I am not ignorant of the meaning of the word, and the sense in which I used it is exactly consistent with the dictionary definition. You claim to believe the KJV is God's word, but you reject it where convenient to your defense of the KJV as God's word, demonstrating that you don't actually believe what you claim.
KJV translators weren't KJV only!
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- 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.
But there was a study done before on this topic from another forum.
Anyways, it was an independent theological reseach done that claimed, the words in Aramaic were hard for the Greeks to translate, but the Greek could be translated by Aramaic because Aramaic has every word that the Greek has PLUS MORE.
Seems rather clear and obvious at that point why those Aramaic Words [Spoken] by Peter, [Written] by Mark, (we know this information from Papias, one of the Apostle John's Disciples) ...were not translated, because Mark's Greek Language had [no words] in their own Language to apply.
If it works for you that's great.
The problem is KJV onlyists who insist that anyone who uses a different translation isn't reading God's true word. Not only does that go against what the KJV translators themselves believed, but it's unkind and manipulative. This isn't that far from cult-like behavior really.
The problem is KJV onlyists who insist that anyone who uses a different translation isn't reading God's true word. Not only does that go against what the KJV translators themselves believed, but it's unkind and manipulative. This isn't that far from cult-like behavior really.
-
1
- Show all
No, you know better. I'm saying it's possible Mark wrote a first copy, then later wrote another version with a different ending, perhaps after getting more information from someone he felt was reliable.
The earlier manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are copies made from Mark's first version. The later manuscripts are copies made from his second version.
All this is speculative and no one really knows the answer. Personally, I believe the longer ending should be approached with some skepticism; but we can't rule out that it's legit.
The earlier manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are copies made from Mark's first version. The later manuscripts are copies made from his second version.
All this is speculative and no one really knows the answer. Personally, I believe the longer ending should be approached with some skepticism; but we can't rule out that it's legit.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I definitely agree Mark could have always been adding to what Peter was Teaching and Preaching.
When Rome decided they had enough of the Christians, who knows what got left unwritten, or some how jotted in captivity or before death. Even word of mouth to fellow prisoners and [best of all], Witnessing about Christ to those who are dipping you into a vat of boiling oil, or about to crucify or behead you. Things get passed along and sometimes come together. So we never really do know.
When Rome decided they had enough of the Christians, who knows what got left unwritten, or some how jotted in captivity or before death. Even word of mouth to fellow prisoners and [best of all], Witnessing about Christ to those who are dipping you into a vat of boiling oil, or about to crucify or behead you. Things get passed along and sometimes come together. So we never really do know.
Thank you John 146 It is a form of
po·et·ic li·cense
The freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.,,Elhanan means god shows grace,,dodo means one that is loved.Yes the brother of Goliath was added in the King James we know this by those words being at a obtuse angle
po·et·ic li·cense
The freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.,,Elhanan means god shows grace,,dodo means one that is loved.Yes the brother of Goliath was added in the King James we know this by those words being at a obtuse angle
You simply aren't cognizant of the way in which you have rejected the word of God, translated in the KJV.
Deuteronomy 25:13, Proverbs 20:10, Proverbs 20:23. ONE set of measures, not two. You use a different set of measures with the KJV than you do with other translations.
Not even remotely. In one post you claim that only one verse is needed; in the other, you claim that the whole word of God is needed. Apples to apples.
Deuteronomy 25:13, Proverbs 20:10, Proverbs 20:23. ONE set of measures, not two. You use a different set of measures with the KJV than you do with other translations.
Not even remotely. In one post you claim that only one verse is needed; in the other, you claim that the whole word of God is needed. Apples to apples.