Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God?
- Thread starter memyselfi
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
OK.....This issue is in almost all translations including the KJV.
Joh_3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh_11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Act_10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
In each one of these text "in" should be translated into or to. Preferably "into" as found here, "For God so loved the world that He gave
His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(Joh 3:16 LITV-TSP)
To say we believe in Christ is not the same as to say we believe into or to Christ.
Here is the citation from Mickelson's Strong's enhanced in reference to the word in question:
G1519 εἰς eis (eis) prep.
1. to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time
2. (figuratively) to or into a purpose (result, etc.)
This next one which has been translated "believeth in" in the KJV and similarly in most all other translations new and old is also an issue much greater than the issues to which you speak.
Rom_3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
It should actually look something like these....
for the showing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus.
(Rom 3:26 LITV-TSP)
toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus."
(Rom 3:26 CLV)
The word translated "in" in the clause "beleive in" is ek in the Greek. Here is another citation from Mickelson. This why it should be of not in.
G1537 ἐκ ek (ek) (or ex ex) prep.
1. from (the point whence action or motion proceeds)
2. out (of place, time, or cause)
As you can see I chose an issue that is in most translations. None are perfect and all require for us to dig deep through GOD's Spirit and pray for HIS discernment.
Joh_3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh_11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Joh_11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Act_10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
In each one of these text "in" should be translated into or to. Preferably "into" as found here, "For God so loved the world that He gave
His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(Joh 3:16 LITV-TSP)
To say we believe in Christ is not the same as to say we believe into or to Christ.
Here is the citation from Mickelson's Strong's enhanced in reference to the word in question:
G1519 εἰς eis (eis) prep.
1. to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time
2. (figuratively) to or into a purpose (result, etc.)
This next one which has been translated "believeth in" in the KJV and similarly in most all other translations new and old is also an issue much greater than the issues to which you speak.
Rom_3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
It should actually look something like these....
for the showing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus.
(Rom 3:26 LITV-TSP)
toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus."
(Rom 3:26 CLV)
The word translated "in" in the clause "beleive in" is ek in the Greek. Here is another citation from Mickelson. This why it should be of not in.
G1537 ἐκ ek (ek) (or ex ex) prep.
1. from (the point whence action or motion proceeds)
2. out (of place, time, or cause)
As you can see I chose an issue that is in most translations. None are perfect and all require for us to dig deep through GOD's Spirit and pray for HIS discernment.
Try this version from AMPC it puts other definitions of the original language in parentheses. Your into is a bit weak!! On my smartphone with biblegateway.com I go between translations. Mostly use NIV, ESV, KJV, and AMPC. AMPC is great for study with the extra definitions in parentheses but makes for cumbersome reading and quoting.
John 3 AMPC Amplified Classic
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
John 3 AMPC Amplified Classic
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
http://goodnewspirit.com/ark-covenant.htm
The Lord had to write these stone tablets twice. The first set, Moses cast down and shattered out of anger when, on his return, he found the Israelites in revolt and making preparations to return to Egypt. After quelling the revolt, Moses went back to the mountaintop and secured another set from God. It was this second set of stones that were housed in the ark.
The Lord had to write these stone tablets twice. The first set, Moses cast down and shattered out of anger when, on his return, he found the Israelites in revolt and making preparations to return to Egypt. After quelling the revolt, Moses went back to the mountaintop and secured another set from God. It was this second set of stones that were housed in the ark.
-
1
- Show all
With the catholic definition of the universal church yes. The early elders created created the creeds for 3 purposes.
1. To define what a Christian must believe.
2. Anything contrary is heresy.
3. Any Biblical issue outside of them is to agree to disagree.
With 3 there are a lot of issues falling into this category. Thus the many diverse gospel preaching denominations.
1. To define what a Christian must believe.
2. Anything contrary is heresy.
3. Any Biblical issue outside of them is to agree to disagree.
With 3 there are a lot of issues falling into this category. Thus the many diverse gospel preaching denominations.
Hebrews 9 NIV
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
9 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
9 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
-
1
- Show all
I wrote nothing about the Bible's accuracy. Which post did you read?
I suggested nothing of the sort. It appears that you got offended and went off.
Relevance? That can happen with any decent translation; it is certainly not limited to the KJV.
The standard has always been the original-language texts, of which the "textus receptus" is only a portion. Erasmus only had a few late, incomplete Greek manuscripts available. Tyndale used Erasmus' printed editions, and in turn the KJV translators borrowed heavily from Tyndale's work.
It's clear you didn't read my post carefully. I didn't call the textus receptus a gimmick. Next time, kindly ensure you're responding to what I actually wrote.
Not if they read it carefully, which you clearly didn't.
While your disdain for careful reading speaks for itself. Seriously, man, you're WAY off base.
I don't hold the textus receptus in special regard. You do, apparently, so it's you who is bothered. I didn't "attack" the KJV at all. I merely responded to some ridiculous claims made by another contributor.
I suggested nothing of the sort. It appears that you got offended and went off.
Relevance? That can happen with any decent translation; it is certainly not limited to the KJV.
The standard has always been the original-language texts, of which the "textus receptus" is only a portion. Erasmus only had a few late, incomplete Greek manuscripts available. Tyndale used Erasmus' printed editions, and in turn the KJV translators borrowed heavily from Tyndale's work.
It's clear you didn't read my post carefully. I didn't call the textus receptus a gimmick. Next time, kindly ensure you're responding to what I actually wrote.
Not if they read it carefully, which you clearly didn't.
While your disdain for careful reading speaks for itself. Seriously, man, you're WAY off base.
I don't hold the textus receptus in special regard. You do, apparently, so it's you who is bothered. I didn't "attack" the KJV at all. I merely responded to some ridiculous claims made by another contributor.
KJV flaws are caused by the 400 years of changes in the English language and knowledge of nature.
Words that are no longer in the English language and animals that today we know don't exist. Otherwise it is a good translation. It is written in the language of Shakespeare. Most people have some problems with Shakespeare since they never get most of his humor. Jobs and things back then don't exist today.
Words that are no longer in the English language and animals that today we know don't exist. Otherwise it is a good translation. It is written in the language of Shakespeare. Most people have some problems with Shakespeare since they never get most of his humor. Jobs and things back then don't exist today.