| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/03/2009 5:50:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 09/01/2009 10:44:10 PM PDT by pissant
There are many more Protestants in the U.S. than Roman Catholics.
“Sodomite” works just fine, regardless of the PC crowd who tries to temper the word with colorful baubles.
I’m not sure that France can be considered “Catholic” anymore:
“An October 2006 CSA poll addressed solely to Catholics established that 17% of French Catholics (who comprise 52% of the population) didn’t believe in God. Among the believers, most (79%) described Him as a “force, energy, or spirit” and only 18% as a personal god.[10] In other words, if one excludes people who call themselves “Catholic” but do not believe in a personal god, only 9% of the French population can be called Catholic.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_France
What does it mean to say the French are a Catholic nation if 82% of French “Catholics” don’t believe in a personal God?
Why do you say it’s heretical?
“PC crowd who tries to temper the word with colorful baubles.”
This is not coloring it is rewriting the scriptures.
By changing “The sons of God” the meaning is totally changed.
The sons of God were the fallen angels.
Yes, except to put the word children where God has said “sons” is to water down the meaning of the verses...
to be a child of god is one thinbg
Buit to be a son means you have a high place in God’s house..
authority, an inheritance of everything He has etc...
It is not important to be gender percific...
It is important to be accurate...
We know and understand that woman have just as much right to be sons of God as men have...
Jesus died to give us all salvation and a place in God...
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the SONS of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the SONS of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not. 1 John 3:1
Beloved, now are we the SONS of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2
In those verses the word “sons” in the Greek is teknon, meaning a child (as produced) child, son, daughter..
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS of God. Romans 8:14
And because you are SONS, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father Galations 4:6
In those two verses the word “sons” in the Greek is huios, meaning a “son” its used very widely (even for animals) used very wsidely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship, a son, a foal, a child..
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of SONS. Galations 4:5
Here the word for “sons” in the Greek is huiothesia, meaning the placing of a son ie adoption, (figratively Christian sonship in respect to God)adoption (of children, of sons)
Fallen Angels.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
(plural)
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods
(plural intensive - singular meaning)
god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
God
There's a verse in the Old Testament (don't know where) which is "son of a contentious woman" in the KJV or NASB or some older version, and NIV translates it as "son of a bitch."
I've never liked the NIV either and couldn't put my finger on why.
NASB is like eating bran cereal -- bulky, but good for you.
I enjoy reading the RSV. Some acquaintances of mine (Baptist?) called it the "Reversed Version."
Yup, I’ll stay with my King James and Geneva ( Pilgrims Bible ) Bibles.
There is indeed something poetic in a translation such as Young’s.
And there is also value in correcting gender mistranslations, where gender specifications were added onto the original text—and then quoted to exclude women where no original exclusion was intended.
If one is going to quote Scripture for content, one might as well be open to the actual content.
Their only poll is from MSNBC.
NASB Ditto. I also read the NIV, but will NOT buy another one for myself or anyone else if they change the text. I have the Archeological Bible, it’s a masterpiece, heck my kids love it too!
Liberalism is a disease.
That’s an incredibly sinful thing to write. Please reconsider your words.
Are you saying the translators aren’t Christian?
I do. The NIV was indeed the translation of choice for evangelicals - twenty years back.
Calling it “questionable” is suspect. Implying it is heretical slanders the translators and the scholars who labored on it.
I dont understand that. All translations are interpretive, by their very nature. Languages are not codes. The KJV translators interpreted Scripture - they very honestly admitted it themselves.
Your assertion that “the KJV is still the translation of choice for those who are serious about studying God’s holy, inspired word.” is frankly insulting for those of us who dont care to wade around archaic English.
It wouldnt have anything to do with being the language that was spoken at the time then?
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.