If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can't you depend on him to steer you to the best Bible?
Also, be thankful that you have a Bible, that you have the faith to believe it, and the ability to read it.
If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can't you depend on him to steer you to the best Bible?
I suggest that you do your homework before making such assertions.Changes in relation to the Textus Receptus, I think? Basically, changes like dumbing down Christ's divinity (e.g. reducing the number of verses that support this). Changes that shouldn't be regarded as trivial.
That's the version that I am currently reading with my wife cover to cover. There were other versions before that.Actually, the Bible I mostly read now is the New Revised Standard. It's actually the Oxford Annotated Bible.
That is why one would want to choose a bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus manuscripts and not the Wescott&Hort manuscripts.That is why, given the choice, one would not choose the worst.....
Like it or not - the KJV has in fact been the [English Bible] standard for 400 years.The KJV is not the standard by which other English translations should be judged.
I am with you there bro. Absolutely.That is why one would want to choose a bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus manuscripts and not the Wescott&Hort manuscripts.
Yes, you can!If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can't you depend on him to steer you to the best Bible?
People tend to find it very difficult to let go of things they have been accustomed to all their life.If you let Him. If you ignore Him every time He sends someone to tell you your bible might not be the best... well, that's on you.
But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly. If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.I believe the Gospel can still be believed despite one using an inaccurate translation (unless the inaccuracy extends even to the Gospel, and it is a false gospel that is believed). But I do believe that an inaccurate translation leads to an incorrect understanding of God (and therefore, ourselves and our behaviour). And as we have seen, the more that Christians are willing to accept inaccuracy in translations, the more churches depart from the truth. While not strictly a salvation issue (immediately), I believe over generations, poor translations become even moreso (as I believe it is Satan's intent to slowly draw the believers from the true Church into a worthless and salvation-less cult).
If you let Him. If you ignore Him every time He sends someone to tell you your bible might not be the best... well, that's on you.
Steve must, for a specified amount of time, live in another country at his fathers side; therefore, he cannot come to you himself to personally give you the message he would like for you to hear. So, he sends his word to you through a message service...But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly. If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.
And I suppose you, Moses Young, believe you are the messenger?
Why did God send Paul to Peter, the Corinthians or the Galatians? These also had personal relationships with Jesus.But why would he need to send someone ELSE to tell me? If I have a personal relationship with HIM, HE can tell me himself, directly.
I wouldn't presume to tell you that I have a direct message from Christ to you, unless I was certain that I did. But we all have been blessed with gifts for the benefit of the Body. Whether you benefit from the wisdom we have shared with you is your choice. You are not our servant, and don't answer to us.If I am best friends with Steve next door, he doesn't send a guy from another town to tell me something important - he comes over, knocks on the door, and tells me himself.
And I suppose you, Moses Young, believe you are the messenger?
Here is one example, just to show the reader that it is indeed you who needs to do his homework.I suggest that you do your homework before making such assertions.
I think it's more like you saying "I can prove that there are goblins on the outskirts of the forest." Then you setting up some cameras, and showing the video produced, evidencing no fairies on the outskirts of the forest. And as there are no fairies evidenced, concluding "See, I have proved that there are goblins on the outskirts of the forest."
Your points help refute ball-Earth. They don't support concave-Earth. Flat Earth is the observation, so is the logical conclusion.
I thought a commonly accepted diameter for Earth was closer to 8,000 miles, which would mean the sun's speed is about 1000 miles per hour.
It's the same as yours. But I thought the diameter of the Earth was 8000 miles? (or 7899?)
Calculation is simply v = pi x 8000 / 24 (the same as yours, but with the Earth's diameter instead of presumed height to sun?)
You seemed to be indicating that the sun was orbiting in the vertical plane, rather than the horizontal? Or did I misunderstand your calculation?
That's the point I was trying to get across. It seems to have been wasted effort, though.![]()
The KJV has been the most commonly available translation; that does not make it the standard against which others should be judged. There are two meanings of "standard" in use here; don't conflate them.Like it or not - the KJV has in fact been the [English Bible] standard for 400 years.
The correct rendering is not necessarily the one that best fits a particular theological viewpoint (right or wrong), but rather the one that best renders the original-language text into English. Theology is a derivation from the text, not the other way around.Here is one example, just to show the reader that it is indeed you who needs to do his homework.
Is Jesus from everlasting (i.e. God), or only from ancient times (as even the JW cult will claim, like the first angel)? I'm sure we both know that Jesus is God, so the NIV got it very, very wrong in this case. I'd argue blasphemously wrong. There are many such other occurrences you will become aware of, if you will but commit to doing your homework.
KJV Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
NIV Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”