Posted on 08/07/2003 8:34:50 AM PDT by fishtank
Ryan - would that be inclusive of the Apocrypha or exclusive
Be thankful for small blessings...I'm single, and sometimes see way more than I should, or want to...Jesus said we would have trials, but why does there have to be so many like this?
...a prisoner in your own body - I know thy curse -
Im so fat that when I jump in the pool - the water jumps out
Im so hairy it looks like Ive got Don King in a headlock
Im so ugly the starving dogs I scared off the meat wagon, vomited, ate it, and vomited again......and then ate grass and vomited again
My problem is I'm too average. Don't have any money, don't have any land, don't look like a movie star, so they won't take my hand....seems like they're always holding out for a better deal.
- hey I dont feel so bad now LOL - I have $ & land and look like a cross between Lyle Alzado (before he died) and Dom Deluise -LOL - trouble is that when they find out Im owed rent money by various supermodels, they run away, fearing my standards are too rich and demanding
And as I said, I'll stand by my statement. I gave the reasons for my statement, but nothing has been given to show that I am wrong in my statement other than you claim it to be false.
I'll give credit where credit is due, and if information can be provided (website links or books listed) that I could review, I am open to adjusting my statement. Thing is, I have yet to run across anything to make me change my stand. From my review if the Geneva Bible, It is a wonderful source for study, and has much in common with the King James, but the king James eventually replaced the Geneva Bible, and was the standard for 350+ years. Most bibles today, no matter the source of their translations, look more like a king James Bible in format than the Geneva Bible.
As long as its not nekkid mixed bathing, you're O.K.
I can't figure out how the books contained in the Bible were codified by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD when the Bible didn't exist??? What were people using before 1611?
I'm sorry I was not clear. My statement is in regards to formatting, layout, etc. Of course there were bibles, or at least collections or scriptures that could be reviewed. I dont' think that God would hide his word from us between 397 AD and 1611 (which also shows I have problems accepting several of the teachings of more cultic modern day churches who claim they are the "true, restored church")
As others point out, there were the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles (just to mention a few). Some were poor, some very good. All though worked to fulfill the command Jesus gave (witness ...unto the uttermost part of the earth.).
My statement is just that if you take just about any bible off the shelf and compare it, they will look more like a King James in layout, style and format, than they would to the Geneva or other earlier Bibles.
The king James Bible set many standards that had not been in Bibles before it, many which are still followed today.
We do not believe that the King James is divinely inspired. Only the originals were inspired. Even those who organized the King James say they were not inspired. We do believe that the King James is the preserved word of God.
In cases like Gail Riplinger... I have read "New Age Bible Versions". Interesting Book. Like all things though, we must be like the Bereans and test what is written against the scripture. Riplinger makes some good points, but not all of it can be taken as fact.
I can live with that...I object to the inordinate worship of the KJV that some engage in. I'm with you, it's a translation (and overall a very good one), and by virtue of the fact that it has stood the test of time, I don't think God has a problem with it. I have used, and still consult regularly, the KJV, although I recently bought an NKJV, which I find to be very readable, yet familiar. I consult various translations in my study, and find them useful and enlightening. I have a brother who is a Greek and Hebrew Scholar, seminary educated, and he is a valuable source when I want to chase down difficult concepts and see what the the original languages have to say.
I see the KJV-Only attitude as very juvenile, divisive, and possessed of a party-spirit, and not a biblical attitude at all. To me, it's a ruse by satan to get Christians fighting with each other rather than fighting him.
THIS IS WHAT MATTERS!!! Amen!
God makes us a promise:
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
- Jeremiah 29:13 (KJV)
To the best of my knowledge, that is in all Bibles. I personally prefer the King James Bible, but the first Bible I truely studies was the New Living Translation. God's Promise is that we shall find him if we search with all our heart. God never says that only if you are reading a King James Bible will you be saved (and anyone who says that is wrong!).
When I was studying using my New Living Translation, God was working on my heart. I have since studied about the differenced between bible versions and prefer the King James. I personally believe that the King James is the preserved word of God. At the same time, the "errors" (differences between bible translations) were things that had not even occurred to me. When I was using the non-king James Bible, I was seeking GOD, to to discover errors in bible translations. God kept his promise in Jeremiah 29:13.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.