Posted on 11/18/2011 9:49:29 PM PST by hiho hiho
Oh, but there is.
Mmmm --- did you miss that the point I made was that the Trinity (triunity) was mentioned in the _Old_ Testament? and that the viewpoint I was addressing was that of Torahman? While quite familiar with the NT occurrences, I wanted Torahman to search the Tanakh before he claims that the Trinity is not in the Bible. It is in the Hebrew Bible.
Perk up -- you and I do agree on this!
I’m not talking about the word, Trinity. I’m talking about the words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Where is rapture in the Bible?
Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?
When many people pray, they revert to the 16th century English language as it is considered a respectful language. (hiho hiho post 6 to Ruy Dias de Bivar)
Often a person offering prayers supposes that the pronouns "Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine" infer a closer or more intimate address toward The God, or that the Bible language form demonstrates a greater religiousness or respectfulness. But that was not the intent of the translators (though it may well be the desire of the one praying). They desired to present the information in the grammatic sense of the original writer.
So, for instance, why do we see the "Thees and Thys" in the KJV? It is because one of the great gifts of the KJV translators was to insist on a correct English grammar, so that in the translation one may know whether the subject referred to is second person singular or plural.
When the modern versions use the pronoun "you" for both singular and plural, or if the distinction is not carefully made using the KJV, often a wrong meaning is read into the particular verse, leading to misinterpretation and wrong doctrine.
Any person using the KJV knowledgeably can avoid falling into that trap, by knowing whether the application is meant for an individual (thee), or whether it is meant for, say, the church (you). But without correct interpretation, a modern version leaves the reader at sea as how to apply Biblical instruction.
(Also, in addressing The Father God, the prayer will more fitly address Him as "Thou" rather than as "You." This would be merely good grammar, not to be thought of as more saintly or reverent or religious or more respectful.)
Just a thought ...
I don't know about rapture, but, don't you know that when Jesus ascended into heaven, the last words He yelled down were: "Read my Book!"?
All Jesus left us were 12 men. He might've come to us as a woman and he might have had female Apostles, as there were many strong women in the O.T. But he didn't. He came to us as a man, had male apostles and left those 12 men to give us His Words, Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium.
The NT was compiled in the 4th century and it wasn't until Father Martin Luther ... well, we know that history.
Why believe in a New Testament that was compiled 1200 years after The Fact? In fact, there several books of the Old Testament left out of the KJV, aren't there?
I had my Protestant friend do a reading from the Book of Wisdom at my husband's funeral. She said, "Book of What?" We both laughed. Neither of us knew.
What is your point?
This sounds off topic so what do you want here?
Some other time, another topic ---
OK, so what is it that you want me to deduce from these verses? It seems a little oblique ---
“I favor the NIV...”
NIV...Not Inspired Version...
There are other good translations, but I do not consider the NIV to be one of them. The King James is not a perfect translation...but it is a good one. Attempts to ‘downgrade’ the KJV are designed to promote deliberately erronous verses in many of the ‘modern’ translations.
“Surprise! The first Bible printed by Gutenberg was the CATHOLIC Bible! LOL!”
The 1611 version of the King James, it’s first printing, included all the books of the bible, those we call the apocraphal books that today are found only in Catholic bibles.
If newer English translations helps a person that's good. If others rather only use KJV more power too them. The Lord isn't concerned in what language you use to read or pray. He's concerned about a persons heart and eternal soul.
Unfortunately there are so many translations that one person can be unaware that someone else is quoting scripture.
Some translations have a theological axe to grind. I tend to be as suspicious of new translations as I am of the “new” findings of the Jesus Seminar.
“Old English” is not hard to understand. Anyone in a science for medical field has to essentially learn Latin. There are people that are fluent in Klingon, a language that does not exist! So, it can be done.
Further, the message of the Bible is veiled. It is not a checklist or rule book. It is like a grand Shakespeare play its message is much larger than a verse or chapter. Having the meaning obscured can pique the mind into looking deeper.
“**If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul**
Huh?”
Paul read in Latin and Greek — not English!
You missed the thrust of my comment, didn’t you. Go back and read it again.
By the Way, the Apostle Paul wrote Scripture.”
It is for that reason he is remembered.
***Paul read in Latin and Greek — not English!***
I’ve got a “lost” Acts 29 chapter that says ST Paul went to Spain and England and preached to the Britons where St Paul’s Cathedral now stands.
I think it is a fraud but then some people still put faith in the Apocrypha.
And there is that “lost” letter to the Laodicians which is still being printed, and believed, by some.
How about a much simpler way? Pray, read, pray, listen to The Holy Spirit to discern meaning and truth? Some folk like myself have a very limited window in which they can read. Meaning simply having limited concentration. With the newer translations such as The first edition Living Bible which was basically a revised ASV, as well as reading NCV, I was able to study much more in the time I had left to study. Over the past 17 years my ability to read and study has become more and more limited. A few years before that happened I had an urgency to read and study scripture although I have had less severe reading difficulties since childhood till that point. A condition simular too ADD but isn't. IOW these translations help some of us.
If the newer translations are wrong and I'm talking about ones more recent than the ones I mentioned they won't stand long. The Jefferson Bible for example is not very popular except for a limited sect mainly Unitarians which basically is a hold over from deism which once was popular. Christians would reject such a version. I might add Jefferson Bible was simply not a translation but rather a very extreme editing done by Thomas Jefferson.
Weren’t Spain and England part of the Roman Empire at that time?
Betcha it was Latin or Greek.
***Surprise! The first Bible printed by Gutenberg was the CATHOLIC Bible! LOL! ***
But then, Gutenberg went bankrupt, and his press was seized by creditors.
***Where is rapture in the Bible?***
It is there right where St Paul wrote it. If you don’t believe me, READ ST PAUL’S WORDS IN THE LATIN VULGATE!
St Paul writes of being “caught up” to the third heaven
then he writes how we will be “caught up” to meet with the Lord in the air.
The word in the LATIN VULGATE is rapture.
It's right there.
Duh! Yes, that is why I presumed he was not ignorant...and plainly qualified so in my statement. My point was valid though...if you go back and read the way he actually compared translations that displeased the tone was as if the KJV was the original. Since we agree he is NOT ignorant, than he has no rational excuse for weaving this fallacy into his arguments.
**The Catholics have other translation like the Vulgate in Latin but I’m not familiar with them.**
You’re missing them because they are published every day by annalex on the Daily Readings threads. Stop by someday and read them.
Yes, of course. What is your point?
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.