Search results

It's only "probably more accurate" if you have already made your interpretation and are looking for a way to support it.

Which says nothing at all about whether a particular translation made after the close of the canon was inspired.

30 years earlier. Really? Where is that in Scripture?

No, it has not. The translation committee for the NIV determined after thorough examination of the source documents that these verses did not belong in the first place. The KJV is not the standard; the original-language manuscripts are. Um, no. The Holy Spirit authored the original texts, not...

Do you understand that Jesus has two natures: divine and human? Did I say that Jesus’ divine nature is like Adam’s human nature? Don’t be daft, and don’t look for the worst possible interpretation of my words to justify your disagreement.

Which verse says that? That’s Psalm 90:10, and it doesn’t say anything about a generation (one man’s birth to the birth of his oldest child) but about the number of years one man would live. Yes, 40 years meaning until the end of “this generation” which was alive in AD 30.

You really should read, rather than reading in.

If Jesus was not capable of sin, then the temptation in the desert was a sham. Arguing that the word should be translated "tested" is playing with semantics. If He could not fail the test, the test was meaningless. I hold that Jesus was indeed capable of sin in His human nature. That He did not...

So you should abandon the KJV as it has errors. Of course you won't, because you are brainwashed into believing that the KJV is without error, and will uphold ridiculous non-explanations to defend your cultic belief.

Hi and welcome to CC... It's probably a bad idea to post your son's (very uncommon) first name here, as everything you post can be searched. I would encourage you to read the book Boundaries with Children by Henry Cloud and John Townsend.

According to your fallacious reasoning, perhaps. In the real world, I have no need to make such categorizations.

Exactly... sometimes you need to steer the market. ;)

Some things to consider... In order to assert rightly that a verse has been "omitted", one must establish that it belonged originally. Otherwise, it has been added, which is just as great an error. Many people (some who have already commented) are convinced that the KJV is the standard against...

It isn't stated anywhere. If you check the information that is provided, you might be able to calculate an average, but that isn't to be taken as definitive. All of which also took place in the first century. You're welcome to believe that's the case.

Or at least a commodity.

That is one of at least two verses that discuss the length of a man's days (birth to death of one person). It isn't a reference to the length of a generation, which is the time between the birth of one person and the birth of that person's child(ren).

'Whatever you do, don't look at the evidence!'

OP, which part of English grammar don't you understand? smh...

What a ridiculous comparison. You shame yourself.

You treat the issue of marital status with lenience, but are strict regarding gender. That's inconsistent. Were you to be consistent you would either recognize that Paul does not preclude females from being elders/deacons, or you would require that elders/deacons be married and have children and...