Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our ancestors knew no other God but a wrathful and vengeful one. That is why they described and phrased things the way they did and why they rejected Jesus!!! You are rejecting Jesus as "too wimpy" to be God for the same reasons!!! You will NOT be glad that you did, brother.
I am not rejecting Jesus...
But you are rejecting Jesus by rejecting what He did for you on the Cross; by not believing in it.
He died for you as a propitiation (appeasement of the wrath and justice of our Almighty Father) for your sins.
He is your Saviour in that He died to procure your salvation.
Yet if you do not avail yourself of what He did and appropriate His shed blood to your sins, you are not saved.
What He did for you would come short of saving you because of your unbelief / lack of faith.
No, I am adhering to the truth. I am adhering to sound doctrine here, @jjGuru.
When you depart from the Greek and Hebrew texts you're departing from "sound doctrine". And that should be obvious to anyone. Why are you afraid of studying the underlying Greek/Hebrew texts? Anyone can do so. You obviously have a computer and if you also have the right tools (two or three good Greek/Hebrew lexicons, grammar/syntax aides, etc.) you can easily lookup any Greek/Hebrew word, where it's found in the scriptures, study it's lexical and semantic meanings, investigate it's grammar and syntax within a particular passage, how it shapes scriptural context and how context shapes it (the "hermeneutic circle" if you will) and then determine for yourself what the text says and means. I've found that the bible is it's own best commentary when you do so.
Quote:
I would actually love it if Universalism were sound doctrine. Unfortunately, there is too much scripture that refutes it for me to believe in it. In order to believe in that doctrine, one must reject the kjv entirely and say that it is not inspired. Nevertheless the kjv is a valid translation and I believe that it is inspired.
It may in fact be my kjv-superior position that is preserving me from believing the lie of Universalism.
The KJV is a very good translation and I usually quote from it. I like it's English vocabulary and rhythmic cadence. In that respect it's second to none. However, it's a product of late 16th century academic scholarship being the best king James could produce. However, like any of man's endeavors it has areas that can and should be made better. However, if you're decidedly closed minded to the subject, than continue to believe as you will. For those who might be looking to research the subject, here are some articles that might be of help:
The KJV preface on what the translator's believed concerning their own work:
The YLT certainly makes its "arguments about words" (1 Timothy 6:3-5, 2 Timothy 2:14) in such passages as Matthew 25:46.
However, in order to adhere to what the YLT says in those passages, I would have to reject the rendering of the kjv. I believe that the YLT is faulty in its translation and that the version was in fact created with an agenda in mind...to promote the lie of Universalism.
The translators of the kjv had no such agenda...their intention was to create a translation that accurately portrayed what was written in the Greek and Hebrew and that gave the message of the Holy Spirit to the greatest extent possible.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. So why pretend? You're not helping yourself by doing so. For those interested on why Young decided to make his own translation of the scriptures, information can be found, here:
When you depart from the Greek and Hebrew texts you're departing from "sound doctrine". And that should be obvious to anyone. Why are you afraid of studying the underlying Greek/Hebrew texts? Anyone can do so. You obviously have a computer and if you also have the right tools (two or three good Greek/Hebrew lexicons, grammar/syntax aides, etc.) you can easily lookup any Greek/Hebrew word, where it's found in the scriptures, study it's lexical and semantic meanings, investigate it's grammar and syntax within a particular passage, how it shapes scriptural context and how context shapes it (the "hermeneutic circle" if you will) and then determine for yourself what the text says and means. I've found that the bible is it's own best commentary when you do so.
The KJV is a very good translation and I usually quote from it. I like it's English vocabulary and rhythmic cadence. In that respect it's second to none. However, it's a product of late 16th century academic scholarship being the best king James could produce. However, like any of man's endeavors it has areas that can and should be made better. However, if you're decidedly closed minded to the subject, than continue to believe as you will. For those who might be looking to research the subject, here are some articles that might be of help:
The KJV preface on what the translator's believed concerning their own work:
You simply don't know what you're talking about. So why pretend? You're not helping yourself by doing so. For those interested on why Young decided to make his own translation of the scriptures, information can be found, here:
We no longer have the original texts in the Greek and Hebrew.
I personally believe in the sovereignty, Omnipotence, and love of the Lord; and that because these things are true of God He was both able and willing to preserve His unadulterated message for us in the kjv of the Holy Bible.
Also, that He inspired a controversy about "kjv-only" so that men might know that He has relegated His unadulterated message to that translation.
Personally, I am not "kjv-only"...
I am "kjv-superior".
That is, I believe that where there is any kind of discrepancy, the kjv is right and the other translation is wrong.
But that other translations are useful in helping us to understand what was meant by the original authors.
We no longer have the original texts in the Greek and Hebrew.
I personally believe in the sovereignty, Omnipotence, and love of the Lord; and that because these things are true of God He was both able and willing to preserve His unadulterated message for us in the kjv of the Holy Bible.
Do you understand the difference between "textual criticism" vs "translation" of the text?
Do you understand the difference between "textual criticism" vs "translation" of the text?
I'm sure you're going to lay the teaching of what that is, on us, in just a short moment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
