Is there a "Holiest translation?".I use the kjv btw, I prefer it. but it isnt not the most HOLIEST translation.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Is there a "Holiest translation?".I use the kjv btw, I prefer it. but it isnt not the most HOLIEST translation.
no, none are perfect. if we all learned both Hebrew, koine greek and also aramiac. each of us would see a different thing in the bible.thus slight variations in wording if we translated it.Is there a "Holiest translation?".
So you say God is not the author of confusion.
I agree.
You say KJV 1611 is the only true version presented by God.
So why did the original 1611 KJV include the Apocrypha?
Do you believe it should be there?
I don't.
I'm confused.
I love the truth, which is precisely why I am against the error of KJVOism.The KJVO position is the truth. Do you like the truth?
It is a translation; one of many. There is no reason to believe the Holy Spirit had any more or less influence on any other translation.But when you consider the holy spirit's "influence" on the KJV, it is not just a mere book.
Be very careful in making such a claim. Not only is it close to violating the TOS, it is blatantly false.Anyone that truly has the spirit of truth in them will be/ should be able to discern the difference of the KJV to the rest.
Blind faith, which isn't faith at all. If there is no way to prove it, chances are it is an empty claim, mere opinion (whatever "positively charged righteous perfection" means).The positively charged righteous perfection that exist around the KJV. And see there is no way to prove that. So it is faith that makes the connection.
Neither requires faith. We have fossils which prove the existence of dinosaurs. We have science and reason to tell us what the moon most likely is made of, and a spacecraft has in fact landed on it. If you are suggesting the Bible says the moon is made of light, then it needs to be said that being a light and being light or made of light are two very different things. Your faith here seems blind and not based on reason as it should be, unless I have misunderstood you.But then "world history" requires faith as well. I did not live billions of years ago thus I can't see a dinosaur in the flesh today, nor can I travel to the moon and observe it is a real rock. That requires faith to believe in. Genesis 1:16 says the moon is a light. Hard to land a space ship on a photon. I walk by faith not by sight. I put my faith in God and trust his word.
This of course ignores the obvious--that the original languages don't exist anymore and that the autographs were inspired. Not to mention a certain significant assumption is being made, namely, that when the words were recorded, the writer translated word-for-word what was said and it comes out exactly the same in the written language. Just another example of the fallacious reasoning used by KJVOism.Can a Bible translation be perfect and inspired?
Can a translation of God’s word be perfect?
Man’s wisdom says a perfect translation from one language to another is impossible. The Bible shows us something completely different. Will you trust God or men?
2Ti 3:16; Ps 118:8
- Ge 42:18-20; cf Ge 42:23
- Joseph spoke in Egyptian; his words were recorded in Scripture in Hebrew
- Ezra 4:7
- A Syrian letter
- The “copy” follows Ezra 4:11 in Hebrew.
- Ps 110:1; cf Lu 20:42-43
- A Greek translation of a Hebrew Psalm.
- Mark 5:41
- Aramaic translated into Greek.
- Acts 22
- Paul spoke to them in Hebrew (Ac 22:2); Luke recorded it in Greek.
- Acts 26:14
- Paul recites to Agrippa what Jesus said to him in Hebrew, and it is recorded in Greek.
- Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34
- From Hebrew OT text (Ps 22:1)
- To Aramaic (in two spellings of the same word; Eli = Eloi)
- Transliterated from Aramaic into Greek.
- Translated right inside the verses from Aramaic into Greek.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/blog/video-can-a-bible-translation-be-perfect-and-inspired/
tob
I don't see free as anti-kjv, just against kjvoism.Did you watch the video Free?
tob
*edit what's with you and the king James bible?
im anti-kjvoism, but I read the kjv and have done so for years. when I need to I go the literal translation of the YLT. I poke those who use the niv, but they know that isn't for a heavy study and will read another bible or use a commentary with it.Why not just make it KJVOISM..
tob
No, I didn't watch the video. There is nothing with me and the KJ Bible. Jason correctly states that I am in no way anti-KJV, only anti-KJVOism.Did you watch the video Free?
tob
*edit what's with you and the king James bible?
with the hitch commentary?Seems to me God has been and will always be able to preserve His Word...
KJ is my favorite just cuz i grew up with it...
Agree Free
Do you read that Dragon book?Seems to me God has been and will always be able to preserve His Word...
KJ is my favorite just cuz i grew up with it...
Agree Free
bel and the dragon?Do you read that Dragon book?
What's it about?
yeah, that King James one.bel and the dragon?