Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That too, but the "in law" distinction is not present in the Bible.Wouldn't that make them brothers-in-law?
Depends on which side of the KJVO line you are on.It is no secret that the manuscript evidence available to the KJV translators was poor compared to what is available today. Personally, I like the KJV, but it certainly isn't the "most accurate" translation, as some people are heard to claim.
That is correct.So, in other words, you're adding context that isn't directly stated by the literal words in the KJV.
Based on over seven and a half years here, I'm now condensing my apologetics down into two simple rules of thumb:
Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.
If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.
Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.
Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.
Because I'm an embedded age creationist, not a YEC.Why do you even bother with the second rule?
Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.
Both.
Abijam married Maachah, the queen mother; as did Asa.
Which testifies to the debauchery in operation at the time.
The story is told of a man who captured a Leprechaun and demanded of him where he had hidden his pot of gold, or he was not going to let the Leprechaun go.I don't get the whole KJV-only thing....
The Bible doesn't mention it as a "problem" either.So you speculate in order to solve the problem, even though the Bible never mentions this.
I don't know ... would they?And that anyone reading these passages would not be told of this.
No.Isn't it more likely that someone made a mistake somewhere in the translations?
Nothing at first.Anyway, what was in the Ark of the Covenant?
The story is told of a man who captured a Leprechaun and demanded of him where he had hidden his pot of gold, or he was not going to let the Leprechaun go.
So the Leprechaun took him deep into the forest and showed him where it was buried.
The man tied a red ribbon around the tree, then went home and got a shovel and wheelbarrow.
Returning to the forest, to his horror, the Leprechaun had tied red ribbons around every single tree.
When you understand this story, you'll understand the KJVO movement.
I don't get the whole KJV-only thing....
I mean, all bibles in existence today are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of...
Yes.so wormwood is star?
It wouldn't be a star as we know it.Except the only kind of star small enough to fall and hit the earth is as neutron star... which would completely destroy the earth.
but that no literal translation, or is rule 1 not valid now?It wouldn't be a star as we know it.
Remember the star of Bethlehem?
I believe it was a hologram.
It wouldn't be a star as we know it.
Remember the star of Bethlehem?
I believe it was a hologram.
It's either a type of star that God created that scientists are unfamiliar with; or it's an object that can be semantically referred to as a star; e.g., "falling star" for meteor.but that no literal translation, or is rule 1 not valid now?
But a star can be a hologram.A hologram is not a star.
Are we back to Wormwood now, or the star of Bethlehem?And I don't see how a hologram could poison 1/3rd of the earth's waters, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?