATION of a GREEK word that means "BELIEVE" are you?

Eternal is far more appropriate than everlasting as far as I'm concerned, although they both have identical meanings. There is no corruption here whatsoever. I learned the concept of infinity and eternality in philosophy before I became a believer. There is a concept called "eternity", and "eternal"- neither of which are adequately captured by the word "everlasting" In fact, there is no derivative of the word "everlasting" that can capture the true meaning of the word "eternity". In my opinion, eternal is the superior word since its meaning is far more profound than everlasting. There is no substitute for the concept of "eternity". There is simply no such word as "everlastingity". Eternity is a state of existence and not just a definition of linear time that does not end. Eternity is a word that expands far beyond time and into the very realm of existence. Everlasting is just too limited a word. It simply means a "string of linear events that don't end." Eternal/Eternity therefore have concepts that incorporate AND are greater than the meanings captured by "everlasting" However, everlasting in this verse still means the exact same thing, though eternal invokes a greater image in my mind (because it also invokes "eternity"- a concept the word 'everlasting' does not invoke). I sincerely hope you would not call the NAS John 3:16 corrupt. Please tell me you are not going to call it corrupt.

What does "eternal" mean sneezer? Please answer that.

"And that word means for sure or truely. for certin."

I'm glad that you say that "verily" means "truly" for that is exactly what I read in the English translation of the KJV. It says "truly"- a 100% accurate translation.

"Revelation 22:18 And 19. And please note other bibles would. almost have to take this area out. otherwise! they'd have something that tells not to alter it while there doing it! lol"

A nice little accusation. So, what exactly were those errors in the NAS again? However, this says nothing about the KJV being inerrant. I can use your same argument to say that the NAS is God's preserved word in English. And besides, that is a poor argument anyway, because what then is "God's preserved word in Swahili? Spanish? German? Dutch? Finnish?" Or does God only speak English?

In 48 hours, that is all you can produce? After all your demonizations of non-KJV, all you can produce is that for your evidence? C'mon sneezer.

You still have yet to show one single error in the NAS. So please, I implore you to not call it demonic, without the hard proof that your harsh claims require.

Again, I ask, what errors are there in the NAS?

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If you have any confusion caused by Bible, contact any priest. Salesians have oratorias in every larger town in Europe. There are thousands of missionaires. Or just read a Bible with explanation. If you don't read it, don't talk so about it. Explanations are made by many experts who had given whole life to God and the Bible, also they put into them text from another (older) translation, if there is a difference. If you read it, you must have explanation. It is impossible to understand it whole without them.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

Come on, stop arguing about translations thus...

Verily you think in a tongue unbeknownst to the authors originals of the texts, and hence remain unable to complain overly about the quality of the translation without previously having considered the wording in the languages in which the texts were first written.

or... you must read the greek/hebrew before you can complain about the translations!

"Am I corrupted now?" Yes, your sentence is gramatically incorrect; believeth is third person.

sneezer3

sneezer3

Posted
Posted

"What does "eternal" mean sneezer? Please answer that."

It means everlasting or non-ending Keeps on going Lasts forever.

"In 48 hours, that is all you can produce? After all your demonizations of non-KJV, all you can produce is that for your evidence? C'mon sneezer.

You still have yet to show one single error in the NAS. So please, I implore you to not call it demonic, without the hard proof that your harsh claims require."

And about beliveth. Well it makes it more poetic like Along with everlasting and everlasting still makes more since to me.

"

Again, I ask, what errors are there in the NAS?"

The 48 hours ain't up yet! i had a busy night yesterday. went bowling and it was late and i was brain dead.

"Matthew 2:45 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal"<KJV>

I'l let you look for this verse eh. look up this verse in your bible. you'l see why i wanted you to look it up after you look it up. Either its not there or unbound bible site Edric O gave don't have it.

"Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."<NASB>

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"<KJV>

According to your NASB God made more then one heaven in the begining.

"2 Timothy 3:3

unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,"

Would you mind telling me what irreconcilable means? I have no idea. And what does malicious mean?

Lets look at this verse in KJV

<KJV>"2 Timothy 3:3

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"

<NASB>"2 Timothy 3:1

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come."

They are alter what God said here. the word in KJV instede of difficult is perilous and it means dangorus. not difficult.

Come on, stop arguing about translations thus...

I can stop talking about the translations. if everbody<Besides you> wants. but i cannot stop talking about the other stuff why?

"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Ezekiel 3:18."

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

its because people read the greek and hebrew differently. We are not hebrews or greeks in first speaking language. Even if you do speak fluent hebrew, it isnt hte same as the original ancient hebrew. many differences.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

"its because people read the greek and hebrew differently"

Correct, so we cannot criticise the texts of others without disproving them from the greek (in the NT) or hebrew (for the OT) - which was my point intended.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Question: When there is a conflict between a verse in the KJV and the same verse in the NAS, how do you know the KJV is the one who got it right?

TMA_1

TMA_1

Posted
Posted

the king james version of the bible was the first huge manufacture of bibles to the public in england. The schools that worked on the version usually had catholic backgrounds and did add some of their extrabiblical beliefs. One notable portion is the pool that could heal sickness' because an angel would "stir" the waters and make it a healing potion for people. This was added. there are also many additions throughout the verses of the bible. Another big one is the ending portion of Mark. It was added later. You can s ee a pure translation from the ancient greek new testament works because a lot of stuff that was added was not in those copies.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

its also worth noting that the people who originally translated the KJV ALSO included the Apocrypha. now, if God Himself oversaw this transation, then I wonder why the Apocrypha was included if it is false? Could it be another mistake made by the KJV Translators? Even King James wanted the Apocrypha translated. It was almost 100 years later than it was removed. But the ORIGINAL, TRUE KING JAMES BIBLE included the Catholic Apocrypha. Anyone know why?

Sneakgab

Sneakgab

Posted
Posted

I haven't even read the first page yet but I can say to this:

''Cheesy it is. Look at the atheists and evolutionists he puts into his comics. He deliberately intends to make them look like idiots, and in the end they drop crying on their knees and beg for salvation

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

I haven't even read the first page yet but I can say to this:

''Cheesy it is. Look at the atheists and evolutionists he puts into his comics. He deliberately intends to make them look like idiots, and in the end they drop crying on their knees and beg for salvation

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.