Which would you die for?

Mike Berzins: //When two different translations contradict
one another, they can't both be true.//

What a foolish assumption* to make.
It logically leads to a weak & puny God who can't even
perserve His Holy Written Word saved in one edition
of one English Translation (Version).

*Note: 'assumption' is an educated guess
or basic agreeded upon statement (formerly
called an 'axiom' = self-evident truth

I recommend the following axiom:

If there appears to be an error between two versions
of God's Holy Written Word; then GOD didn't make
the error, some human (or humans) did.

This forum should be a place where we can discuss the seeming
discrepancies between one version and the next, and see
of God has given one of the other discussers an insite into
what the Lord intended for us to understand for that scripture.
The study of variant scriptures can enhanse our understanding
of the Holy Living Word of God: Messiah Jesus.

 

I hate to tell you this Ed, but you just arrived at the same conclusion as did Mike. He did not say that God made the error; he said they [the translations made by man] can't both be true. In other words, who made the error? Some "human (or humans) did."

Is it still a "foolish assumption?"

 

Re: dying for the word...It seems far from the present reality.
I've learned to mistrust my feelings enough to say that I don't know what I would do in that position.
As a child of God, I'd hope that he would supply me with the necessary grace to cover the situation.

I don’t think it is necessarily Eastern Mysticism or mystical to say that differering translations can be right.

We see contradictory quotations throughout the NT in their quotes from the OT.
It does lead us to ask, "Which one is right?"

We can say:
1). One translation is wrong
or
2). Claim that the NT translation was "re-inspired"
And/or that perhaps
3). verbal plenary inspiration isn't exactly a scriptural imperative.

Rob

 

How insulting. I'm not hindu, and don't appreciate the accusation. Show some class.

 

Hmmm, so therefore the KJV cannot be true because it contains contradictions. Minor ones mind you- mainly referring to numbers and so forth, but contradictions nonetheless.

He got that from Riplinger, remember? The title of the book was 'New Age Bible Versions'.

 

There was a time when bible commentators gave the bible the benefit of the doubt. When an apparent contradiction appeared, they knew that they merely did not have all the information to have the correct understanding. Now we just assume that the bible is wrong?

 

Ed Edwards: //If there appears to be an error between two versions
of God's Holy Written Word; then GOD didn't make
the error, some human (or humans) did.//

From a response I see I wasn't at all clear.

If there seems to be in a person's mind
(or between two persons) that
two different versions (or two different parts
of the same version) are in contradiciton,
then the problem is with the person(s) who
sees the contradiciton NOT GOD.
This does not say that a contradiction exists,
only that it is considered as a contradiciton.
The Bible has no contradiciton: not between it's
parts in different books.

This does not agree with what Mike said.
Mike seems ready to damn somebody's Bible
than to try to figure out (by working with the
Holy Spirit and each other) what the misconception
is about.

 

Well, it is the KJVO's who are always saying, "Things that are different are not the same"!

I was 'speaking as a fool' as Berzins said.

 

Contradictions? Please prove me.

 

[Bible attack deleted]; no time to list them now.
Common knowledge.

 

Sober Baptist,

Please refrain from using terms such as 'King Jimmy'. They are a violation of BB posting rules.

Please refer to http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393 #9

Thanks!

 

This has become another KJVO/anti-KJVO thread.

Those who have been around a while know what happens