Birdsfan.....

 

YOu say that verse is in your Bible? Well tell me which version you have and I will gladly give you ones that aren't.

I believe that God annointed King James to have them translated into English. Jesus may have read in Aramic as a young boy, but he spoke Greek Hebrew and all other Languages as an adult.

 

Actually Aramaic was the voice of the common people in 1st century Palestine. Greek was the univeral language of writing and trade. Hebrew was the language of the Bible.

 

We don't know what he could read or not. There is no scripture concerned enough to mention it.

 

He would have most like also used the Greek Septuigant for Old Testament reading because it was the populist translation from Hebrew texts of that day.

 

I would say that KJV is a time honored translation but it has been reprinted four times in it's history and you would have a very difficult time reading a 1611 version.

 

I respect your opinion and use of the KJV but do not believe it has anything to do with Revelation 22:19. I have heard "the annointing theories" but find it interesting that such an annointing take place on a rather debauched person as James I.

THe Apocrypha was never considered to be inspired by God. It was betweeen the testaments and the true Christians were submitted to God's authority, not man's. As for the manuscripts and such that everyone thinks we keed to go back to, God said his word would endure forever, not the Greek maunscript. If I believe what God says, which I do, then we must have God's word available us today in the exact way that he would want us to have, and thats in the KJV.

 

I'm afraid we are thread jacking here but you can't produce a speck of historical evidence that points to the KJV as the ONLY word of God. There is also no scriptural evidence either. Furthermore you just alienated most of the world because do they too not deserve a Bible of "their" language that is like yours?

Then you should know that the Authorized King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha. It wasn't until the early 1800's that Bible societies started to omit the whole section of Apocrypha books.

 

True, and the original KJV used previous English bibles as a source. There's a documentary called "The History of English" that has a whole episode on the KJV Bible. The King wanted a Bible that sounded better to the English speakers of the time so he commissioned the KJV. That's why the KJV is written with iambic pentabinar (sp?) like Shakespeare.

Anyone who reads the bible in Spanish and German or Swahili is going to hell? I've taken foreign languages and there are words in French that can't translate into English without losing the meaning. Same with Greek and Hebrew.

I'm afraid we are thread jacking here but you can't produce a speck of historical evidence that points to the KJV as the ONLY word of God. There is also no scriptural evidence either. Furthermore you just alienated most of the world because do they too not deserve a Bible of "their" language that is like yours?

 

SO who are you submitted to? The word of God or man? I don't need to historical evidence to back anything that God tells me. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, at least my Bible says so. And How have I alienated the world? Since the Lord is willing that all should come to repentance I think he can get his Word out.

SO who are you submitted to? The word of God or man? I don't need to historical evidence to back anything that God tells me. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, at least my Bible says so. And How have I alienated the world? Since the Lord is willing that all should come to repentance I think he can get his Word out.

 

So they must learn English first before they can be saved?

So they must learn English first before they can be saved?

 

umm... No. I didn't say that anywhere and I really dom't want to answer silly questions that you try to atttack me with that I never said and when you are avoiding my main points. But since this is supposed to be a creation thread, and that's where my passion lies, lets get back to it. For the Genesis skeptics out there, when can't Genesis be literal history?

umm... No. I didn't say that anywhere and I really dom't want to answer silly questions that you try to atttack me with that I never said and when you are avoiding my main points. But since this is supposed to be a creation thread, and that's where my passion lies, lets get back to it. For the Genesis skeptics out there, when can't Genesis be literal history?

 

Wow...I don't know how you took my one line in the one post I made as a personal attack. But then again, since I believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and you believe that Noah incubated dino eggs, we probably do not see things the same way.

Birdsfan.....

 

YOu say that verse is in your Bible? Well tell me which version you have and I will gladly give you ones that aren't.

Well, that one is in there. So I guess mine is the only true version, and the version I should go by, or I'll burn in eternal fire.

Wow...I don't know how you took my one line in the one post I made as a personal attack. But then again, since I believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and you believe that Noah incubated dino eggs, we probably do not see things the same way.

 

I didn't take it as a personal attack, I was pointing out that your debate tactics at the time seemed to be make me look like I had an underlying assumption that people need to know english to be saved, which I don't. Sorry if you took that the weong way. And you are right, we don't see things the same. Obviously you deny a global flood if you accpet one at all. I believe the Bible and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Dinosuars had to be on the ark because God sent 2 of every kind to Noah to take on the ark.

Well, that one is in there. So I guess mine is the only true version, and the version I should go by, or I'll burn in eternal fire.

 

I did not say that. But it must feel bad to not even be able to answer my question

I didn't take it as a personal attack, I was pointing out that your debate tactics at the time seemed to be make me look like I had an underlying assumption that people need to know english to be saved, which I don't. Sorry if you took that the weong way. And you are right, we don't see things the same. Obviously you deny a global flood if you accpet one at all. I believe the Bible and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Dinosuars had to be on the ark because God sent 2 of every kind to Noah to take on the ark.

 

Where do you get that?

Because you accept millions of years. If there was a global flood, it would wipe away evidence of the layers layed down by millions of years. All the evidence we have today would be leftover of the flood, and would make the earth young. You can't have both.

Because you accept millions of years. If there was a global flood, it would wipe away evidence of the layers layed down by millions of years. All the evidence we have today would be leftover of the flood, and would make the earth young. You can't have both.

 

Where do you get that? I am a Christian but don't accept a global flood or 6,000 year old Earth b/c there is no evidence for it. I see the flood as an allegorical parable much like the prodigal son.