WORDS

geralduk said:
Each man should be pursauded in his own mind of these things . But to project the idea that each has its merits and demerits and in truth before God a prevailing and inherent prejudice against the KJV is not even just given Gods blessing on it let alone right . I am not accusing you of it I am saying that it abounds and I have come across it in many ways and in many places.
But I have yet to hear and biblical argument that stands any real scrutiny that proves the KJV is unreliable . Indeed after 40 years of using it in the most trying situations and faced with an aggressive and challenging Islam I have tried and tested it both in facing challenges to the Word of God and in answering those who believe it not and worse.
Yet the church with ist myriad of versions still has to answer the challenge to a Moslem "which Bible are you talking about " and which version if they say differently etc.
I have no such problems .either in reply or contending for the faith.

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

I did not say it was unreliable - my bible is a KJ. I said it is not 100 percent accurate or correct.
None of our bibles are truly 100 percent correct for we have placed in them different meanings of words.
Poor translations from the Origional text
Generations chaning the meaning of words. 1 small example. In grandma's day - gay was a good thing that every one wanted to be known as. It is not the same word today now is it.
 
geralduk said:
The Chapter and verse are helpful only .For reference and for general outline.
But they should not be taken as 'gospel'
For instance the report of the woman taken in adultery does not start at John 1:1 . But in the last two verses of the preceeding chapter . A discovery I did not find till relatively recently .
But it does not add to scripture or violate it .
and the chapter and verse argument is a bit of a red herring.

In Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

NO but it directs man to think things incomplete. Men are taught that the end of the chpter means the start of a new one and when in the bible it is not so all the time.
 
Glomung said:
This is a waste of time.
Go outside at night and look up. What do you see? Whether you call it heaven, heavens, sky, cielo, menel, or whatever, the words all convey the same concept.
That is the point.
Once again we are back to the original point. If a translation carries the original concepts, then it is accurate.
Nitpicking over personal likes and dislikes is pointless.

have a good day
Click to expand...

Actually I do believe there is a difference between heavens and heaven when used in The written word of God. I do not recall at this moment what they are but I remember hearing on this many times over the years.
 
geralduk said:
Yet while I gave a good argument as to why it should be one or the other .You assert simply there is no difference .But do not prove it .
Yet there is a version called the "Student Bible" and they have rendered Gen1:1 as "In the beginning God created the SKY and the EARTH ."
Are we now by that to forget that heaven of God where we are supposed to pray for instance that "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
and believe what? That Gods throne is on some distant moon or planet?
That all there is then is the EARTH and there is by your argument no heaven.
Indeed by rendering Gen 1:1 as heavens that student bible s rendering of "sky" is perfectly logical and exact! for reasons I have shown earlier about the heavens.
You say I should lay off the gnats ?
Jesus said not one tittle shall pass away etc. he was concerned about those little marks Hebrew have to denote various things .Jesus said all of them were important . The serpent changed the truth into a lie simply by adding three letters . "N,O,T"
"Thou shalt not surely die "
So I am quite with in bounds to question an "S" that changes the whole meaning of a chapter and so misdirects some they will render it "SKY"!

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s)

When bible writers wrote of the heaven where God dwells, they sometimes use the word:

οὐρανός
ouranos
oo-ran-os'
Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity): - air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.
 
Fish Catcher Jim said:
Simple answer.........I at some times can only understand about half of what you are saying or wanting to be heard. Therefore...........if we only had one way of saying something then not every one would learn or grasp.

The problem stems from MEN trying to prove what is and what is not. MEN trying to show their INTELLECT by dis-provoving another. MEN trying to be CORRECT and loosing their teachable spirit. MEN trying to look and sound smarter by their choice of words.

We are all different and God created us this way. We all see and hear and understand and speak in different ways. God loves us all and teaches us how to deal with those differences and how to be able to teach all the different types of people in such a way that ALL CAN LEARN. So why the big fuss over this ?
Click to expand...

Im sorry but if I believe something is wrong .I do not mean intelectually . The issue of redliablity of scripture is a grave one as too an accurate translations.
If then I object to what I believe is a misdirection and mistranslation of scripture . What good it is if I just assert that as it were I am right and another wrong .
If you or any wish to reduce it all down to what I call head banging .I refuse to do so .
My objection is biblical not intellect and my argument is then biblical .
Some complain of the KJV as Elizebethan . There are only two argumenst I have ever heard against the KJV .Its use of langauge and it is asserted that soem verses are "not in the original texts" But never show or prove how those verse contradict or violate sound doctrine .Which they do not .
The argument about Elizebethan then is a red herring .For no one thinks they should change William Shakespeares langauage . So by thieir own argument it fails also .
The 'fuss is not of my making. The fuss is created when the accepted and general trend of the church is challenged (with good reason) and the direction it is going in.
I simply answered a question .
In Christ
gerald
 
Fish Catcher Jim said:
I did not say it was unreliable - my bible is a KJ. I said it is not 100 percent accurate or correct.
None of our bibles are truly 100 percent correct for we have placed in them different meanings of words.
Poor translations from the Origional text
Generations chaning the meaning of words. 1 small example. In grandma's day - gay was a good thing that every one wanted to be known as. It is not the same word today now is it.
Click to expand...

Again I say .You give no examples of inaccuracy and in principle you should give at least two to confirm what you assert and see If I can answer your objection.
For in principle I cannot accept or should your first assertion.
I am not interested in 'a ' God who is unable to inspire men to be 100% accurate in their translation of His Word . My wife was French and she translated some quite detailed Gospel tracts into French. The French need more words to say the same thing .The message however was in no wise changed and while a gospel tract is not in cmparison to the Bible. I am also reminded of the Rosetta stone in the British Museum that unlocked the secrets of the Egyptian because it contains three languages all saying the same thing .and one of which was known.
I am also aware of the red telephone /line that was once between Russia and the USA and I doubt if what each one was saying to each that it was not accurately translated .
I quite agree that there are poor translations .Its just that the KJV is not one of them and I dont count that all things are equal and those that are of poor translation should be declared so . Indeed there are good books that can be found in any good Bible book shop that argue the case for each one .
Your last argument does not hold much water . As again I dont think the Word of God should conform to the world at all and in the example you thought of it says exactly what the world to day does not want to hear .

in Christ
gerald
 
Euphemia said:
shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s)

When bible writers wrote of the heaven where God dwells, they sometimes use the word:

οὐρανός
ouranos
oo-ran-os'
Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity): - air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.
Click to expand...

You do not say clearly which word is used in Genesis 1:1 .
Nor make any attempt to answer by objection to the word heavenS IN gEN1:1
Perhaps this is not the place to do it . But people should be aware of the discrepancy .
But in an attempt to answer what you have said.
The Bible is not a collection of stone age romances. myths, or man made observations and conjectures.
"ALL scripture is inspired by God...."
Gen 1:1 then also .
Therefore it will not record simply a mans perception of heaven.
But the Word of God is there to instruct us in the things of God .
The God who inspired gen 1:1 is the same God who taught his disciples to pray Our father who are in heaven .
The same God who inspired one man to write that that heaven "needed no son or moon for God is the light thereof"
It is the same heaven that Ezekial saw ,Daniel and John . It is the same heaven that Paul saw and which those things he saw was not lawful to utter .
I also explained why it is NOT the sky or what we now call space .
The physical universe of heaven. But the spiritual one and why it was so.

in Christ
gerald
 
Euphemia said:
Actually, I seek to please God and allow Him the pleasure of enjoying His children as He feeds them. He is the one who edifies us when we read His word. It is not a personal pursuit.
Click to expand...

Fish Catcher Jim said:
NO but it directs man to think things incomplete. Men are taught that the end of the chpter means the start of a new one and when in the bible it is not so all the time.
Click to expand...
Glomung said:
Are we reading the same book? There is nothing simple about the doctrine described in the Bible.
Like all REAL things, it is complicated.
Click to expand...

In matters of the law it is and man has added to it to complicate it .
But as i said if a man finds himself now in hell. It will be not so much because he ahs sinned (fro all have sinned) but because they loved darkness more than the light and believed not HIM who God has sent.

in Christ
gerald
 
geralduk said:
"Noah moved with fear built the ark"
"Be not afraid of sudden fear "
All men fear and tremble when they first meet God. and not a few times after that as well.
Jesus said how many times ? Fear not
Blessings
Jim

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...
Perfect or perfeted Love cast out ALL FEAR !
Stop the FEAR and only believe Jesus spoke to Jairus
 
Euphemia said:
shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s)

When bible writers wrote of the heaven where God dwells, they sometimes use the word:

οὐρανός
ouranos
oo-ran-os'
Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity): - air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.
Click to expand...

"When Bible writers wrote of heaven where God dwells they sometimes use the word"
Surely it is or should be a simple matter to quite which if any of them was used in genesis 1:1 then.
For they would certainly not have used all of them.
and if you believe that "all scripture is inspired by God" then the word used was indeed an inspired choice . and with good reason.

in Christ
gerald
 
geralduk said:
"When Bible writers wrote of heaven where God dwells they sometimes use the word"
Surely it is or should be a simple matter to quite which if any of them was used in genesis 1:1 then.
For they would certainly not have used all of them.
and if you believe that "all scripture is inspired by God" then the word used was indeed an inspired choice . and with good reason.

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

In Genesis 1:1 the "heaven" or "heavens" there was the firmament---the sky and space, as we call it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top