Totally unbelievable that you would call a subsequent translation of Scripture the original inspired Scripture
It just goes to show the irrational lengths you will go to, to defend your KJ-onlyism
Do you believe a translation can be inspired of God?
Favourite Bible Translations
- Thread starter true_believer
- 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.
Do you believe a translation can be inspired of God?
No, what it proves is that Scripture contains translated passages. You're playing with sand grains and trying to convince me they are planets.
On the Promise of Everlasting Life (Salvation)
Who got this right? Most of the Modern Versions says we need to obey the Son to have this kind of life. Isn’t this confusing by giving it by faith in the first part but condition on the works in the last part?
John 3:36 (NASB, ESV, NLT, .BLB, GNT,ISV, AFV,ABPE, NAS 1977, ASV, ERV, WNT, WEB)
New American Standard Bible
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
King James Bible (WEB)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Who got this right? Most of the Modern Versions says we need to obey the Son to have this kind of life. Isn’t this confusing by giving it by faith in the first part but condition on the works in the last part?
John 3:36 (NASB, ESV, NLT, .BLB, GNT,ISV, AFV,ABPE, NAS 1977, ASV, ERV, WNT, WEB)
New American Standard Bible
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
King James Bible (WEB)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
@Magenta, I recommend that you don't play along with him. He's using a tactic that the JW's use: get you to agree to point 1, and then force points 2 through 100 down your throat.
Comparing two English versions will NEVER tell you which is correct. It is foolish to assume a whole lot of soteriology from a single verse; that's NOT how proper biblical interpretation is done.
There is a story of a young girl in France from the 1700 century , who was blind , and has a little book of Mark in brail...
She wore the tips of her fingers out and made them callous , so she cut her fingers thinking it would make her tips more sensitive , but she lost more feeling in them...
She picked up her little book and kissed it , thanking our Savior , and then she realized that her lips was so sensitive , she could carry on using her mouth to read...
What a wonderful God we serve...
Just thought I would pop this in here...
...xox...
She wore the tips of her fingers out and made them callous , so she cut her fingers thinking it would make her tips more sensitive , but she lost more feeling in them...
She picked up her little book and kissed it , thanking our Savior , and then she realized that her lips was so sensitive , she could carry on using her mouth to read...
What a wonderful God we serve...
Just thought I would pop this in here...
...xox...
Also to be noted that all of English Versions are products of the same reading in the Greek text for the Greek apeitheo
I am not sure who you quoted there to address me
I will assume it was John? Please excuse me if I am wrong
Do the JWs likewise assert that the NWT is the original inspired Word of God despite the
"New World Bible Translation Committee" not beginning to work on it until December 2, 1947?
Meanwhile, Scripture had already existed for thousands of years...
Yes, I quoted John146, sorry.I am not sure who you quoted there to address me
I will assume it was John? Please excuse me if I am wrong
Do the JWs likewise assert that the NWT is the original inspired Word of God despite the
"New World Bible Translation Committee" not beginning to work on it until December 2, 1947?
Meanwhile, Scripture had already existed for thousands of years...
The JW tactic is not about the book they use. In discussion, they will present something innocuous and invite your agreement. They'll do this three or four times, then toss in the odd heterodox idea, and invite your agreement. They keep that up, and if you're not careful, you're nodding along to blatant heresy. John146's tactic is to get you to agree that translation can be inspired. He'll string you along with examples, and then dump on you (whoever the reader is) his fantasy that God inspired the entire KJV in English.
personally I don't really favor any one translation I have read several of them but I am currently more attracted to the kj verson but the way I see it whatever verson people want to use as long as God speaks though it to them should be comfortable using it
Just another attempt to string along the reader with extra-biblical ideas.And yet you cannot admit that it’s possible with God. Bible agnostics
What God could possibly do has never been the issue. What God has done is and always will be.
K
KT88
Guest
As Dino said comparing the two different renditions is not really valid as a approach to understanding biblical issues.
The KJV has variously translated the Greek word apeitheō
The KJV translates Strong's G544 in the following manner: believe not (8x), disobedient (4x), obey not (3x), unbelieving (1x)
Whatever language he sees fit.
Including the correct English of this day. Actually most Christians do believe that.
1.5 billion people speak English in the world today — 20% of the Earth's population.
Most of those people aren't native English speakers.
About 360 million people speak English as their first language.
Almost none of those 1.5 billion people speak the Early Modern English of the KJB.
God blessIt is what God has already done all throughout Scripture. The “idea” is biblical. You should at least recognize that truth even if you don’t believe God has preserved his word today in a translation.
If it’s already in English then no updating is necessary, just study. The English language is getting watered down let’s not include Gods word.
You mean a single translation
As in, one and only one.Problem for you is, many acknowledge God's Written Word preserved across multiple languages and translations.
Your last sentence reveals that you can't hear anything contrary to your closed-minded view. Instead you invent the beliefs of others in your own mind to suit your agenda. I find it increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously, because so much of what you do say is so heavily infected with cultic ideas.
All KjV onlysists seem to be obtuse by nature.