| Poster | Thread | tacklebox
Member
Joined: 2005/10/8
Posts: 196
Roanoke Rapids, NC
| | Re: | | "If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.
[Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant..."
Philippians 2:1-7
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."
Romans 14:13-19
_________________
Christopher Wright
|
|  2006/3/20 22:18 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
You do realize the TR is not a "manuscript" like the Alexandrian Texts, right? That the TR is a collection of miniscule writings taking from lectionaries and various other ancient witnesses, letters, etc.
I know the TR is not simply a single manuscript.
Quote:
You do realize that many of the passages of scripture that are omitted in the Alexandrian ARE quoted in the letters, sermons and writings of the first century church fathers... right? There were several men who compiled the writings and sermons of the first century chruch fathers, and every passage of the 27 books of the NT was quoted by them with the exception of 3 verses. One of the compilers was Dean Burgon, and I forget the other's name. I can find it easily tho if you want it.
This would be incorrect. It is correct to say most of the NT is quoted by various patristic sources, but this is over the course of several centuries, not one (mostly from ante-nicene fathers). I think that span would be first-fourth centuries.
Quote:
Can I read Greek? No. But thats smoke and mirrors, KJ. Thats dodging the real issue and skirting the question. I dont have to know Greek to know the history of the Bible. I dont have to know Greek to know the Bible.
It's not smoke and mirrors. Until you have some knoweldge of Greek, you have no way of verifying which of the manuscripts are best. External evidence is an important aspect of textual criticism, but unless you know Greek, you cannot perform the other part of it, and look at internal evidence. Until you know Greek, you cannot properly do textual criticism.
Quote:
So far when you speak of there being no perfect translation or manuscript all you have mentioned is mispellings and typo's. How is that an argument? Is that all you have? Look at Tyndales Bible compared to Wycliffe's. Look at the 1611 compared to todays english. The English language had no standard of spelling until little over 200 years ago... and depending on where you are in the world today, there still isnt.
It goes beyond typo's and mispellings (including textual variants in the TR). I simply mentioned these as the lowest common demoninator to show that no single manuscript has been perfectly preserved in the Greek. Copying is copying. Even though antiquity had no standard for grammar and language, that doesn't keep the copyists from copying what is before them.
Quote:
Show me a real disagreement between manuscripts. Show me an error in the KJV.
I've already showed a web site that shows there are variants in the textual tradition the KJV was part of.
Quote:
So whats your point?
My point in all this is simple, the TR is not perfect.
Quote:
Do you know with certainty, KJ, that you know you have a Final Authority? Can you honestly tell me that you know what the true Word of God says? Jesus said His wordS shall not pass away. But you say they did... when the originals disappeared from the scene.
It's obvious when Jesus said His words will not pass away He wasn't speaking verbatim. First, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and most everything we have recorded as the sayings of Christ is in Greek. Secondly, in the four gospels when quoting the same event and teaching, the gospels don't always agree word for word on what Jesus said. Rather, the gospel writers modified the sayings of Christ ever so slightly to suit their purposes, personal grammatical style, etc. Finally, even John acknowledges not all the things Christ taught have been preserved.
So, when Christ said His word will endure, He obviously didn't mean it His words would survive verbatim, as His exact wording in all His teachings when He taught them here on earth has indeed passed away.
Quote:
How do you decide what is true in the Bible you read? Can you know with 100% certainty?
I am confident with absolute certainty about the Bible I read.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/3/20 22:30 | Profile | Greenquality
Member
Joined: 2006/1/26
Posts: 189
mountains of Pa.
| | Re: | | If you don't mind, when i frist heard God word of truth enter my ear, then the word took root in my mind,and brought life to my soul, it was like a sword,showing me the two sharp edges, cutting away at my flesh and my desires of the flesh,showing me my sins my faults!at the same time pruning away at my repentive sprite,that I may bring forth fruit.like clay that I am being molded daily. and without proof, without sight,I knew.know other words put in any order or fashion speak that way,only coming out of the Holy scriputures, do we have sight,and sound of The one who is the word of God him self made flesh to die on the cross for our sins that we may have life thur Him.who was raised from the dead,He brings Hope to the sinner,to those who are forgotten,for those who are lost,and shows mercy and love's towards those who where never loved in this life, who were shuned,and a outcast to thy brother. Our God brings Hope,Love,and forgivness,in his Son Christ our Lord. |
| | 2006/3/20 22:44 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Krispy... Quote:
Studies have shown (one was done by Cornell University, and another by Harvard University) that the KJV is on a 5th grade reading level.
It is quite evident that the language of the KJV is [u]not[/u] understood by "most 5th graders." In fact, I know believers that have been saved for years that struggle with the language, verbage and grammar of its early 17th century usage. For most individuals, studying the KJV often requires an additional resource (such as a dictionary that contains information pertaining to the often misunderstood words). How many times have you heard a pastor or teacher that felt the need to "interpret" what the passage is "actually" saying? This contradicts the hopes of the translators, who desired to create a version of the Bible in the language of common men -- and not just the clergy or educated.
As for the supposed "infallibility" of the KJV translation -- why not take an original 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV (completed in 1769 but with a few more revisions in 1850). Through such cross-examination, you'll be surprised by the changes that occurred over such revisions due to [u]errors[/u] in the original translation. These have been discussed in numerous threads (most recently, in response to Stever's barrage of [i]KJV-only[/i] threads). Many [i]KJV-only[/i] believers argue that these were not "major" revisions. However, it completely destroys the argument that the KJV was [u]PERFECT[/u]. A simple Google search -- along with verification using both an original 1611 (available online or at many libraries and Christian bookstores) and the common KJV used today -- will verify these differences. I included a list of several dozens of these changes in a previous thread, including a link to some photographs of an original 1611 KJV that shows some of the changes. Since my University's internet is experiencing problems, you'll have to use the SEARCH feature in order to find that particular thread.
As for your list of verses with notable differences between the KJV and "modern" versions, we must remember that the KJV is taken entirely from the Received Text. Modern versions like the NIV use other source materials -- some supposedly older than what was used for the KJV. While there is a legitimate argument that can be made about the superiority of one source over another, to cross examine these versions in order to find "error" is unfruitful. This would be like comparing two finely tuned pianos that were tuned by different master sources. Which "tuning" is correct? That is open for discussion. Academic (and of course, spiritual) honesty prevented translators from including passages that were not a part of the sources they were using. However, in both the KJV and NIV, there are words that are incorrectly translated. The translators of the KJV were instructed to keep some traditional language, and the translators of the NIV felt inclined to (such as the names of books, people, etc...). Some versions (like the NIV) include footnotes that describe the translators' situation in many of those instances.
In my opinion, the only infallible Word of God is the "rhema." The "logos" will vary from one translation to the next (including translations taken from the Textus Receptus). Whether Nathan said, "[i]Thou art the man![/i]" -- "[i]You are the man![/i]" -- or "[i]Tú eres aquel hombre![/i]" (2 Samuel 12:7) is almost irrelevant. Why? Because Nathan did not say this in English or Spanish. He actually spoke using ancient Hebrew. But the spirit of all four of the versions of the phrase agree. When most people [u]think[/u], they often do not use a native language. They think in non-linguistic thought. We usually think using concept or idea rather than language. When the Lord speaks to us, He is not confined to speaking in a particular language. He often speaks to us by expressing an idea or understanding into our intellect (or even into our spirit) with knowledge that came from outside of our intellect. How often have you "felt inclined" to do something, without actually hearing an "english" voice of God? Thus, the "logos" does not have to be identical in order for the Word of God to be perfect.
One time, I visited a jail with a chaplain. Inside of the jail was an individual that only spoke and understood Spanish. Even after three years of Spanish in high school and four years of Spanish in college, my Spanish is still quite limited. But I was able to share the Gospel with this man by reading passages of a Spanish Bible to him (since I know how to read in Spanish). Although I didn't understand the words that I was speaking, I did know the passages. After I read the numerous verses about God's plan for mankind, I prayed for him. When I finished praying, I looked up and noticed that tears were streaming down his face. As we embraced, I understood that God is not confined or limited by language or Bible version.
Personally, I study the Bible using the KJV. In my opinion, this is the best version from the Received Text. However, I also use the NIV (1978), which I feel is the best version from other sources.
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2006/3/20 23:44 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
It is quite evident that the language of the KJV is not understood by "most 5th graders."
How many 5th graders do you know that even read a Bible? I didnt say it was understood by 5th graders, I said it is on a 5th grade reading level. I wouldnt expect a 5th grade kid in a public school in America to be able read on a 5th grade reading level anymore.
But my homeschooled 4th grader has been reading a KJV since 2nd grade and does just fine.
I'm not going to get into an "high-brow, hard to pronounce the words" debate with KJ or ccchhhrrriiisss because I will counter what y'all say, and then y'all counter what I say, and on and on it goes... and in the meantime we end up being the only 3 left on this thread. It'll fly right over everyone's heads. I would prefer to keep our feet on the ground.
Where I stand on this is the Alexandrian Text's history is pagan and Catholic, and that can not be refuted. There are passages of scripture omitted in the Alex Text and thus the modern versions that were being quoted by the first century church fathers [b](a FACT)[/b] that shows that what is in the KJV was in existence before the last Apostle died. Ancient witnesses lend credence to the KJV, not the modern versions... and you can put me down for not knowing Greek all day long, but the history of it can not be denied.
And by the way... whenever I have this discussion with someone who considers themselves to be intellectual and scholarly the first thing they try to do is shut me up because I dont know Greek.
Big deal. I have faith.
I know enough of the Cherokee language (see my signature) to tick someone off... but I'm willing to bet, KJ, that you dont know any of it. Does that prevent you from learning about the Cherokee history, culture, etc? No...
I picked up some Arabic when I was in Gulf War I. Do you know any? Do you have to know Arabic to understand whats going on over in the middle east right now? No...
And like I said, you dont have to know Greek to understand the history behind the two different schools of manuscripts.
Alexandrian Text - Alexandria, Egypt. Origen was a pagan, and he mutilated not only scripture but himself. History traces the Alexandrian Texts from the modern versions all the way back to Origen.
Received Text - Antioch... the church that sent Paul out on his missionary travels. Ancient witnesses proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is in the KJV originated in Antioch.
Which do you think God had His hand on?
KJ, I asked you:
[i]"How do you decide what is true in the Bible you read? Can you know with 100% certainty?"[/i]
And you answered:
[i]"I am confident with absolute certainty about the Bible I read."[/i]
Absolute? Is that the same as 100%? Which Bible is it that you read? There are so many... how can you be 100% sure? Or can't you? Because if you are only 99% you might as well be 0% sure.
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/21 6:04 | |
| | Re: | | Jeff, you asked me this question last evening:
Quote:
Was Luke using a pagan holiday to mark time or should the Greek word 'Pascha' have been translated Passover, as in all the other passages?
I believe the JKV translators (as well as Tyndale) got it right when they referred to Easter. They were not talking Easter as we recognize it... they were referring to a Roman pagan holiday.
I'm gonna use someone else's writing to explain it. I dont know who the author is for this particular writing, but I have read this explanation from multiple sources. I agree with this explanation:
[i][b]ALLEGED KJV ERRORS:[/b] Easter/Passover
Many claim that the King James Version has serious 'errors' in it. The most quoted 'error' concerns the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:1-4. The original word, these believers maintain, should have been translated as Passover - not Easter! Let us now examine the passage concerned and see if that argument holds water.
Acts 12:1-4 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
To properly understand the sequence of events described above I will briefly explain some facts about the sacred calendar.
The first Passover occurred in ancient Egypt when Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews spared the lives of Israel's eldest sons and slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt. That event took place on the evening (night) of the 14th Abib (Nisan), the first month in the sacred calendar. The Passover, which is an event rather than a day, is now commemorated each year on the evening of the same date. The story is well known and is recorded in Exodus chapters 11 and 12.
After the Passover came the seven days of Unleavened Bread. The week of unleavened bread begins on the evening of the 14th Abib and finishes on the evening of the 21st Abib. This whole week is sometimes referred to as the Passover week: but, strictly speaking, its proper name is Week of Unleavened Bread. When the Passover and the days of unleavened bread are mentioned in the same passage, as in Acts 12:1-4, we can be certain that the Passover refers to the event which occurs on the evening of the 14th Abib and the days of unleavened bread refer to the week that follows. (i.e. 15-21st Abib or Nisan).
The events recorded in Acts 12:3-4 occurred during the days of unleavened bread. In other words, the Passover in that particular year had passed: it was history: it had gone. Why, then, would Herod wait for an event which had already passed? Surely Herod knew that the Passover had passed and that the days of unleavened bread were in progress.
What, then, was Herod really waiting for before releasing Peter? The answer is: Herod was waiting for Easter to come and go - just as the King James Version says. We can be confident that the translators of the KJV knew full well why in this passage they rendered the word 'Pesah' as 'Easter' and not 'Passover' as at other times. Their combined knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the vast amount of manuscript evidence before them (thousands of copies, versions, and church-father citations etc.) were all used to arrive at every word in the King James Version. Are we, whose knowledge of these languages is microscopic by comparison, to challenge their judgment? The fact is that Herod, during the days of unleavened bread, was not waiting for the Passover - which had come and gone: he was waiting for Easter just as the KJV says.
The events in our story tell us that:
The Passover in that particular year was history.
The Days of Unleavened Bread (15th - 21st Abib) were in progress.
And Easter was approaching: after which Herod planned to bring out Peter.
The question now arises: Was the pagan festival of Easter known at that time? And were the Romans keeping Easter? The answer is - yes. The pagan festival of Easter, with its hot cross buns and Easter Sunday sunrise services was well known in ancient Babylon and Rome centuries before the events recorded in Acts 12. Let me quote a short passage about EASTER from Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons. (ISBN 0 7136 0470 0) Quote: "Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of the groves" (page 103)
No scholar doubts the fact that Easter is a pagan festival which came down from ancient times, long before the Christian era. The next question is: Did some Israelites keep Easter and worship the QUEEN OF HEAVEN? Did they bake hot cross buns for Ishtar - Easter? The answer, surprisingly, is again - yes! Ancient Israel worshipped the Queen of Heaven - ISHTAR and they honoured her each year with special cakes (buns) and drink offerings. I quote Scripture:
Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jeremiah 44: 18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19: And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men? 20: Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying, 21: The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye, and your fathers, your kings, and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and came it not into his mind? 22: So that the LORD could no longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation, and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day.
23: Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day. 24: Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah that are in the land of Egypt: 25: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
Oh yes, many ancient Israelites kept Easter. Modern Israelis still do. In summary we can say that when Herod, after the Passover and during the days of unleavened bread shut up Peter intending to bring him out after Easter, Herod meant exactly what the King James Version is saying. He meant Easter not Passover which had already come and gone. This means that every translation which uses the word Passover in Acts 12:3-4 is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Easter is the correct word, and the King James Version uses it. [/i]
Krispy
|
| | 2006/3/21 6:17 | | roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Re: the intangible concerns | | Quote:
Big deal. I have faith.
Krispy, What/who is the source of your faith? Is it a person, or is only visible written symbols about the person. Do you believe that God can speak to me through my Bible? Is it his word? Or would you view me as having a lesser revelation of God because I dont read the KJV?
Quote:
I'm a structural engineer.
So you not a lawyer. I suspect that you work with the tangible dimension, and are very good at your profession, because you are clearly a clever person.
However, the intangible aspects of life are hard to draw out on blueprints ex: the way peoples minds work, the way people are drawn to Christ, and the way they come to understand Gods precepts.
I repost some of my earlier comments here, because I got the (intangible) impression that you didnt see my (intangible) concern nearly as valid as your concern. Do I understand right? I will edit it in an attempt make my (intangible) point easier to assimilate.
Quote:
I happen to see the perverting of Biblical truths on a far grander scale than you do - far in excess to what the worst translators have ever done.
Think of the words, "Worship
.. "love, God, mercy, forgiveness, submission, lead sin, etc . Countless Biblical terms are perverted so grossly IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE that we almost need to throw them out and find a better word
. (until it gets too perverted to resemble its true meaning)
Now, we cannot blame translators for the perversion of those words Can't you see a diabolic force at work, not just creating an innocent misconception of the word. God's word is twisted in people's minds in order to keep them from truly obeying God. Their minds are made dull, their eyes are blinded, their ears cant hear
.
I could create a huge list of common Biblical terms and then show how through common and sloppy use they have become perverted IN PEOPLE'S MINDS - to the point of even destroying the true overall meaning of God's God News. We ALL have perversion to some degree.
Thankfully God outsmarted even the devil. For example, even without using the word "love" at all, Jesus taught us the meaning of love by examples: like the Good Samaritan, foot washing etc etc.
It is the same for all important Biblical concepts.
So, even the purest translation is limited by the limitations of the reader, but not the Holy Spirit who alone can enlighten true meaning of God's word.
PS: I am not here referring merely to the non-Christian, but everyone. Christians too see through the eyes of their culture, their heritage, their experience etc. But it is very hard to recognize, perhaps because it is so intangible. Thats why the importance of testing and trials: they purify ones faith.
Krispy, I respect your concern, and wouldnt mind at all if you go through my site and check for any errors that resulted from using other translations.
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
| | 2006/3/21 7:30 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Krispy, What/who is the source of your faith? Is it a person, or is only visible written symbols about the person. Do you believe that God can speak to me through my Bible? Is it his word? Or would you view me as having a lesser revelation of God because I dont read the KJV?
God is the source of my faith. I have faith that God has preserved His Word to us. He said He would, and my personal research of this issue has only deepened my faith in that. However, we can not discount faith when it comes to this issue. God said it, I believe... and even tho I have researched this for a number of years and have had my faith confirmed over and over concerning this issue... it still comes down to faith.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Can God speak to someone thru an NIV? Heck, I believe God speaks to people's heart thru the words that spew forth from Benny Hinn's mouth. But it's not anything to do with Benny Hinn.
I got saved in a staunch NIV church. It wasnt just an NIV church, it was a Word Of Faith church... and now I reject the NIV and the Word of Faith movement.
But the question is not "can God speak thru a perverted version". The question is: Why use a version that is perverted? If the KJV is the true Word of God in English, why would we use something inferior?
Kinda like... if I have the means to buy a car that runs great, why would I buy the same model and year car that I know has a transmission problem for the same price? The bad car might get me where I am going, but the transmission is slipping and I have to nurse it along down the road.
Quote:
So you not a lawyer. I suspect that you work with the tangible dimension, and are very good at your profession, because you are clearly a clever person.
Another example... I see other structural drawings out on job sites that are done by other engineers. Some are excellent... some are really poor. A contractor will have questions for me on any project, thats to be expected. But if my plans are superior, he's gonna have less problems building that house. If he has drawings that leave things out, have wrong dimensions, etc... the building will get built, but not without a lot of questions and problems along the way.
It's the same thing with Bible versions. If you have a version that is superior, but settle for an inferior version... you're gonna get where you're going, but may miss out on a lot.
I know from experience that it is very difficult to argue the truth with a Jehovah's Witness when you're using a modern version. Especially the doctrine of hell. That truth bears out on this very forum. How many threads exist on here where people are arguing agianst an eternal punishment in hell using modern versions? Many. But the KJV slams the door shut on the issue. And people dont like it.
Very rarely will a JW stick around very long if you pull out a KJV and begin to argue with them. You know what the first thing they will do? Try to discredit the KJV. Sound familiar?
And no... I am not an editor, nor do I have the corner on all truth. So I respectfully decline your offer for me to review your website for errors. 8-)
Love ya, Diane...
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/21 7:46 | |
| | Re: | | Here's a link to a 20 part series on the KJV. This is by Pastor James Knox of Bible Baptist Church in Deland, Florida.
Now, if you start downloading and listening I highly recommend that you listen to ALL 20 hours, because if you dont you can misunderstand his teachings on this. You must listen to the entirety of it.
In session 15 in the series he does a "side by side" comparison of the KJV to 7 or 8 modern versions... very intersting.
I agree with about 98% of his teaching on the KJV. There are a couple of conclusions he makes that I find his argument a little on the weak side, but I'm in prayer about it asking God to open my eyes if I'm missing something.
Anyway... here is the link:
http://www.biblepreachingarchives.org/jameswknox/kjv_series/
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/21 7:54 | | roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Re: :-( | | Aaah, Krispy, So you aren't going to check me out for error, and I think that you are qualified enough to do so. I'm starting to get a rejection complex. I have invited other KJVO's to examine my writing for error, but so far, no one will take me up on it. :-(
I posted about the distorting of the blueprint in people's MINDS? People are driven by what's in their MINDS which to a large extent superimposes on what they read. (mindsets)
Do you think I'm overstating the problem?
PS I don't see any connection betweeen the Word of Faith and the NIV. I suspect that the movement is prepetuated by man's sinful desires and failure to examine and study ANY translation ... failure to submit to God.. pride, etc. They then find some verses to say what they want it to say. (I've seen that a lot)
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
| | 2006/3/21 8:42 | Profile |
|
