Bible Verses

**Maria** · 11-09-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I use KJV most of the time. Sometimes I use other translations (such as the Amplified Bible) for additional study. I have a Hebrew OT and Greek NT for reference but I really can't read them.

But KJV is my standard Bible.

I find it very interesting when our missionaries visit us. They always bring examples of Bibles in the various languages from each country.

I use KJV most of the time, too. KJV is very gem because, it's God's spiritual language.

Anyways, honey -- I would like to ask you somethin' about the book besides KJV. Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?
I did some researchin' on that book but, I wasn't 100% sure if, it is really good book.

**Reba** · 11-09-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberRed

I use KJV most of the time, too. KJV is very gem because, it's God's spiritual language.

Anyways, honey -- I would like to ask you somethin' about the book besides KJV. Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?
I did some researchin' on that book but, I wasn't 100% sure if, it is really good book.

The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.

Rose Immortal · 11-09-2005, 04:48 PM

Personally I think the best thing is not to rely on a single translation but to look through many--including in different languages if you happen to speak them. For instance, by looking at a German Bible I once got additional understanding of the 23rd Psalm that is very rarely clear in any English translation (though I did see it in one version I compared). I'm not yet THAT advanced in German, but I knew enough to spot the difference, and to consult a friend who is a native speaker and theology student, to make sure I was translating correctly.

At some point I hope to take courses to learn Greek and Hebrew so I can read the texts in their original form. Obviously I do not believe, as Muslims do, that this sort of thing is compulsory, and I think God makes an effort to guide those who are reading texts in their native language. But, I think it makes a great option if that's something you're skilled with.

The reason I suggest this is because no translation is going to completely capture the full meaning. Human language is imperfect and actually restricts thought in a way, by categorizing and shaping it. Look at the account of the Tower of Babel for a good explanation of why that came to be so. So, I think if one does have the inclination, that this is a good research process to go through.

One amazing resource for this is: http://www.biblegateway.org

The only downside of that site is that for the most part, there are no notes explaining why a particular translation was used. And even on that, it's best to look at multiple sets of study notes, because frankly, I do not trust everybody making commentaries to be divinely inspired. (I am not going to lay out criteria as to how one would discern that; that's up to each of you to pray about and figure out for yourselves.)

Obviously I don't trust myself to be perfect either, not by a long shot. But I at least want to make a good-faith effort to get to know the Scripture as well as I can, and for someone who loves languages as I do, that means getting into the details of translations.

**Maria** · 11-09-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.

Thank you. I will check the link out. This comin' Sunday, I will ask one of my friends at church to see about Christian stores nearby...will look through a Scofield to see if that is the book I was lookin' for.

**Maria** · 11-09-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose Immortal

Personally I think the best thing is not to rely on a single translation but to look through many--including in different languages if you happen to speak them. For instance, by looking at a German Bible I once got additional understanding of the 23rd Psalm that is very rarely clear in any English translation (though I did see it in one version I compared). I'm not yet THAT advanced in German, but I knew enough to spot the difference, and to consult a friend who is a native speaker and theology student, to make sure I was translating correctly.

At some point I hope to take courses to learn Greek and Hebrew so I can read the texts in their original form. Obviously I do not believe, as Muslims do, that this sort of thing is compulsory, and I think God makes an effort to guide those who are reading texts in their native language. But, I think it makes a great option if that's something you're skilled with.

The reason I suggest this is because no translation is going to completely capture the full meaning. Human language is imperfect and actually restricts thought in a way, by categorizing and shaping it. Look at the account of the Tower of Babel for a good explanation of why that came to be so. So, I think if one does have the inclination, that this is a good research process to go through.

One amazing resource for this is: http://www.biblegateway.org

The only downside of that site is that for the most part, there are no notes explaining why a particular translation was used. And even on that, it's best to look at multiple sets of study notes, because frankly, I do not trust everybody making commentaries to be divinely inspired. (I am not going to lay out criteria as to how one would discern that; that's up to each of you to pray about and figure out for yourselves.)

Obviously I don't trust myself to be perfect either, not by a long shot. But I at least want to make a good-faith effort to get to know the Scripture as well as I can, and for someone who loves languages as I do, that means getting into the details of translations.

Thank you for an extra link -- will research through it. But, however, I will still stick with KJV.

Rose Immortal · 11-09-2005, 07:57 PM

OK--but just be aware that sometimes the KJV has got mistranslations or in other places the translation is good, but no longer really clear in modern English.

Askjo · 11-09-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.

I have a Scofield Study Bible (KJV), but I learn that C.I. Scofield supported the Critical Text (CT) instead of the Textus Receptus (TR). I fully reject the CT because the CT is behind the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic system.

Look at this Scofield Bible with the CT. Let me give you an explanation of how Scofield used the CT for the references or footnotes.

The footnote on Mark 16:9-20 said,

Quote:

The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vactican, and others have it with partial omission and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.

Scofield is right about the footnote, but he is wrong because he did NOT give you the manuscript evidence concerning the last verses of Mark 16. Why did he not answer the fact? Where is the evidence?

Marginal notes tell you some phrases of the passage from the CT and replaced for other meanings or phrases. Also the introduction negates the AV (KJV). I disagree with that.

I do not recommend the CT reflecting to marginal notes and footnotes in the Scofield Study Bible. Other explanations THAN the CT are good.

Askjo · 11-09-2005, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberRed

Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?

Look for my post to Reba about "Scofield" Bible.

Askjo · 11-09-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose Immortal

OK--but just be aware that sometimes the KJV has got mistranslations or in other places the translation is good, but no longer really clear in modern English.

Mistranslations. Why is that? Please explain.

**Maria** · 11-09-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Askjo

Look for my post to Reba about "Scofield" Bible.

Yep, I read your post concernin' to Reba's post. Thank you for explainin' a little bit more about Scofield. I am lookin' for a depth like Pastor's, because I love to read more than just what's basic in it. My heart couldn't stop spongin'.

Rose Immortal · 11-09-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Askjo

Mistranslations. Why is that? Please explain.

Two from Genesis, for instance. One case of something that does not make very much sense in modern English is with the word "helpmeet" used to describe Eve. This term can be misconstrued to seem like Eve is a servant of Adam. The NIV translation, for example, refers to her as a helper, which makes more sense. You can have a helper on a task at work, for instance, but that helper may be your equally-ranked colleague.

Another is the common translation in Genesis that Eve was created from a "rib" of Adam. The NIV explains that another possible translation is that she was created from "part of the man's side".

Another important translation note, too, with books where the original text is in Greek: There were no quotation marks in Greek at that time. While there were some grammatical indicators, a translator has leeway to decide where they do and don't belong. Consider the Epistles where people are replying to other people's letters and think of the potential troubles that could cause to translators.

**Reba** · 11-09-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose Immortal

Two from Genesis, for instance. One case of something that does not make very much sense in modern English is with the word "helpmeet" used to describe Eve. This term can be misconstrued to seem like Eve is a servant of Adam. The NIV translation, for example, refers to her as a helper, which makes more sense. You can have a helper on a task at work, for instance, but that helper may be your equally-ranked colleague...

I wouldn't call "helpmeet" a mistranslation. It is not a common word in American English but there is nothing wrong with it. I never thought that it meant Eve was a "servant" to Adam. I think "helpmeet" shows a better relationship between man and woman than "helper". "Helpmeet", to me means someone who is a partner, with a personality, characteristics, attributes, and skills that compliment the other person's. "Helper", to me, sounds more like an employee.

Rose Immortal · 11-09-2005, 11:44 PM

You're very fortunate that you understood the meaning through that word. But I've definitely seen a lot of people who aren't as discerning as you.

**Maria** · 11-10-2005, 04:49 AM

And, also I like the way how all the words are in KJV Holy Bible, because it's God's Pure Mind and His Language ( my first spiritual "mother language" ) rather than a man's who translated the words into different versions. A man's mind is not exactly as God's that could dim the light in me. I prefer God's Light to grow in me when I read His own language. Cloudy mind from man's and Clear mind from God are 2 different things that could influence inside the person's heart and mind from readin'.

I've also noticed that some words are missin'/addin' in different versions of bible like NIV, NLT and others, except KJV. Some of them show the little "son" of God instead of big capital "Son" of God, for instance.

I also learned that the company named Zondervan published Satan bible. I don't want to purchase any of those different versions of bible through that company. I just found out about this a couple months ago through my Christian friend who sent me an email about it.

There's only FEW discernin' Christian friends I could trust and rely on about general things I could ask and discuss ... just to be on safe side against the wiles of the devil.

Rose Immortal · 11-10-2005, 10:54 AM

CyberRed--Pardon my confusion, but I still do not get why you consider the KJV God's pure language when English is not even the language it was originally written in. I'm having a hard time following the logic behind it.

No translation is perfect--and I actually will agree with you about the NIV's lack of capitalization. I would also fault them for improper placement of subject headings in the middle of chapters. They're intrusions on the text that can end up breaking crucial chains of thought right down the middle. But, I could find fault in any translation, and I will not champion one translation over the other. That's the thing...no translation is perfect. Even with the Old Testament original manuscripts you've got variation between the Masoretic and Syriac manuscripts, plus the Septuagint, which was a translation into Greek that was quoted by Jesus in the NT and at times seems to vary slightly from the translation you might see in the OT section of your Bible.

All of this is why I think it's good to look at multiple translations--and why I think the Bible cannot be read without two things, ranked in this order: prayer, and reason. That is, pray to God about a matter, that He will show you the chain of reasoning as to which solution is correct. God's actually pretty reasonable--after all, He invented logic!

**Maria** · 11-10-2005, 01:55 PM

To be honest with you, all of other different versions of bibles ( NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV and others, except KJV ) are the New Age Versions. I am not a New Ager.

I will give an example here :

Romans 1:20 ( King James Version - KJV )
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

New International Version ( NIV )
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
****
Colossians 2:9 ( King James Version - KJV )
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

New International Version ( NIV )
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,"
****
Acts 17:29 ( King James Version - KJV )
"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

New International Version ( NIV )
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill."

Ok, you see there's somethin' wrong in these picture with NIV comparin' to KJV's.
In KJV, there's the word "Godhead", but in NIV - they are usin' "divine nature, Deity and divine". That "divine nature, Deity and divine" are famously used in New Age Movement. After Sept. 11th, 2001 when the 2 planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City - everythin' changed. All ( not really ALL, but to some degree ) christians like Billy Graham, David Wilkerson and so forth are joined in Oneness for New Age Movement - they believe that we all are in One.. believin' that we believe in the same and one God. That's their slimlight messages, not to true believers who could discern the difference.

See these scripture what Satan is doin' today as he did for centuries :

Genesis 3:1
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field..."

So, it obviously to me that the different versions of bible I just show above... are corrupted - not the King James Version Holy Bible that I know of. In different versions of the bible, I discovered that they also omitted "h/Holy" and "Christ", because that don't belong to the Enlightment today ( New Age Movement ). New Agers believe that they are "gods". It's why I choose to stay with King James Version and that's what I mean about God's pure word..it came from His Pure Mind and Heart for He is Holy.

Proverbs 30:5
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Rose Immortal · 11-10-2005, 04:26 PM

I still see two words referring to the exact same concept. I would say that the KJV has more literary beauty to it, but for me there is no difference in that case. Even if the New Agers use the word differently, I know exactly what is meant by it in the Bible. And I am even starting to develop a limited command of Greek (very limited--I haven't had the opportunity yet to take a formal course) and I at least know what sources are available to explain exactly what an original Greek word was supposed to mean.

Now I will pose a different question to you, to see if I can get a clearer idea of your thinking--you would not expect a native Spanish speaker to read the KJV, would you? Would you assert that the Spanish speaker has been deprived full access to God's Word, because they either cannot read English, or do not know enough about English for the KJV to make any sense to them?

**Maria** · 11-10-2005, 07:33 PM

I supposed they have KJV Bible in Spanish - it also have KJV Bible in English besides KJV Bible in Spanish to read both.

Click on the "bible" image where they will show you inside the KJV Bible in Spanish along with KJV Bible in English.

Biblia Bilingue RVR 1960-KJV, Encuadernacion Dura / RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible
http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...m_code=WW#curr

Same with other countries with their foreign languages if, they choose KJV.

**Reba** · 11-10-2005, 08:21 PM

Question:
Would you guys mind if we could ask the mods to split the Bible questions off to a new thread? I think starting from post #194, we have really gotten off the original topic. The posts about the Bible and translations are important but they deserve their own thread.

What do you think?

Rose Immortal · 11-10-2005, 08:33 PM

Sure, I'll go for that.

**Reba** · 11-10-2005, 08:57 PM

This is the KJV Bible that I use the most:

http://www.thruthebible.org/site/app...oductID=110626

I also use Scofield and Amplified Bible.

Not Bibles, but good reference books:

Bible Dictionary
The Complete Works of Josephus
Foxe's Book of Christian Martyrs of the World
Bible atlas and maps
A book comparing the synoptic Gospels

Askjo · 11-10-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Question:
Would you guys mind if we could ask the mods to split the Bible questions off to a new thread? I think starting from post #194, we have really gotten off the original topic. The posts about the Bible and translations are important but they deserve their own thread.

What do you think?

Yes, I agree with you.

**Maria** · 11-11-2005, 04:18 AM

Sure, I don't mind a new thread for bible and translations. I think it would be a good idea to discuss bible and translations separately from this thread. ( I apologized for goin' off the topic. I guess it was my fault for startin' it. )

**Maria** · 11-11-2005, 05:02 AM

Mods:

Will you please split from #194 to make a new "Bible & Translations" thread under my screen name since it was my fault for startin' off the topic ? I appreciate it -- thanks.

XBGMER · 11-11-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Question:
Would you guys mind if we could ask the mods to split the Bible questions off to a new thread? I think starting from post #194, we have really gotten off the original topic. The posts about the Bible and translations are important but they deserve their own thread.

What do you think?

I suggest you, reba , just tell mod that began from # 194 to now transfer to Bible Versions which created the thread by ASKJO.. no need to create new thread which is useless!

XBGMER · 11-11-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

ckfarbes, thank you for share your interesting posts... I realized that we have different bibles ... mmmhhhh.. Yes, you were right that we should stick with that scriptures...

I searched scriptures to find out... I notice that there´re some bibles who says differently.

I don't think so that we have different bible, but i aint sure what kind of holy book you using? Therefore, You and I have different expreince because I read thru Genesis to Revelation as 15 to 20 times in 365 days/nights of a year of every years which scripture really had experienced my thoughts and this life change me in any way.. I bet that you read bible not much as your experince less about scripture but you can correct me the wrong..

nevertheless, you have good faith which impression me big time.. i really attached your beliefs you had experienced what i had the experiencing. smile!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Yes, what I beleive is stick with me as what everyone beleive are stay with them...

I agree with that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Thank you for answer to my question.

Old and New Testanment with same scriptures got me wondering why they change from old to new testanment??? Is it because of correction or what?

Welcome! Let me say safe for me that they prefer new testemant over old testament! and have you notice any store selll "new testment" bible instead of old testement.. and even have you notice the pastors in any church preach the new testment whole time and every sunday.. For me, I almost never see any pastor talk about old testment but new testment the most time.. I was approched any pastor about old testment of the scriptures, they react and had been diffcult to answer my questions of old scriptures. they always keep to tell me, come and see wednsday where studies group had an answer for you.. I did come to studie group, they talk the same topic about new testment and they did not prefer discuss about old testment, because they told me , old test ment is hard for them to understand and frighten talk about "egypt", egypt has many numbers in old scripture. they prefer talk about jesus christ the same things everyday.. I was rather not go any church anymore!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

It could be ... I´m still searching to find out about this... I will compare those history with different bibles. I really don´t know why my bibles say about this.

I´m going to find out...

You better faith in your own scripture compare verse by verse itself answer yours.. like "..And he opened the book, he found the place where it was written..." and "...This day is scripture fulfilled in your ears.." in Luke 4:17, 21; "...they received the word with all readiness of mind, and scearched the scriptures daily, whether those thing were so.." in Act 17:11 and last qouteof "..But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and you need no that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie.." 1 John 2:27...no need to depend other bible of person which is not belong your same scripture remain within you.. for example NIV, JW bible, New age, on and on are not MATCH within the King jame verison. I stay with holy bookof king jame as always. because King james had the faith in my heart and Mind, I am first and Last!

**Reba** · 11-11-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckfarbes

I suggest you, reba , just tell mod that began from # 194 to now transfer to Bible Versions which created the thread by ASKJO.. no need to create new thread which is useless!

True, I forgot about that previous thread.

I'll let the mods handle it whichever way they think is best.

**Reba** · 11-11-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckfarbes

... and even have you notice the pastors in any church preach the new testment whole time and every sunday.. For me, I almost never see any pastor talk about old testment but new testment the most time.. .

Not my pastor. In fact, on Sunday nights he is now preaching a series on the book of Ecclesiastes (OT), and Wednesday nights teaching a series on Job (OT). My pastor often preaches and teaches from the OT. Also, my Sunday School teacher teaches us all the books of the Bible, each verse, starting at the beginning (Genesis), all the way thru to Revelation. My favorite Christian radio teacher is Dr. J. Vernon McGee, and he teaches every book of the Bible equally, OT and NT.

I guess it depends on which church and pastor.

Quote:

... I was rather not go any church anymore!!

I wish you could come to my church and talk to my pastor and my SS teacher.

Quote:

... I stay with holy bookof king jame as always. because King james had the faith in my heart and Mind, I am first and Last!

Great!

**Maria** · 11-11-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

True, I forgot about that previous thread.

I'll let the mods handle it whichever way they think is best.

It's okay to merge to Askjo's thread to which I don't mind.

XBGMER · 11-11-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

If the Hebrews and Egyptians during that time were both "brown" or dark tan, not black nor white, then they probably looked similar.

Thats interesting what is your opinion. but here is sightly clash, You think hewbrews and egyptians were both "brown" or dark tan, not black or white? Look at Exodus 12:38: ".. the mixed mulititude went up with them.." For example, my sons are more lighter skinned and slik hairs different than mine, you would tell me that my sons and I are "brown" or dark tan, and looked similar?? you better thinking carefully.. smile

Yes, but those are not Egypt. Africa is a huge continent, and has a variety of peoples.

TRUE!, Africa is huge contient, they people have same race, but they speaking different languages and tribals.
Remember I am not african person nor spanish person, because I have no family or genetics from africa/ or spanish's linage. I must proud of this nation draw my surname family and member of genetics since this nation had one language which is mother tongue for 450 years belong to me and to my genernations!

I don't know everyone!

You can do a little history research yourself. But here are a few examples:

Some of the ancient Egypt pharoahs weren't even "Egyptian". Cleopatra's family, for example, were Greek (Ptolemic Dynasty).

Famous Egyptian actor, Omar Sharif, is Egyptian born, but his family was from Syria.

You might find this link interesting:

http://www.arikah.net/encyclopedia/?...ns&redirect=no

I will check that site from above, thank for share link!

You have good points but I think we are moving off the original topic (feel free to start a new thread).

Yes, I agree with that, because my topic discuss is not relate within this topic.. my topic is off topic from this! I will let people go back their discuss stick with this topic where they come from..

It is the continuing story of the world. Nations grow, conquor, divide, become divided, collapse, etc. The cycle continues....

Yes , you might familiar with famous quote " DIVIDE AND CONQUER"! ?

Quote:

As I stated elsewhere, not all Egyptians are/were "black". Egypt is a geographical area that includes many different kinds of people over the centuries. That doesn't prove that Nimrod was black, and it doesn't prove that he wasn't. I really don't know. Also, how "black" is "black"? Some people in India have darker skin than some people in Africa, but the Indian people are not "black".

like I said, that is your opinions which is no problem with me, since your opinion is opinion... Egypt had evidence with status had feature negro [ thick lips] totally different from europe and USA's statues like abraham lincoln, washingtons on and on had feature euro..

Quote:

There are some "African-American" people in the United States who have very pale skin, light hair, and blue eyes; they call themselves "black" but they look "white". If we start getting technical about eugenics, and what percentage of a person's blood equals "black", then we start following Hitler's route. That is dangerous, and not a good thing.

Yes of course, I correct you about this.. no question in my mind.. because you knew already!

Quote:

Why I had spoke you: Today, have you see any color of people in sudan, ethiopia, etriean, Nigerian on and on..?

Because they have strong black, tribals on and on.. in sudan, ethiopia, etriean, Nigerian on and on people and North American black are not same because sudan, ethiopia, etriean, Nigerian on and on in africa dont have who have very pale skin, light hair, and blue eyes in their genetics of genernations and plus their speaking differents in their nations of pieces than North American black had one language dialogues..

Quote:

Sorry, this is just a brief explanation right now. I really should discuss each verse separately, if I have time later. I am just trying to catch up right now.

take your time whenever you feel ready to give some verses out of scripture share with me later.. smile

anyway I better let people go back on this topic which should stick with their specific discuss..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-09-2005, 04:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	Personally I think the best thing is not to rely on a single translation but to look through many--including in different languages if you happen to speak them. For instance, by looking at a German Bible I once got additional understanding of the 23rd Psalm that is very rarely clear in any English translation (though I did see it in one version I compared). I'm not yet THAT advanced in German, but I knew enough to spot the difference, and to consult a friend who is a native speaker and theology student, to make sure I was translating correctly. At some point I hope to take courses to learn Greek and Hebrew so I can read the texts in their original form. Obviously I do not believe, as Muslims do, that this sort of thing is compulsory, and I think God makes an effort to guide those who are reading texts in their native language. But, I think it makes a great option if that's something you're skilled with. The reason I suggest this is because no translation is going to completely capture the full meaning. Human language is imperfect and actually restricts thought in a way, by categorizing and shaping it. Look at the account of the Tower of Babel for a good explanation of why that came to be so. So, I think if one does have the inclination, that this is a good research process to go through. One amazing resource for this is: http://www.biblegateway.org The only downside of that site is that for the most part, there are no notes explaining why a particular translation was used. And even on that, it's best to look at multiple sets of study notes, because frankly, I do not trust everybody making commentaries to be divinely inspired. (I am not going to lay out criteria as to how one would discern that; that's up to each of you to pray about and figure out for yourselves.) Obviously I don't trust myself to be perfect either, not by a long shot. But I at least want to make a good-faith effort to get to know the Scripture as well as I can, and for someone who loves languages as I do, that means getting into the details of translations.

11-09-2005, 07:57 PM	#6 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	OK--but just be aware that sometimes the KJV has got mistranslations or in other places the translation is good, but no longer really clear in modern English.

11-09-2005, 11:44 PM	#13 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	You're very fortunate that you understood the meaning through that word. But I've definitely seen a lot of people who aren't as discerning as you.

11-10-2005, 04:49 AM	#14 (permalink)
Maria Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WISCONSIN Posts: 10,309	And, also I like the way how all the words are in KJV Holy Bible, because it's God's Pure Mind and His Language ( my first spiritual "mother language" ) rather than a man's who translated the words into different versions. A man's mind is not exactly as God's that could dim the light in me. I prefer God's Light to grow in me when I read His own language. Cloudy mind from man's and Clear mind from God are 2 different things that could influence inside the person's heart and mind from readin'. I've also noticed that some words are missin'/addin' in different versions of bible like NIV, NLT and others, except KJV. Some of them show the little "son" of God instead of big capital "Son" of God, for instance. I also learned that the company named Zondervan published Satan bible. I don't want to purchase any of those different versions of bible through that company. I just found out about this a couple months ago through my Christian friend who sent me an email about it. There's only FEW discernin' Christian friends I could trust and rely on about general things I could ask and discuss ... just to be on safe side against the wiles of the devil.

11-10-2005, 10:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	CyberRed--Pardon my confusion, but I still do not get why you consider the KJV God's pure language when English is not even the language it was originally written in. I'm having a hard time following the logic behind it. No translation is perfect--and I actually will agree with you about the NIV's lack of capitalization. I would also fault them for improper placement of subject headings in the middle of chapters. They're intrusions on the text that can end up breaking crucial chains of thought right down the middle. But, I could find fault in any translation, and I will not champion one translation over the other. That's the thing...no translation is perfect. Even with the Old Testament original manuscripts you've got variation between the Masoretic and Syriac manuscripts, plus the Septuagint, which was a translation into Greek that was quoted by Jesus in the NT and at times seems to vary slightly from the translation you might see in the OT section of your Bible. All of this is why I think it's good to look at multiple translations--and why I think the Bible cannot be read without two things, ranked in this order: prayer, and reason. That is, pray to God about a matter, that He will show you the chain of reasoning as to which solution is correct. God's actually pretty reasonable--after all, He invented logic!

11-10-2005, 01:55 PM	#16 (permalink)
Maria Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WISCONSIN Posts: 10,309	To be honest with you, all of other different versions of bibles ( NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV and others, except KJV ) are the New Age Versions. I am not a New Ager. I will give an example here : Romans 1:20 ( King James Version - KJV ) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" New International Version ( NIV ) "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." ** Colossians 2:9 ( King James Version - KJV ) "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." New International Version ( NIV ) "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Acts 17:29 ( King James Version - KJV ) "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." New International Version ( NIV ) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill." Ok, you see there's somethin' wrong in these picture with NIV comparin' to KJV's. In KJV, there's the word "Godhead", but in NIV - they are usin' "divine nature, Deity and divine". That "divine nature, Deity and divine" are famously used in New Age Movement. After Sept. 11th, 2001 when the 2 planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City - everythin' changed. All ( not really ALL, but to some degree ) christians like Billy Graham, David Wilkerson and so forth are joined in Oneness for New Age Movement - they believe that we all are in One.. believin' that we believe in the same and one God. That's their slimlight messages, not to true believers who could discern the difference. See these scripture what Satan is doin' today as he did for centuries : Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field*..." So, it obviously to me that the different versions of bible I just show above... are corrupted - not the King James Version Holy Bible that I know of. In different versions of the bible, I discovered that they also omitted "h/Holy" and "Christ", because that don't belong to the Enlightment today ( New Age Movement ). New Agers believe that they are "gods". It's why I choose to stay with King James Version and* that's what I mean about God's pure word..it came from His Pure Mind and Heart for He is Holy. Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

11-10-2005, 04:26 PM	#17 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	I still see two words referring to the exact same concept. I would say that the KJV has more literary beauty to it, but for me there is no difference in that case. Even if the New Agers use the word differently, I know exactly what is meant by it in the Bible. And I am even starting to develop a limited command of Greek (very limited--I haven't had the opportunity yet to take a formal course) and I at least know what sources are available to explain exactly what an original Greek word was supposed to mean. Now I will pose a different question to you, to see if I can get a clearer idea of your thinking--you would not expect a native Spanish speaker to read the KJV, would you? Would you assert that the Spanish speaker has been deprived full access to God's Word, because they either cannot read English, or do not know enough about English for the KJV to make any sense to them?

11-10-2005, 07:33 PM	#18 (permalink)
Maria Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WISCONSIN Posts: 10,309	I supposed they have KJV Bible in Spanish - it also have KJV Bible in English besides KJV Bible in Spanish to read both. Click on the "bible" image where they will show you inside the KJV Bible in Spanish along with KJV Bible in English. Biblia Bilingue RVR 1960-KJV, Encuadernacion Dura / RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...m_code=WW#curr Same with other countries with their foreign languages if, they choose KJV.

11-10-2005, 08:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,112	Question: Would you guys mind if we could ask the mods to split the Bible questions off to a new thread? I think starting from post #194, we have really gotten off the original topic. The posts about the Bible and translations are important but they deserve their own thread. What do you think?

11-10-2005, 08:33 PM	#20 (permalink)
Rose Immortal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,254	Sure, I'll go for that.

11-10-2005, 08:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,112	This is the KJV Bible that I use the most: http://www.thruthebible.org/site/app...oductID=110626 I also use Scofield and Amplified Bible. Not Bibles, but good reference books: Bible Dictionary The Complete Works of Josephus Foxe's Book of Christian Martyrs of the World Bible atlas and maps A book comparing the synoptic Gospels

11-11-2005, 04:18 AM	#23 (permalink)
Maria Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WISCONSIN Posts: 10,309	Sure, I don't mind a new thread for bible and translations. I think it would be a good idea to discuss bible and translations separately from this thread. ( I apologized for goin' off the topic. I guess it was my fault for startin' it. )

11-11-2005, 05:02 AM	#24 (permalink)
Maria Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WISCONSIN Posts: 10,309	Mods: Will you please split from #194 to make a new "Bible & Translations" thread under my screen name since it was my fault for startin' off the topic ? I appreciate it -- thanks.