Recent content by davidbrainerd

How is my focusing on translating into a language I don't know going to produce a translation in that language? Saying "more close to the mind of God" is both bad English and not the best way to put it. The KJV is more literal of a translation than most. There is at least one modern...

I think the people that speak those languages are more qualified to discuss the translations in those languages than we are. Lets all start discussing the translations of languages we don't know! Really?

Considering that we don't speak any of those languages and therefore can't translate into them, what's your point again? Maybe that's something for Wycliffe to focus on, but it has nothing to do we us on this forum discussing English translations. And we aren't only discussing English...

Some of the extremely rabid KJVOs obscure the issue with Westcott and Hort by personal attacks about their belief in Ghosts and so on. The real issue with them was their textual theory. I read the article or whatever it was where they put forth their theory once before. The theory is...

In any case, I think in all likelihood the Granville Sharp Construction was operative in English in 1611. After all, that other construction "and...and" instead of "both....and" was used in English at the time. Just because modern English doesn't have a construction doesn't mean Elizabethan...

Which verse are you referring to?

I didn't state my views. However, its obvious that Acts 2:38 cannot be referring to baptism in the Spirit, as you cannot really command someone to be baptized in the Spirit. Your claim here simply proves that altering definitions is alive and well, and the KJV is not to blame for it.

Well, you're pretty certain to be raised with that to one degree or another no matter what translation you're raised on. For example, if you're raised Baptist, there's no way they're going to take the KJV's command to be baptized "for the remission of sins" at face value, and there's no way...

And as concerning "a stark contradiction" when I read in your precious NIV: Matt 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment...." Ephesians 4:26 "In your anger do not sin...." This is much worse than a word having a double meaning...

In the KJV tempt sometimes means test and in others seduce. When it says he tempted Abraham its talking about testing. When James says God tempts not man with evil, it means he doesn't seduce them. I get the point that if you weren't raised with the language you wouldn't understand that...

Lol. That's like where wheels literally means wheels but also means a car in pop-English. Or grill means something to grill food on, somebody's gold teeth, and also to ask someone a bunch of questions. If I wrote a book and in one place I said "Get up out my grill" and in another I said "I...

I think the simple fact of having paragraphs (regardless whether they are perfect or not) aids in comprehension. Its just easier to read in blocks than verse-by-verse, which just feels very disjointed.

If you really were studying these things so much you would know that the rabbis in this very material reference a debate on whether God inspired all of the Law or only the 10 Commandments. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote a rather lengthy book on this debate in the rabbinic sources, called...

Aside from the airplane analogy there is another reason that a perfect Bible is not necessary for salvation. The early church didn't have the New Testament. Obviously those who lived before Paul's conversion didn't have Paul's epistles. And when Paul was still persecuting the church, many...

Not in the sense of having earned it. But in the sense of being worthy to receive it freely from Christ we are. Otherwise, how do you explain Paul chiding the Jews in Acts 13:46 by saying "Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the...