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.
Which version of Gal 1:9 should I believe? Is it "eternal condemnation" we get or just being "accursed?"
It's the same thing!!!!!!!! acccursed is condemned.
In the council of Trent, 13 canon the Catholic church states, THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).
By that statement I am condemned to burn in the lake of fire for eternity.
You are the master of not answering questions (questions that you cannot answer).
Do you believe Young's translation is the bible?
Do you believe the Concordant literal translation is the bible?
Do you believe these are both just as valid and inerrant and just as much the Word of God as the KJV or NIV?
An answer would be appreciated.
Your the master of asking loaded questions. Young's translation is correct. How many times do I have to say that BUT through my studies of scripture the context is incorrect. It is that simple.
Your the master of asking loaded questions. Young's translation is correct. How many times do I have to say that BUT through my studies of scripture the context is incorrect. It is that simple.
Ah. So its correct, but its not correct.
You can call them "loaded questions". I call it getting at the truth you don't want to admit.
Your the master of asking loaded questions. Young's translation is correct. How many times do I have to say that BUT through my studies of scripture the context is incorrect. It is that simple.
No the context of the KJV is far mor incorrect in so many more places ... That is the simple fact. The KJV translation was influenced by political powers of the time. The Youngs literal was not.
You can call them "loaded questions". I call it getting at the truth you don't want to admit.
CONTEXT....just like day, yom can mean a 24 hour day or a period of time, with that context some think the world is 6,000 years old and others think it is millions of years old but guess what, inerrancy and infalibilty remains the intact.
Why we believe your application to the context is wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist
Your the master of asking loaded questions. Young's translation is correct. How many times do I have to say that BUT through my studies of scripture the context is incorrect. It is that simple.
Why we believe your application to the context is wrong.
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.
Full of pride?
