- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
Hello again Mike.
Quote So, I hadn't posted in this thread for a week, and came back today and caught up with all the posts. What a trip! What's happened to journey and Wakeup?
I'm on and off here. I've got a life you know! I'm on right now but my shoulder is hurting so I'll take a break for a while.
Quote tigger is right that the discussion started off being about why the KJV scholars felt it was appropriate to ALTER the written word of God and all but ELIMINATE His Divine Name from their translation. (Well, that, and the “I created evil” thing.)
Tigger came on here with attitude right from the start. Instead of addressing the video, and my first question to Pierre, and answering that, she started asking her own questions, which is fine, but I was not ready for another arrogant person after dealing with Pierre constantly. I apologised to her, but she didn't respond kindly, so I'm not bothering right now, and I don't want to read her/his book. Tigger can copy and paste some points and put them here on this page, then we can address. Happy to do that. But first I'm putting my message accross. As Pierre says ..Got that!Mike, We are not SCHOLARS, but we can smell a dead fish. And the dead fish is what this preacher is talking about, how they teach in Bible Colleges straight from the start to not use the KJV and the pastors warn the people, and you people warn us, and so forth.
THE FIRST BIBLE I EVER READ WAS A NEW WORLD TRANSLATION BIBLE. I loved this old bible, but a few pages came out after 5 years, so I got a New King James Version because I wanted the words of Christ in Red, then I noticed the differences in the NKJ with some scriptures in the NWT, and I felt my first bible missed out some words, IMPORTANT WORDS, so I threw it out (not really, it's in the bookcase), then my NKJ fell apart (cheap) so I got an old King James one, and determined to understand the old english, then found the differences between that previous New King James so I discarded the NKJ also. (Keep only for my notes written in the back)
I stumbled accross those differences by chance, on my own, without anybody telling me anything, and my spirit didn't like it. What more can I say? My spirit loves the Old King James, and I hear God's voice in there on every page.Quote Why aren't you guys DEALING WITH that point? Why are you DIVERTING away from it to talk about John 1:1 in the NWT, and Jehovah's Witnesses in general? And you're not even doing that with honesty.
Because I don't know the answer yet. All you guys attack the KJV, so I have to learn and investigate. Takes time, and hard when I'm not really into studying “books about the bible”. Tigger mentioned Jehovah. When one carries on about that, 99.9% they are Jehovah Witnesses. They believe theirs is the only true bible, and the rest corrupt.Quote First of all, ANY JW can discuss ANY scripture with ANY other person without an elder being present.
Of course they can, but their not talking to dummies here, when it gets deep, or their doctrine challenged, they need their elders. We have family that are JW, we've dealt with them. We know their doctrine.Basically, our only proof is in the scriptures themselves. Do they harmonise, or contradict? If one is a phony, it will contradict other scriptures and MANIFEST sooner or later.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,09:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
wyou start to sound as a Mormon with there book of Joseph Smith
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:01) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,09:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
wyou start to sound as a Mormon with there book of Joseph Smith
T.You can answer those questions too.
IF YOU DARE.wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,10:30) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:01) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,09:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
wyou start to sound as a Mormon with there book of Joseph Smith
T.You can answer those questions too.
IF YOU DARE.wakeup.
w
I have answered that question ,you just did not see it ,why 
playing seek and hide ??Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:54) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,10:30) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:01) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,09:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
wyou start to sound as a Mormon with there book of Joseph Smith
T.You can answer those questions too.
IF YOU DARE.wakeup.
w I have answered that question ,you just did not see it ,why playing seek and hide ??
T.You dont dare.
Always hiding behind dark shadows.wakeup.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 07 2013,12:41) Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 07 2013,13:28) This Pastor is a 7th Day Adventist.
Just for info: He's a Baptist. I googled his name.
Thanks 2Besse,Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,11:13) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:54) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,10:30) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 07 2013,15:01) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 07 2013,09:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,12:05) Oh, and about the KJV's “Jaareoregim”, they say: Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse.
The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.”
They believe that since the word “weavers” occurs at the end of the verse, it was accidently also placed after the name “Jair”. It is telling that the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 has only the name “Jair”.
Perhaps another hint that was overlooked by the KJV scholars?
Mike B.Never mind all those books;they are just obstructions.
1.DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS THE POWER TO PRESERVE HIS WORD;OR DONT YOU?
2.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN HIS POWER;WHY WORSHIP
HIM?
3.IS GOD IMPOTEND AGAINST THOSE SCRIBES?wakeup.
wyou start to sound as a Mormon with there book of Joseph Smith
T.You can answer those questions too.
IF YOU DARE.wakeup.
w I have answered that question ,you just did not see it ,why playing seek and hide ??
T.You dont dare.
Always hiding behind dark shadows.wakeup.
W God bless you, journey. You're cooler than a cucumber.
Okay, let's discuss some stuff slowly, because I am by no means an “expert” on this stuff either.
The MT is the Masoretic Text – considered to be the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures.
It is not as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in Qumran, but those scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to those Hebrew texts that date all the way back to 200 BC.
Most Old Testaments are translated into English from the MT, while some are translated from the Septuagint (LXX). The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (the OT) that was made between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. (Septuagint means “70”, since it was said to have been produced by 70 scholars who spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Hence the title “LXX”, which is the Roman numeral “70”.)
The LXX varies in places from the Hebrew MT – mostly in insignificant ways like phrasing and such. The LXX is the “scripture” quoted most often by Jesus and the disciples – especially Paul. That means that Jesus and his disciples most likely read their scriptures in the Greek language more often than in the original Hebrew language.
The KJV translators used the Hebrew MT for the Old Testament, and a combination of Greek mss and the Latin Vulgate translation for the New Testament.
So when my source says “The MT reads………”, they are telling us what the commonly accepted Hebrew text says. This is the text used by the NET Bible as well as the KJV Bible.
So let me direct you to the NET Bible and NETNotes……….
This will take you to the 2 Samuel 21:19 page that I quoted from yesterday.
You'll see the NET translation on top, complete with numbered “footnotes”. Hover your mouse over the numbers, and read the footnotes for some valuable information. (In this case, it will be the information that I posted for you yesterday.)
Under the NET translation, they list 7 other versions of the same verse for comparison.
And below those 7 will be the KJV translation, with Strong numbers under each word. If you hover over the Strong numbers on the KJV translation, it will bring up the many definitions of those words. If you click on the Strong numbers, it will take you to another page that will not only show you the definitions of that word, but also how that word is translated in the KJV and in the NET Bible, and how many times it's translated as each definition.
Here is the page that came up when I clicked on the Strong number under the first word in the KJV translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 (the page I linked above). You can see on this page how the word is translated in the NET Bible………..
In NET: battle 140, war 67, fight 15, soldiers 15, attack 11, battles 7, warriors 7, military 6, army 6, attacked 5, warrior 5, fighting 3, armed 3, battle lines 2, warfare 2, weapons 2, troops 2, battle cry 1, Hagrites 1, attackers 1, against 1, Wars 1, defend 1, military campaigns 1, forces 1, soldier 1, warhorse 1, wars 1, enemies 1, do battle 1, charge 1, conflict 1, conquer 1, counterattacked 1, campaign 1
………. and how it is translated in the KJV (AV):
In AV: war 158, battle 151, fight 5, warriors + 06213 2, fighting + 06213 1, war + 0376 1, wars + 0376 1And if you scroll to the very bottom of the page, you will see these words: Also search for “milchamah” and display in [NET] and Parallel Bibles.
This is a wonderful tool, because if you click on the highlighted word, it will bring up ALL of the times that word is used in the scriptures, so you can see how the different definitions are used in different contexts.
journey, NETBible.org is a great tool for getting to the bottom of a lot of controversies. The site was produced by 25 Trinitarian scholars, but they don't PUSH the Trinity down your throat; and more often than not, they actually refute the commonly used “Trinity proof texts”.
These guys are sharp. The never say, “This is the ONLY way it can be!” They instead show information, and explain why this version has it one way, while a different version has it another way. They don't slam the KJV, but instead often reference it.
So that was the “how to” portion of my response. I'll address some of the NETNotes you commented on in my next post.
peace,
mikeQuote (journey42 @ Nov. 03 2013,07:55) terraricca,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote to bad you cannot find someone that really believes in God's message to receive the true understanding though all the bibles not any one in particular ,because after all it is not our words but God's , Pierre,
This man believes the same as I, that God's word was perfect to begin with and needed no correction.
They are telling us that every Christian that read the Word of God in the KJV has been decieved for the last 400 years?
So all those verses the new translations took out never existed to begin with?
Is that what you are saying?
You are giving us permission to blank out MANY VERSES and words from our bibles?You havn't even watched the video yet, yet you comment? Look at the differences if you dare.
You trust in men and not God yet accuse others of doing so.
j42Quote This man believes the same as I, that God's word was perfect to begin with and needed no correction. They are telling us that every Christian that read the Word of God in the KJV has been decieved for the last 400 years?
Ps 53:2 God looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.the scriptures do not say that the written words of the scriptures are perfect ,or more stay perfect after God has say them ,
and I do not say that you have been deceived by the KJV ,you have been deceived by your believe that the KJV as not been corrupted big difference ;
we all know that the scriptures are copies of copies, of copies ect either in Hebrew or Greek, or ? and so we know that all translators and specifically the modern ones past 5 centuries ,where all connected to one particular religion ;and so bend the scriptures in favor of the views of that religion ,this is well known ,and so we should never see a version as the true one but seek for what is true and the truth of God not ours .
Ps 53:3 Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 08 2013,10:39)
God bless you, journey. You're cooler than a cucumber.
I don't know why, but thank you, this made me smile today I do smile sometimes!Hi Mike
Thanks so much for all that information Mike. I didn't know, but learning as I go, (and then I forget lol).
I will save everything that you just explained to me, and try it out.Thanks for your patience and explanation! I know it takes time to explain all this.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 06 2013,20:51) Quote , but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was …Elhanan …who killed him.
According to what? Those dead sea scrolls, or another? Because if I look up 2 Sam 21:19, I get this; it contradicts what this person is saying, but harmonises with my KJV. (Brother of Goliath)
They are saying that the actual Hebrew ms, from which the KJV was translated, says Elhanan killed Goliath.The KJV scholars “solved” the problem by slightly altering the original Hebrew text to make it say the BROTHER of Goliath – as is explained later.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 06 2013,20:51) Quote Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage;
To me it harmonises so far from the KJV
Patience. They are saying this Hebrew text is notoriously difficult, because it actually says, word for word, that Elhanan killed GOLIATH – which puts it at odds with 1 Samuel 17:51. And they are telling us the various ways translators have tried to deal with this problem.Some of them have suggested that “Elhanan” is another name of David to solve the dilemma.
Others say that maybe there were TWO Goliaths, and David killed one while Elhanan killed a different Goliath.
They are not yet talking about different translations, but only about the fact that the actual Hebrew text, as it stands, clearly says that Elhanan killed Goliath.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 06 2013,20:51) Quote in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible.
Is that a fact is it? Then how come the KJV has it all in tact, harmonising with other scriptures?
They are telling us that the texts we have of Samuel are in poor condition – which will help to explain how this problem came to be in the first place. Patience………Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 06 2013,20:51) Quote The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt.
What both versions now? I'm totally confused?
Both versions of the story – the one recorded in Samuel, and the other one recorded in Chronicles. They are talking about the parallel passage in Chronicles, and how it differs from the passage in Samuel. And they are suggesting that BOTH accounts have scribal mistakes.Here comes their explanation as to what they think might have happened in each parallel passage…………
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 06 2013,20:51) Quote The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (’et lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ’akh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ’et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath.
What on earth does this mean. Trying to confuse? Some of us are simple people you know.
For the Chronicles text, they are supposing that a scribe misread the Hebrew word for “Bethlehemite”, and mistook it to be the proper name “Lahmi” – as the KJV has it. The NET scholars believe there was never the proper name “Lahmi” mentioned, but that it said, “Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”Compare the KJV's translation of the Samuel passage: ……..Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew………
Notice how the word “Bethlehemite” is used in the Samuel passage? And there is no mention of the proper name “Lahni”, right? The parallel passage in Chronicles should be telling us the same exact thing as Samuel told us, right?
So they are saying that the passage in Chronicles could also be saying “Bethlehemite”, and not “Lahni”, because the Hebrew letters for those two words are very similar to each other, and could have been mis-copied by a scribe.
As for the Samuel passage, they are saying that the word “brother” was misread by an early scribe as the accusative sign. The Hebrew language is much different than English. So imagine in English I said, John killed Sam. In Hebrew, they would say, John killed AT Sam – “at” being the accusative sign, telling the reader WHO John killed. We don't use such a sign in English, but they did. And the problem arises because that Hebrew accusative sign looks almost exactly like the Hebrew word for “brother”. So although the text could have originally said, John killed brother [of] Sam, a scribe misread “brother” for the accusative sign “AT”. And he then copied it as, John killed AT Sam – making the text now say that John killed Sam – instead of the brother of Sam.
Here are the two Hebrew signs in question, so you can see how this mistake
could have been made……. the first one means “brother”, and the second one means “at” (accusative sign):אַח
אֵת
See how similar the two “words” are? The first one would mean the BROTHER of Goliath was killed, and the second one would mean it was Goliath himself who was killed.
So the NET scholars conclude the same thing as the KJV scholars concluded – that a scribe misread “brother” for “at”, and made the text say Elhanan killed Goliath, instead of the brother of Goliath.
So the NET scholars, along with the KJV scholars, change the “at” that is actually in the Hebrew text to “brother”, and translate thusly.
But the bottom line of the whole thing is that the NIV translation isn't necessarily “wrong”. In fact, they are the ones who left the Hebrew text as it was, and kept the “at” instead of switching it to “brother”.
Seeing how similar the two Hebrew words look, and considering that “brother of Goliath” is definitely spelled out for us in the parallel passage in Chronicles, I agree with the NET scholars and the KJV scholars that “brother” was originally written in the Hebrew of that verse. If I were the one translating it, I would definitely change it to “brother” also – because it makes perfect sense that it originally was “brother”, and not “at”.
I don't know if all this helped you, or confused you even more.
Let me know if there is anything that needs to be better explained.Journey, 2besee;
That video is probably an featuring an old version of the NIV as it now states:
2 Samuel 21:19
New International Version (NIV)19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair[a] the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
Footnotes:2 Samuel 21:19 See 1 Chron. 20:5; Hebrew Jaare-Oregim.
2 Samuel 21:19 See 1 Chron. 20:5; Hebrew does not have the brother of.If their claim is true then it is interesting that the wording of at least some Hebrew manuscripts is different the Koine Greek.
Hi Kerwin,
I think my last post to journey should help.
Also, I forgot to talk about “Jaare-Oregim”.
Notice that the Chronicles passage just says “Jair”, and not “Jair-Oregim”.
NETNotes says the last part (Oregim) is the word “weavers”. They suggest that since “weavers rod” is mentioned later in the verse, the scribe's eyes might have jumped prematurely, and caused him to add that word “weavers” after the name “Jair” by accident.
Both parallel passages most likely originally spoke of Elhanan, the son of Jair the Bethlehemite, who killed the brother of Goliath.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 06 2013,11:51)
Tigger2.God was not speaking about false gods.
But about a god beside HIM.We know there are many lords and gods.
but they are all not true gods.
But gods created by men.
But you said there is **A GOD BESIDE GOD**.
God said **THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE HIM**.wakeup.
Wakeup,It is not wise to call false gods those who calls gods. Try honorary gods instead. False gods are the ones men put up against God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 08 2013,07:12) Hi Kerwin, I think my last post to journey should help.
Also, I forgot to talk about “Jaare-Oregim”.
Notice that the Chronicles passage just says “Jair”, and not “Jair-Oregim”.
NETNotes says the last part (Oregim) is the word “weavers”. They suggest that since “weavers rod” is mentioned later in the verse, the scribe's eyes might have jumped prematurely, and caused him to add that word “weavers” after the name “Jair” by accident.
Both parallel passages most likely originally spoke of Elhanan, the son of Jair the Bethlehemite, who killed the brother of Goliath.
Mike,I always though the Koine Greek translations were more reliable as they are older. There are some older Hebrew manuscripts than the MT. I think there were some among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The MT may be more reliable in some areas but my knowledge of issue is limited.
I believe the issue is a settled issue as even the NIV translators have jumped on board instead of remaining strict supporters of the MT.
The OT is written by prophets of different generations.
They are not all of the one generation.They are hundreds of years apart.
Just look at the book of ENOC you'll notice, a different lingo is used.
Just compare our english now, and fifty years ago.If we go on like this: when will we ever find the truth?
Are we not to go by faith? Faith in the Word.
We can not use all this as an excuse.Lord: We could not find the truth because your bible is full of wrong translations.(dont think so).
wakeup.
I find God's truth each time I read a different translation, and each time I check the lexicons and dictionaries and commentaries.
God's truth surrounds me, Wakeup. I will never be the one telling God I couldn't find it. And that's because I'm not afraid to LOOK FOR IT.
On the other hand, your approach seems like laziness in my eyes. You found one book, and are too lazy to do any further research, so you try to convince yourself that searching for more knowledge about God is a fruitless endeavor. You may have convinced yourself of this, but you won't convince any of us. The rest of us are not afraid of a little hard work and research to get to the real truth of the matter.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 08 2013,07:26) The OT is written by prophets of different generations.
They are not all of the one generation.They are hundreds of years apart.
Just look at the book of ENOC you'll notice, a different lingo is used.
Just compare our english now, and fifty years ago.If we go on like this: when will we ever find the truth?
Are we not to go by faith? Faith in the Word.
We can not use all this as an excuse.Lord: We could not find the truth because your bible is full of wrong translations.(dont think so).
wakeup.
Wakeup,Scripture has been updated through the whole time as Hebrew language changed. Some changes were probably flawed but of no real importance. For example does it care if Mosses by the power of God divided the Red Sea or instead divided the Reed Sea.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
