E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Too bad? You missed the mist of what I said, this response has nothing to do with what I said,
again, good day
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.
again, good day
No problem when God used two words and that two words can be used interchangeably but I cannot dictate what the Holy Spirit says so or what the writer of the book is telling us about. Yet still, it is false to say “two completely different thing” The scripture of truth will not lie and no problem at all if you have a better understanding of that passage but that again is according to your own opinion.
Again, you have done circular reasoning. You may or may not answer this one but this is just to inform, because you are running out of gas for the English word “another” with two different Greek words.
A study on the English word proves KJV is correct. My purpose is just to informed everyone of what the English word “another” by taking its history, tracing or etymology. For the word itself:
Another – is a contraction or merger of two words of an + other. This technique is used in the KJV in many times that many do not understand and I believe that solves your dilemma.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=another
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary p.76 has this:
ME, an other.
But the question is “Does the KJV really had it translated it “an other”? Yes, the original 1611 has it and the reason behind why they contracted it later as seen in today’s text for some practical reason which is to conserve space. This is done by some KJV translators themselves in the later edition. Another example is “Alway” not “always” in the case of Matthew 28:20 being a contraction of “All the way”. This is by far understood using the context.
Attachments
This is another blunder of yours saying scripture meant the original autographs but I will let this pass. Alright...but I would comment on the other later not directed to you but as to informed regarding "IT". Thanks.
These English speakers, you refer to (first language and otherwise,) around the world are all taught modern English.(Ask any EFL teacher.) Not 1600s English, from an era where the primary language was latin.
Unless God favoured the English speakers (when they were not a majority) of the 1600s, above those speaking the most Popular language of today (modern English), this argument is really invalid
and discounts that even at Pentecost God ensured every listener of every language heard His words in their own tongue.
I assure you He does not favour the English, nor is He sentimental over poetic archaic languages.
(I can also assure you the kjv, my favourite version as it Happens, is not easily understood by many modern day native English speakers, and most
Preachers have to explain many outdated words when they use it in sermons. (I have had unsaved friends baffled at meetings and asking me why they are talking in “Shakespeare”. Worse still is when it spills over into prayer! )
All this and I still Prefer KJV myself. But that is all it is, my preference.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
A blunder?
dude when it was written the KJV was not even thought of yet, in fact it would be centuries before.
you have serious issues my friend, I am done your speak of circular reasoning, when it is you who make things up to support your case,
again, good day sir
If you don't know what it is, please look it up. You would have the honour of being the first KJV-onlyist who did.
You're using a fallacious assertion by conflating KJV-only adherents with Bible believers. It's an implied assertion that those who don't agree with your particular brand of lunacy don't believe the Bible. It's also a fallacy of equivocation, using the term "Bible" when what you really mean is "KJV translation of the Bible".
I don't have any details, that's why I'm gonna focus on that for a while. What I know is there are Chinese troops in Canada and major US troop movement in the US. It's also been reported that China is supplying BLM and ANTIFA with fully automatic assault weapons.
Some are saying US troop movement is due to Trump getting troops in place for implementation of the Insurrection Act and taking control of the American government. I lean more toward a Chinese invasion right now because the Chinese are on our border and they are arming their proxy soldiers - BLM and ANTIFA.
Something is up and seems to be coming soon.
Now this right here is a beautiful reply
The Spirit of God flowing through you...
...xox...
I have not come across anyone in my life that believed a new version of the Bible was the word of God.
I would direct your attention once again to the 1611 Preface to the Reader. Your refusal to accept reality doesn't change reality.
Are these not facts? I have tutored English or some time. I cannot see what I have said that is just mere opinion.
I guess all the people who openly oppose the KJV being the only relevant Bible out there don't count as "anyone."
No serious issues, but I am speaking of "early copies" and not necessarily the English translation. I presented my case with evidence coming from unbiased sources even from different versions. I asked a link or sources of your definition but you don't want to link me why? and what you are saying is that I don't know Greek and you are correct. Mine is only a product of researched and study. You speak to me in a very nice way "good day sir" "dude" while giving me an impression been involved in a cult-or worshipping an idol but I do understand that because you are still unprepared in presenting evidence. Lastly, I don't need to support my case this time because after all you have no case. Fair enough...
The Muslims believe that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. In any other language there can be no "translation" of the Qur'an. Any Qur'an versions in English will say this is the "meaning" of the Qur'an.
God gave the inspired version of the OT and NT in Hebrew and in Greek. But the Biblical text can and should be translated into every language in the world. And every one of these translations (if translated well) can be a completely trustworthy guide of what the original manuscripts said.
Christianity does not assign any modern language (or peoples) as better and more important than others (in relation to reading and understanding the written text).
Let's not lift English above the rest as "special". This is what the Muslims do to "Arabic": and it makes Islam into a tribal, local religion -- people of other languages will memorize and idolize the Qur'an in Arabic because it gives them "merit".
Though I agree that the KJV is a good English translation, lets not do with it what the Middle Eastern Arabs have done with the Qur'an.