| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: | | personally i thought john macarthurs reply was excellent, probably the most thorough and truthful that i have seen. David Stewart just seems to use words out of anger and judgement. Salvation is only by Jesus Christ and God has used many ways of saving people throughout the ages.I can't believe people would condemn people like John Macarthur and Ray Comfort and Paul Washer because they disagree on something, Like Lordship salvation or teaching that you must repent of your sins, that is what David Stewart does is condemn everyone and bring judgement on them and tells people that he knows where they our going. |
|  2009/11/28 12:26 | |
| | Re: | |
To ccchhhrrriiisss:
The contradictions found in the Bible by the Modernists are not an honest examination of the Bible, but are more like a deliberate misrepresentation of Scripture.
2 Samuel 8:4 "And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots."
1 Chronicles 18:4 "And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots."
2 Samuel 8:4 says that David took 700 horsemen, while 1 Chronicles 18:4 says that David took 7,000 horsemen. The Modernist i.e. Liberal Christian finds a discrepancy, that he/she is more than happy to point out to everyone as an [b]error in God's Word.[/b]
Actually, they are wrong. The 2 verses are not in contradiction. The King James version correctly describes 1000 chariots in both 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. Both verses also state that David reserved 100 chariots. As a biblicist, that believes the promises of God, and that He (Himself) would preserve His Word forever, I merely combine the information from the two verses and see that David took 700 horsemen for the chariots that he kept, but he took a total of 7000 horsemen away from the enemy King. The two (2) different numbers for the number of Chariots provide us with a consistent 7:1 horseman to chariot ratio. This is reasonable, as seven horseman could easily share the same chariot.
The same type of analysis holds true for the other "discrepancies" posted by ccchhhrrriiiss.
if the Christian looks at Scripture as the preserved, Spirit Breathed Word of God, He will approach it (God's Word) with reverence and prayer, and ask for the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth to him/her.
Sincerely,
Walter
Quote:
ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Waltern...
Quote:
When I saw the thread, and realized that John MacArthur had something to say about the King James Bible, I knew in advance that you would be in total agreement with him. Why is that? [b]Because you support every version other than the King James, regardless of your posts that assure us that you use it![/b]
Brother, do you realize that how ridiculous this statement is? In fact, you are straying from mere assumption...and now you are just lying.
Brother, you [u]are[/u] lying.
Does that bother you? Does it bother you that you, an avid defender of the KJV as the only "perfect" version, are actually bearing false witness against me? Does it concern you that you will give an account before God on that great day and be called into account for these sort of lies? These things won't be overlooked simply because you said them in ignorance or within the misguided limits of your own understanding. God sees everything, brother. He knows that I use the KJV alongside the NASB and NIV. Yet, you feel the boldness to say otherwise. Waltern, you are [u]lying[/u]. Not only are you lying when you point the finger and accuse me (and others) of things that are just untrue, but you also make misguided assumptions that I fear are too great for you to even realize. What a dreadful thing to consider!
Waltern, your posts make me wonder just how ready some people are to send others to Hell simply because they disagree with something that they believe to be true. You think that John MacArthur is going to Hell because you say that you agree with David Stewart's view that MacArthur "[i]is an IMPOSTER, AN UNSAVED MODERNIST (IE- A LIBERAL) who name the name of Christ[/i]." You created threads to warn everyone about how "deceived" Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel has become. You make other absolute assumptions about the spiritual conditions of many other people. You rhetorically spit upon every version of the Word of God that you reject as a result your limited "research."
Do you not realize that you will be judged with the same level of judgment that you have levied against others? Waltern, be careful, "[i]For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.[/i]" (Matthew 7:2). Yet, there seems to be no room for error within your assumptions. How could all of your "sincere and prayerful research" be wrong? The fault must lie with the "sincere and prayerful research" of everyone who disagrees with you!
Waltern, have you ever considered the possibility that you might assume too much too soon? Is it wise to publicly proclaim certain things as if there is no way that you could possibly be wrong? Not only do you now appear to rhetorically "spit" upon all non-KJV versions of the Word of God and call them "damnable," but now you even will publicly damn [u]preachers[/u] to Hell who you disagree with!
Is this what God has called you to do, Waltern?
I have asked you to plainly tell me in the past whether or not you think that the KJV is perfect. I suppose that you know that it might be something of a "loaded question," since you yourself might be aware that the KJV contains what appears to be obvious errors. Yet this can't get in the way of your belief that the KJV is the result of a supernatural promise by God to "perfectly preserve" His Word down to the last "dot and tittle" (as you have proclaimed in the past). Thus, those "errors" can't be real if the KJV is perfect down to the very last letter! Yet...they still remain in the version. So what does that do to your premise?
Waltern, you also know that the KJV was "corrected" numerous times between 1611 and 1850 until we have the version that we now use today. So, this "perfectly preserved" was a [i]work in progress[/i]? Of course, Erasmus did the same thing too. So much for a "supernatural promise" that was powerful enough for these guys to get it right the first time! I suppose that they weren't nearly as "inspired" as Erasmus claimed he was (or the KJV-only folk presume). Maybe it is, gasp, just as imperfect as the translators of the KJV admitted in their premise? Or maybe the premise that they wrote deserved to be removed just as much as their footnotes (which were forbidden) or the inclusion of the Apocrypha that they included for many years within the binding of the KJV?
Waltern, I think that you presume that you are standing upon a promise of God to preserve His Word. However, I don't think that you realize that you are standing upon something entirely different. I believe that you are standing upon a personal opinion that the KJV is the actual fulfillment of this promise. Yet, if the KJV contains even a single error, then it is not, by definition, [i]perfect[/i].
Waltern, does the KJV have even one error in it? Or are these apparent errors imaginary? Are they easily explained away as being errors in the perception of the reader? Some things, like the error found in Acts 12:4 (the translation of [i]pascua[/i] as "Easter" in the KJV) are oddly explained as though the KJV translators were the only ones who somehow got it "right" (and that the Greek word that they translated doesn't mean what the Greek word says). Yet, there are also errors of numbers. If one of these "number" errors exist...then the KJV is [i]not[/i] perfect. What does this do to the ultimate, underlying premise for your argument that the KJV is perfect?
Here are a couple of errors in the KJV...just to get you started. If one of these is an actual error, then the KJV is [u]not[/u] perfect. Of course, we can argue that it was the sources used by the translators of the KJV that was in error (obviously). However, that still breaks with your premise that the KJV is taken from a lineage of texts that are perfect down to their last "dot and tittle."
Quote:
[color=990000] Samuel 8:3-4
3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and [b]seven hundred horsemen[/b], and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
1 Chronicles 18:3-4
3 And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and [b]seven thousand horsemen[/b], and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.[/color]
Quote:
[color=990000]
1 Kings 4:26
26 And Solomon had [b]forty thousand stalls[/b] of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
25 And Solomon had [b]four thousand stalls[/b] for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
[/color]
Quote:
[color=990000]
2 Kings 25:8
8 And in the fifth month, [b]on the seventh day of the month[/b], which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
Jeremiah 52:12
12 Now in the fifth month, [b]in the tenth day of the month[/b], which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem...[/color]
Waltern, you are free to believe as the Lord (and your conscience) guides you. However, please realize that we are doing the same. And please refrain from lying in the future.
|
| | 2009/11/28 14:26 | | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Waltern...
Okay, you have attempted to explain the first obvious discrepancy. I find your rationale faulty simply because you argue it away based upon a presumption that the KJV is perfect and completely error free (and, thus, the apparent error must simply be incorrect).
What about the other two that I showed you? These errors cannot be ignored as easily as the previous one.
Quote:
[color=990000]
1 Kings 4:26
26 And Solomon had [b]forty thousand stalls[/b] of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
25 And Solomon had [b]four thousand stalls[/b] for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
[/color]
Quote:
[color=990000]
2 Kings 25:8
8 And in the fifth month, [b]on the seventh day of the month[/b], which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
Jeremiah 52:12
12 Now in the fifth month, [b]in the tenth day of the month[/b], which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem...[/color]
Are you going to ignore these, explain them away as errors of perception, or are you willing to admit that the text is just conflicting? There are many other similar passages, Waltern, where the sources used for the KJV had conflicting numbers (or dates). These are not errors of perception. These are simply errors. This is a hole in the premise that the KJV is "perfect" down to the "last dot and tittle" or part of some lineage of "perfect" and "preserved" texts.
Quote:
The contradictions found in the Bible by the Modernists are not an honest examination of the Bible, but are more like a deliberate misrepresentation of Scripture.
Waltern, will you ever be able to present your views without resorting to these types of stupid remarks? Your [i]defense[/i] is often an [i]attack[/i]. It seems like you think that you are [u]defending[/u] the KJV by [u]attacking[/u] all other versions, their translators, or those who disagree with your views. You can point your judgmental finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you and consistently accuse us of being "liberals," "modernists," or claim that we don't really read the KJV -- but the truth is that you are simply using LIES as a means to promote your particular views. Please refrain from doing this.
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2009/11/28 14:44 | Profile | BenBrockway
Member
Joined: 2006/5/31
Posts: 427
| | Re: | | TJservant -
Thank you for posting this article! It was a great read and I thought MacCarthur's arguements to be well-rounded and factually supported.
Waltern -
I continually find your judgmental posts to be distasteful, unkind, inflammatory, rude, and very unlike that of a man who loves Christ. God did not appoint you judge, nor did He appoint you as "Spokesman of the Only True Bible Version."
May the Lord, one day, soften your hardend and calloused heart. |
| | 2009/11/28 15:11 | Profile |
| | Re: aBible Discrepancies-NOT! | |
To ccchhhrrriiiss:
1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chronicles 9:25
Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses
(1 kings 4:26) or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?
First, it should be noted that this contradiction does not appear in the Bible of choice for ccchhhrrriiisss, the NIV. The NIV states that Soloman had 4,000 stalls in both verses. Unfortunately the NIV translators mistakenly state that Solomon had 12,000 horses, when in fact the oririnal Hebrew text (and all other English translations of it) state that Solomon had 12,000 horsemen. This error results in 3 horses per charriot (an unusually odd number) and three horses per stall (which seems a little crowded). Opening a lexicon we see that the King James Bible gives an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text (correctly translation the Hebrew Parash as Horsemen), and for this reason we know that this translation can be trusted in actually explaining this contradiction.
Lets examine the two verses:
1 Kings 4:26
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem
I Kings 4:26 states that Solomon had forty thousand stalls [color=990000]of horses[/color] for his Chariots and twelve thousand horsemen, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 states Solomon had four thousand stalls for[color=990000] horses and chariots,[/color]and twelve thousand horsemen
1 Kings 4:26 counts ONLY horses that were intended to be used for his chariots. On the other hand, 2 Chronicle 9:25 counts both the horses [color=990000] and chariots [/color]TOGETHER.
1 Kings 4:26 states that Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses, mening that he had 40,000 stalls with horses in them. 2 Chronicles 9:25 counts both horses and chariots together. If each chariot stall contains within it 10 horse stalls (perhaps one stall for each horse that pulls the chariot), there there is no contradiction.
Solomon had 40,000 stalls for his horses. Soloman had 4,000 chariots (3 riders per chariot, since we know from both 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 that he had 12,000 horsemen) and every chariot had its own stall. Chariots are pulled by multiple horses- in this case 10 horses. Each chariot stall had within it 10 indivicual horse stalls- one for each horse that pulled that specific chariot.
The discrepancy in Bible Scriptue can only be found in the eye and the heart of the beholder.
Sincerely,
Walter
|
| | 2009/11/28 15:15 | |
| | Wow! | | these "translation" cyber scrums used to grieve me....bad, but this is (sort of) making me laugh, its that absurd.
Walter, God bless you for your faithful tenacity, if thats your call from the God the Holy Ghost, but step back for one second and see the utter absurdity of arguing over whether King Solomon had 40,000 horses or 4,000 horses, suffice to say he had a lot of horses, too many in fact, because he came to rely on the size of his calvary rather the Grace and Protection of Yahweh.......so he had a lot of horses.
Due respect dear elder, you got to cool it, a secular fleshling could have a field day using this humorously turgid Scriptural argument to buttress his/or her preconcieved notion of how followers of Jesus have a discussion, or just how Christians ACT, or say or do, there are 54 guests on this forum, anonomysing surfing.
Walter, please, I'm begging you, lets just agree, Jesus is Lord, and drop this thread.
neil |
| | 2009/11/28 15:59 | | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Waltern...
Quote:
First, it should be noted that this contradiction does not appear in the Bible of choice for ccchhhrrriiisss, the NIV.
Can you not help yourself? I have already made myself clear, Waltern, that I use the KJV as my primary version alongside the NASB and NIV.
I didn't ask for you to resort to attacking the NIV as a typical means of "defending" the KJV. I simply asked how you address some of these apparently obvious errors within the text of the KJV...and how that corresponds to the underlying premise upon which you base your theory that the KJV is the only "perfect and preserved" version of the Word of God.
This particular set of passages speaks for itself. However, I had a feeling that you would try to "explain away" what it is saying. Talk about "adding to" the Word of God! It is almost as if you are creating your very own paraphrase of this passage in order to defend a position that [url=http://www.davnet.org/kevin/pix-jpg/biblemtn.jpg]crowns the KJV version[/url] upon a throne in Heaven next to God! But, to be fair, the passage clearly states the number of STALLS that Solomon had.
Quote:
[color=990000]
1 Kings 4:26
26 And Solomon had [b]forty thousand stalls[/b] of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
25 And Solomon had [b]four thousand stalls[/b] for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
[/color]
Oddly, it seems that you have attempted to read between the lines using a predetermined prejudice that is founded upon a premise that the KJV cannot possibly be wrong or contain even one single error. Now, of course, this is taken from the current 1850 version of the KJV that fixed all of those "non-error" errors in the original 1611 version that was supposed to be "perfect" down to the last "dot and tittle." Then again, you have already stated that this is not an "honest" or "sincere" assessment at examining the conflicting numbers in this passage. But what about this passage?
Quote:
[color=990000]
2 Kings 25:8
8 And in the fifth month, [b]on the seventh day of the month[/b], which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:
Jeremiah 52:12
12 Now in the fifth month, [b]in the tenth day of the month[/b], which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem...[/color]
How do you explain this apparent KJV error, Waltern?
This is an obvious error in the DATES that are listed. Then again, I suppose that you will find some way to paraphrase this in order to explain away the obvious error (that was probably a typo in one of the passages in the source text).
Now, why am I pointing these out? It isn't because I don't think that the KJV is a fine, scholarly effort at a translation of the Word of God into English. I fully embrace this version as a faithful attempt at translation from the sources that were used. Your premise, however, is that the KJV is PERFECT and COMPLETELY FREE FROM ERROR as you presume that it was supernaturally perfect and preserved and taken from similarly supernaturally "perfect and preserved" manuscripts (and, oddly enough, sometimes contradicted one another). However, if there is a hole in the underlying premise upon which all of your research is based, then your corresponding argument becomes somewhat moot.
What if the translators of the KJV were correct in their assessment? In their preface (and subsequent writings), these translators admitted that the KJV was a faithful attempt at translation from the sources from which it was gathered, but a less than perfect result coming from imperfect men.
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2009/11/28 16:01 | Profile | narrowpath
Member
Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1522
Germany NRW
| | Re: The Biblical position on the King James Version controversy | | What about other languages? I am German and we have similar discussions about the accuracy of translation, text origins and readability. The German language is more precise than English which makes it a good candidate to express the original meaning.
We have translations that were made so literal that they are almost unreadable because every language has different structures that make it impossible to perfectly render the original meaning;
Even the KJV is probably the most literal translation in English, but you would have to be a Greek and Hebrew scholar to be perfect.
And what about Chinese? They use hiroglyphic characters that make it even more difficult to be accurate. Their translation is based on the KJV and not on the originals. Nevertheless their are millions of faithful believers in China.
And even if you can memorize the whole bible in Hebrew and Greek and have not God's love - forget it!
|
| | 2009/11/28 16:32 | Profile |
| | Re: | |
To ccchhhrrriiisss:
Since you did not take the time to read my last post I will try it again. If it makes no sense to you this time, then one would have to conclude that your eyes are blinded:
To ccchhhrrriiiss:
1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chronicles 9:25
Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses
(1 kings 4:26) or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?
First, it should be noted that this contradiction does not appear in the Bible of choice for ccchhhrrriiisss, the NIV. The NIV states that Soloman had 4,000 stalls in both verses. Unfortunately the NIV translators mistakenly state that Solomon had 12,000 horses, when in fact the oririnal Hebrew text (and all other English translations of it) state that Solomon had 12,000 horsemen. This error results in 3 horses per charriot (an unusually odd number) and three horses per stall (which seems a little crowded). Opening a lexicon we see that the King James Bible gives an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text (correctly translation the Hebrew Parash as Horsemen), and for this reason we know that this translation can be trusted in actually explaining this contradiction.
Lets examine the two verses:
1 Kings 4:26
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem
I Kings 4:26 states that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his Chariots and twelve thousand horsemen, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 states Solomon had four thousand stalls for [color=990000][b] HORSES AND CHARIOTS,and twelve thousand horsemen
1 Kings 4:26 counts [u] ONLY horses that were intended to be used for his chariots. On the other hand, 2 Chronicle 9:25 counts both the horses and chariots TOGETHER.[/u]
1 Kings 4:26 states that Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses, mening that he had 40,000 stalls with horses in them. 2 Chronicles 9:25 counts both horses and chariots together. If each chariot stall contains within it 10 horse stalls (perhaps one stall for each horse that pulls the chariot), there there is no contradiction.
Solomon had 40,000 stalls for his horses. Soloman had 4,000 chariots (3 riders per chariot, since we know from both 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 that he had 12,000 horsemen) and every chariot had its own stall. Chariots are pulled by multiple horses- in this case 10 horses. Each chariot stall had within it 10 individual horse stalls- one for each horse that pulled that specific chariot. [/color][/b]
Sincerely,
Walter
Quote:
ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Waltern...
Quote:
First, it should be noted that this contradiction does not appear in the Bible of choice for ccchhhrrriiisss, the NIV.
Can you not help yourself? I have already made myself clear, Waltern, that I use the KJV as my primary version alongside the NASB and NIV.
I didn't ask for you to resort to attacking the NIV as a typical means of "defending" the KJV. I simply asked how you address some of these apparently obvious errors within the text of the KJV...and how that corresponds to the underlying premise upon which you base your theory that the KJV is the only "perfect and preserved" version of the Word of God.
This particular set of passages speaks for itself. However, I had a feeling that you would try to "explain away" what it is saying. Talk about "adding to" the Word of God! It is almost as if you are creating your very own paraphrase of this passage in order to defend a position that [url=http://www.davnet.org/kevin/pix-jpg/biblemtn.jpg]crowns the KJV version[/url] upon a throne in Heaven next to God! But, to be fair, the passage clearly states the number of STALLS that Solomon had.
Quote:
[color=990000]
1 Kings 4:26
26 And Solomon had [b]forty thousand stalls[/b] of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25
25 And Solomon had [b]four thousand stalls[/b] for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
[/color]
Oddly, it seems that you have attempted to read between the lines using a predetermined prejudice that is founded upon a premise that the KJV cannot possibly be wrong or contain even one single error. Now, of course, this is taken from the current 1850 version of the KJV that fixed all of those "non-error" errors in the original 1611 version that was supposed to be "perfect" down to the last "dot and tittle." Then again, you have already stated that this is not an "honest" or "sincere" assessment at examining the conflicting numbers in this passage. But what about this passage?
deleted
|
| | 2009/11/28 16:46 | |
| | Re: | |
To narrowpath:
As far as other languages are concerned,[b] the source text is the only importance.[/b] As long as the source text is that from the believing Church, the Majority text, the "Received" text, then you have no problem.
The problem occurs when the source text is changed from that of the believing Church to that of the Gnostics. What text is that? The same text that was used by Westcott and Hort to create their "Revision of the New Testament" in 1881. All of the newer Bible versions rely on this corrupt text. This is also the same corrupt text that created the Catholic Bilbe.
There are only two versions. One version is from the believing Church, since the beginning, the majority text. If the Bible you are reading is from that stream of text, you are O.K. When Luther translated the Bible into German, he did not use the corrupt text, the minority text found in the Latin Catholic Bible. He used the majority text, the received text that Erasmus used in creating his translation, the same text that was used for the King James Bible. It is the Bible of the Protestant Church of the Reformation.
If the Bible you are using used the minority text, created by the gnostics, then your Bible is in error.
Sincerely,
Walter
Sincerely,
Walter
Quote:
narrowpath wrote:
What about other languages? I am German and we have similar discussions about the accuracy of translation, text origins and readability. The German language is more precise than English which makes it a good candidate to express the original meaning.
We have translations that were made so literal that they are almost unreadable because every language has different structures that make it impossible to perfectly render the original meaning;
Even the KJV is probably the most literal translation in English, but you would have to be a Greek and Hebrew scholar to be perfect.
And what about Chinese? They use hiroglyphic characters that make it even more difficult to be accurate. Their translation is based on the KJV and not on the originals. Nevertheless their are millions of faithful believers in China.
And even if you can memorize the whole bible in Hebrew and Greek and have not God's love - forget it!
|
| | 2009/11/28 17:00 | |
|
