Bible Translations

Originally posted by leunammi
Marshall, Well you just opened up a can of worms. Obviously, speaking for myself I have many versions. The KJV which some people these days abhor, is probably the most robust and one of the higher on the reading scale than most of the newer modern day translations which in my opinion are dumbed down. Some folks, even some here in this forum view the KJV ...[text shortened]... the internet and elsewhere it can become confusing. IMO, start with the KJV and go from there.

Good post leunammi.

I would go a step further though and say the KJV is without error.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm in this exact same boat. I use the KJV exclusively. I also feel that some of the newer versions seem 'dumbed-down'.

For online use, I use Blue Letter Bible. It lets you set any of 20 translations as default. And it also has cross-referencing and interlinear use as well as commentaries.

http://www.blueletterbible.org

You're full of surprises Suzianne.

Originally posted by josephw
Good post leunammi.

I would go a step further though and say the KJV is without error.

How do you figure that Joe?

Originally posted by sonship

you yourself have admitted that its a direct quotation from Joel 2:32, have you not? Are you now changing your mind?

Paul did not stop writing Greek and write verse 13 in Hebrew. It seems that you are looking over the apostle's shoulder and wanting to correct what he did write, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, you can ...[text shortened]... ho are You, Lord ? And He said I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (Acts 9:5) [/quote][/b]

Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
How do you figure that Joe?

Good question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.

It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series of 66 books written by 40 men inspired by God over a 1500 year period of time, and the logical conclusion that if there be any such thing it would necessitate that their preservation be kept intact, defies explanation to an unbeliever.

In fact, none of that makes any sense to you at all since it's too far outside the realm of possibility. After all there is no God. We just happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.

That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Tell the forum what the original verse actually says at Joel 2:32. We are not interested in your exegesis nor you pagan doctrines, we are interested in what the Bible actually says.

Still missing the point.

"Who cares what it means? What does it say?"

Another literalist.

Originally posted by josephw
It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series of 66 books written by 40 men inspired by God over a 1500 year period of time, and the logical conclusion that if there be any such thing it would necessitate that their preservation be kept intact, defies explanation to an unbeliever.

As an unbeliever, I place no divine value in The Bible. But I understand that many people do and I have no qualms with that in and of itself.

In any case, if I were to believe a book was divinely inspired, why wouldn't I want it preserved? If I were to believe that it was the word of God, I would want it to be as preserved as possible. The means of how the book itself came to be compiled by man would be secondary to the content, which would be the word of God.

Just my two cents on this bit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!

Oh, the sheer irony.

This is exactly what the JWs do with the NWT. Twisting the Bible to fit your preconceived dogma.

Originally posted by josephw
You're full of surprises Suzianne.

No, I'm not.

I'm remarkably consistent.

I'm only a surprise to people who insist that things are a 'certain way', or who don't at all get where I am coming from.

Originally posted by josephw
Good question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.

It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series ...[text shortened]... happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.

That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉

If man can be inspired to write the words down, other men can be inspired to preserve it.

Originally posted by josephw
Good question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.

It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series ...[text shortened]... happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.

That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉

You say sarcasm, I say Freudian slip.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Still missing the point.

"Who cares what it means? What does it say?"

Another literalist.

gee another charlatan

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, the sheer irony.

This is exactly what the JWs do with the NWT. Twisting the Bible to fit your preconceived dogma.

evidence NIL! more drool please sir!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!

In the Greek text of Romans 10:13 could you please indicate which part is "the doctrines of mere men" ?

transliterated below

Pas gar hos an epikalesetai to anoma Kyriou sothesetai.

Nine words written by the Apostle Paul there.
Which words are the "doctrines of mere men" ?

Originally posted by sonship

Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!

In the Greek text of [b]Romans 10:13 could you please indicate which part is "the doctrines of mere men" ?

transliterated below

Pas gar hos an epikalesetai to anoma Kyriou sothesetai.

Nine words written by the Apostle Paul there.
Which words are the "doctrines of mere men" ?[/b]

I am not referring to the Greek text, I am referring to your Calvinism. You were telling us whether its a direct quotation from Joel 2:32, were you not?