Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > A new, new, new, new, bible

Forum Quick Jump

77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/21/2002 6:15 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks all for the references.

I've used Strongs, Vines, Wuest, etc. years past. I remember reading Wuest's take on "stripes" in I 2:24 compared with Vines's take: one said the word refered to the spiritual wounds Christ bore on the Christ; the other said it was the physical wounds of Christ having been whipped (you couldn't help but see the doctrinal stances of each coming through their interpretations). At that point I finally said "enough" with the "Well, the Greek says" stuff and simply used various translations.

One of these days I'll have to learn Greek! And maybe (oy vay) Hebrew, too! And then I too can say (this time authoritatively dangerous and quite able to shoot myself in the foot!) "Well, the Greek DOES say..."!

Anyone know of good online or in-print courses to learn Greek?

Thanks mucho,

Starkman

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/21/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Payaso,

Thanks for the Greek ref by Zondervan. Yeah, I'm very familiar with all of the problems that arise when you get interested in the Greek. Oh, I haven't studied it, but I've seen well enough to know how many more issues come up.

See, what I'd like to do, though, is learn enough to follow what others, mostly scholars, are saying about the Greek or Hebrew. I'm not interested in being able to translate myself as much as I'd like to do second hand exegesis; compare what scholars say and be at least able to follow them.

Perhaps the issues would still get even more complicated or bizare, but oh well!

Gotta run!

Starkman

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/21/2002 4:30 PM (GMT -6)

Way cool, Payaso!

I've spent nearly...no, make that all day going over my Favorites for online Bibles, this, that and the other. This is a good resource to add. Thanks.

Starkman

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/21/2002 4:53 PM (GMT -6)

2 Tim. 2:15 use to tell us to study, now it tells us to make ourselves clean before we go to God, how quaint!

Why no mention of the fact that the modern "bibles" put things in that the "translators" don't think should be there? They have no problem taking things out that they don't like, such as, baptism would come after belief and is an OPTIONAL item, "if thou believest thou mayest".

What you call archaic, I call beautiful. It is funny that you have studied a dead language but put down studying a few words of the English language that are still in the ENGLISH dictionary.
I would rather read the Royal English than gutter English. The King James was not the common English spoken back then. If you care to read the dedicatories, you will find that out.
It is lame to state, "today's English", when there has been over 115 "translations" done in the last 100 years, by your logic what we must assume is that our language changes every 9 months so much that we are unable to understand what words meant 9 months ago.
I think that the most tragic thing is, there are still hundreds of languages that still do not have John 3:16 translated. Yet English versions still come out every 9 months for ONE reason only, $$$$$. Copyrights not withstanding.

The "word of God" IS bound under this scenario, bound by a copyright!

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/21/2002 6:05 PM (GMT -6)

RB, the King James was translated so the average person could read the scriptures, so it really doesn't matter if it is common or not common. But, regardless, everything you just wrote is subjective, based on how YOU feel about the King James Version and modern translations. None of it is actually an argument.
About II Timothy 2:15, hmmm, are you trying to find things to nitpick about?
I am curious how you can call something satanic that affirms
the deity of Christ
the Trinity
The virgin birth...actually I could go on and on.
The basis point is you are looking for things in the cracks while ignoring the plain verses, simply because you don't want to deal with the fact that these translations you personally do not like affirm the truths of Christianity. Harold

Edited by - writerdad on 02/22/2002 2:57:47 PM

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/21/2002 6:44 PM (GMT -6)

RB,
You had me translate all of those verses from Greek. Why? They look very similar to the KJV in my opinion. What's significant about those verses?

Kyle Essary

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/22/2002 1:07 PM (GMT -6)

"They copyright to protect their work,"

That's right! Their work. Can you show me where God is in all of this? I believe that God WAS in the translation of the King James. Not "good, godly men", especially not "good, godly, gay women" as was with the NIV.

As to them putting in what they feel are most reliable, that is a laugh, the NIV is footnoted everywhere that "the best manuscripts" "majority manuscripts", "most ancient manuscripts" DO NOT CONTAIN certain verses. They left out 16 verses which through their paragrhaph style is undetectable. Yet they leave in the Pericope De Adultera which they footnote should not be there? There is a reason for that. Remember we were talking about the penknife before. What was the penknife used for in Jer. 36:23?

What is your opinion of Daniel 3:25?
Who is the Son of the Morning in Is. 14:12? Who does the NIV say the Son of the Morning is in the New Testament?
Was Mary a virgin or just a maiden?

Are these things important?

Hey, I am sorry if you think that I come of with a rough edge, I am not a politician.

I know that God is responsible to get his word out to man, THE BIBLE is his format. I do not mix definitions, Bible means library of BOOKS not messages.

We have NO RELIABLE GREEK OR HEBREW texts, they have ALL been edited. Most of the lexicons are based upon the works of Westcott and Hort and their idea of less is the best. That is a manmade idea. It is not practical in real world situations. Look at some of the twentieth century's "best" authors. Run on sentences galore in one Southern authors many works! I think it was Faulkner.

If all the greek and hebrew texts disagree in some key points what are we to do with the theory that they are our closest things to the true "word of God"? If we do not have or know which one is the true one, then what of God's promise to preserve his word? If we do not have an inerrent word to be in authority over us, why on earth would we die for it?
If I gave you a dictionary and stated that 20,000 intries were suspect, would you believe it? Oh you could use it, but would you believe it?
The whole matter comes down to this, FINAL AUTHORITY. What is the final authority for each of us. I have a final authority, I can pick it up, read it, believe it, get frustrated with it, and know that it is perfect, and my opinion about what is written in it doesn't matter cause it is there and I cant change it.
Those that have multiple authorities, actually rely on their own intellect as their final authority, for one of two reasons;

1. They have to choose what best suites their current belief system, (preconceived),

2. They interpret BASED on their current beliefs.

If they come across a verse in a bible or lexicon that is in direct opposition to their current belief system they TEND to go to a Bible or lexicon that interprets it THEIR way.
I have no other choice than to accept it as given by the AUTHOR, with understanding comming later.

.......................

I read the verses posted earlier, what I was asking for was direct word for word TRANSLATION from the greek, not with interpretation of meaning. Not all of them follow completely the RULES of interpretation.

I have no apologies for my belief in this subject, for it is one of the most important subjects to be undertaken.

You incorrectly assume that Satan would NOT tell people that Jesus is God the Son. Remember the woman possesed that followed Paul around proclaiming just that fact?

Did Satan LIE when he quoted scripture to Jesus? He is cunning, and appears as an ANGEL OF LIGHT. A bearer of truth, that devours not only men, but their faith.

My belief is based on what I concider objective truth, God said he would preserve his word, and USED man to convey it the way he wanted it. Your belief is based on subjective thought, which ever interpretation best fits your belief is the one that you will USE.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/22/2002 1:58 PM (GMT -6)

Then its settled, all the manuscripts are corrupt, all the translations are done by man and God was in the King James. Why didn't I see all that?! Silly me, here I was trying to sift through the evidence...thanks, RB

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/22/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6)

Rb, the really sad thing is you basically are condemning anyone who has ever worked on any translation other than the King James translation (oh, by the way, let's not go into the motives or sexual preferences of the translators...the King James translators certainly weren't pure in that regard). Apparently, for you, anyone who adknowledges that other translations are good is corrupt and therefore all Christians (? perhaps not, considering they cannot tell when Satan is using them) who worked on them are deceived at best and evil and deceivers are worse. Such a blanket statement! Such a judgment! Hopefully God will be more tolerant and less judging of you on that day than you are with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (all us deceived ones, that is). Harold
PS. by the way, if you don't know where God is in all these translations, perhaps you should read them. He's on every page...

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/23/2002 7:00 AM (GMT -6)

Payaso,

Thanks for the link and well thought out posts.

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/24/2002 10:21 AM (GMT -6)

"referred to as "lions" "

Actually Jesus is that Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and Satan is LIKE a lion seeking whom he may devour.

I am sure that a man would know Jesus in a glorified state. Just another case of not Glorifying Christ that the new "bibles" are full of.

I believe that God made the translators translate exactly what he wanted. Thus his promise to preserve is correct.

You state that varient spellings in the various greek texts do not nullifie them as being God's word. Sorry, but that is not what I am referring to.

The modern "scholars" constantly refer to "older mss" as if there were numerous "older mss" this is either a mistake or is an attempt to mislead the readers. There are exactly 3 older mss. they are all written on Vellum (sheep skin) and none are complete. One is missing the 1st 4 chapters of Genisis, another is missing several of final chapters of Revelation and all are missing many verse, have changes of texts, etc. Most of the changes degrade the status of Jesus. Westcott and Hort used these three Mss. as the basis for their textual criticism, and the various translations exept for the NKJ are based upon their editing.

The reason that the PDA is IN the body of the NEW TRANSLATION even though it is "suspect" is people would reject them if they took it out. THAT is the reason, not footnoting problems, there are plenty of trees left to place that footnote in!

BTW, I have heard all the "stuff" about King James, and his translators, there is ample evidence that it is not true, you believe which ever version of it that you want.

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/24/2002 10:48 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I read the verses posted earlier, what I was asking for was direct word for word TRANSLATION from the greek, not with interpretation of meaning. Not all of them follow completely the RULES of interpretation.

Dude, there is not need for pride here. Those are word for word translations out of the Nestle Aland NT. I followed every rule of translation. It surprising that you insulted my translations as not going by the rules, even though you have no idea how to translate greek since you obviously see no need for it.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Therefore, I will step out of this argument too, because that is all it is. An argument on a completely useless matter. Adios guys, its been fun.

Kyle Essary

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/24/2002 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

It is apparent that all of what RB believes is subjective, based on what he wants to believe and if you disagree and provide evidence it is basically, "you believe what ever version of it you want."
In the end, it is more about division than anything else (hmmm, me wonders exactly WHO Satan is truly using!!!) What does it truly accomplish in uplifting one translation over the other, but the pride and security of the person doing it? Is God truly glorified when we are so negative and spiteful towards other translations and those who brought them about? When such translation affirm every historical Christian doctrine? In the end, I suppose it is about being right and justified. But grace is not about being right, but about being loved...Harold

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/25/2002 1:32 PM (GMT -6)

The apocrypha was included as an addendum between the testaments, there was much argument as to its addition, and it was stated that it was added just as a historical value.

I still don't by into your "message" idea. For SCRIPTure constantly refers to WRITE (82 times) WRITTEN (268 times), WROTE (60 times).

Does God use man to write his WORD? Isaiah 8:1 indicates so.

What is the WORD written for? 1 John 5:13 says why. That verse was given to underscore the value of the WRITTEN word.

What you are espousing with your idea of LAYMAN is that there is indeed a priestly class, which is one thing that Paul indicates was done away with. God is NO respector of persons.

You have proposed that only the "message contained in the BOOK OF BOOKS is important. But God states that the ORACLES that he gave were to be kept. Those are his WRITTEN WORDS. If only the message is important then we can elevate any childrens bible, the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (for it agrees in 99 percent of the time with the NIV but is more honest in that it actually puts the number followed by a dash where they cut out scripture that doesn't agree with them doctrinally).
I can't refer to 2 timothy, for that imperitive of studying the word of God is no longer there.

Psalm 119:165

Translating word for word is different than translating meaning.

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/25/2002 1:56 PM (GMT -6)

This is what I am talking about with word of word. John 1:1 is literally, In (the) beginning was (the) word, and (the) word (was) with God, and God was the word.

en arche en logos kai logos en pros theos en logos

Theos is in front of Logos in the last portion. So much for the dynamic translations. BTW, anything that Westcott and Hort had anything to do with is suspect. That goes for Origen (the deist) and his remaining vellum copies.

Edited by - rb1963b on 02/25/2002 6:57:59 PM

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/25/2002 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

nice try rb, but that isn't what John 1:1 says, there is an article before logos in each occassion. And following your methodology, I translated word for word, not for meaning.

Kyle Essary

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 2/27/2002 2:20 PM (GMT -6)

Yes, but Theos follows Logos in the second part of the sentence and is prior to Logos in the latter part of the verse. If we were to give a word for word without English rules for sentence structure, most of the NT would be very difficult to understand.

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/27/2002 2:34 PM (GMT -6)

You would know which word goes where if you were to translate using greek rules. Your argument is like saying that phrase "casa bonita" in spanish doesn't mean "pretty house." If you know the rules of how the spanish language works then you know it would be silly to translate the phrase as "house pretty." The same goes for greek. You have to follow the rules. Literal translations follow these rules, and it would not be a literal translation to translate John 1:1c as "and God was the Word."

The same works with Hebrew. "Bareshiyt bara Elohim et hashamyim vaet haaretz" If you don't know the rules of Hebrew, then the translation would be "At the head of things, he created God the heavens and the earth."

A literal translation would follow the rules of Hebrew and say "At the head of things, God created the heavens and the earth."

Maybe we have found some common ground here, not sure.

Edited by - Kyle Essary on 02/27/2002 7:40:15 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/27/2002 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

Kyle, Payaso:

This might make it really interesting for you. Here's something written for a family magazine from a denomination. It is not written to scholars. But neither is it simplistic. (The Dutch do not have a tradition of pios-antiintellectualism.)

Here is the LINK to the"Meph, E- and Modes...read this." thread.

The content includes:

The God of Scripture and the God of Christian experience is a God who speaks in diverse ways and on many occasions to human beings.

There has been a great deal of discussion of divine inspiration, especially inspiration of Scripture; likewise there has been a great deal of discussion of divine revelation. But neither inspiration nor revelation is the same as speaking.

And the second of four sections ends with:

Does this perhaps offer a way forward in understanding how the biblical writers can reflect their own, often fallible, understanding of various things, while nonetheless speaking the infallible Word of God?

Edited by - potonwheel on 02/27/2002 10:41:28 PM

rb1963b
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93

Posted 3/1/2002 2:07 PM (GMT -6)

Paysayo,

If you don't understand "let" means hindered, then you will have a difficult time understanding Shakespear. AND THEY CALL SHAKESPEAR A MASTER. Hmmm.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 3/1/2002 8:51 PM (GMT -6)

RB: most people do not read the Shake man and many do not like him, whether or not he is a master. Should these people be left in the dark just because they want to read the Bible in the language they speak? The english language of the 16th century is not the language we speak today. Harold

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 6:02 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I'm interested in finding out how this guy develops the idea that "neither inspiration nor revelation is the same as speaking." Off-hand, that statement is so vague to me, I don't know whether to agree or disagree with it. Blessings, El Payaso

So, you've got a fun mystery to read, huh.

Tell me what you find!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 6:04 AM (GMT -6)

HERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAME E-MAIL.

NO POSITION IMPLIED OR TAKEN.

HAVE AT IT.
===================================

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/103/43.0.html

Christianity Today, Week of January 28

Comparing the Three NIVs
How does the TNIV treat verses that were earlier criticized as theologically incorrect?
By Ted Olsen | posted 01/31/2002

Even to describe the battle over the New International Version: Inclusive Language Version of the Bible (NIVI) is to enter part of the fight. There are too many issues begging for emphasis, too many players to name, and too many outcomes to interpret.

It's clear, however, that one of the most important moments was World magazine's article, "Femme fatale: The feminist seduction of the evangelical church." Appearing in the March 29, 1997, issue of the magazine with the cover tag "The Stealth Bible," the article emphasized procedure. Writer Susan Olasky warned that inclusive language would replace gender-specific pronouns in much of the New International Version (NIV), and that the original version would no longer be available. The NIVI was mentioned, but when Olasky wrote about what the new NIV might look like she used examples from the New Revised Standard Version (see below).

It wasn't until International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House complained that World had misrepresented their plans that World issued a specific list of problematic passages in the NIVI. In an April 19, 1997, article, Trinity International University theologian Wayne Grudem (then president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) compared several verses in the NIV and NIVI, giving reasons why he believed the changes compromised Christian theology. "Such revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God," he wrote. "They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible."

The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), which translated the NIV, NIVI, and the recently announced Today's New International Version (TNIV) clearly disagrees with Grudem's assessment. "The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women," the translation's Web site says. "These changes reflect a better understanding of the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew."

In other words, World magazine and other NIVI opponents believe the changes were made to reflect changing cultural values. The CBT, on the other hand, believes the changes were made because some English words no longer mean what they used to.

The TNIV, therefore, remains closer to the NIVI than the NIV in most of the passages criticized by Grudem's 1997 article. This is especially in cases where gender-specific words were made plural to include both men and women. Below are the New Testament verses Grudem singled out in that article, his summary of why he opposed the change, and how the verses are translated in the TNIV. (The TNIV is currently only available for the New Testament.)

Luke 17:3

NIV If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

NIVI Rebuke a brother or sister who sins, and if they repent, forgive them.

Criticism "Trying to make they singular impoverishes English by leaving us no clearly plural pronoun; but understanding they as plural mistranslates the singular Greek pronoun autos and corresponding singular verb. (And the lack of agreement in many verses like this creates dissonant English as well.) Jesus could easily have said brother or sister if he had wanted to (see 1 Corinthians 7:15)"

TNIV If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender; and if they repent, forgive them.

John 6:44

NIV No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

NIVI No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Criticism "Might easily be understood to support the neo-orthodox and Arminian view that God chooses and calls groups of people, not individuals; this is done by mistranslating two singular Greek words. Individual assurance of resurrection is also obscured."

TNIV Same as NIVI

John 11:25

NIV Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies."

NIVI Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me will live, even though they die."

Criticism "Forcefulness of promise to individual person is lost. Mistranslates four singular Greek words. (Note that Jesus did not hesitate to use generic he even when speaking to Martha.)"

TNIV Same as NIVI

John 14:23

NIV If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

NIVI Those who love me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Criticism "Dwelling of Father and Son with individual person is lost; new NIV speaks of Father and Son dwelling among a group of people. Six singular Greek words which John wrote as part of Scripture are mistranslated in this one text."

TNIV Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Acts 20:30

NIV Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

NIVI Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Criticism "Obliterates the fact that Paul used a specific Greek noun, andres, to say that the false teachers coming at Ephesus would be men; this word never refers to women, and some is thus a mistranslation."

TNIV Same as NIVI

1 Corinthians 14:28

NIV If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

NIVI If there is no interpreter, the speakers should keep quiet in the church and speak to themselves and God.

Criticism "Can easily be understood to encourage groups of tongue-speakers to go off together and speak in tongues 'to themselves.' Mistranslates three singular Greek words which Paul wrote."

TNIV If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to God when alone.

James 1:12

NIV Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life…

NIVI Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life…

Criticism "NIV suggests groups of people who endure trial, and reward waits until 'they' all have stood the test. Mistranslates six singular Greek words, including aner, which means man, not person."

TNIV Same as NIVI

Revelation 3:20

NIV I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

NIVI I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

Criticism "Idea of Christ coming into an individual person's life is lost; new NIV suggests Christ coming into a church and eating among a group of people. Mistranslates six singular Greek words."

TNIV Same as NIVI

* * *

Note: Olasky's original article included only one complaint against a New Testament passage in the NRSV, which she called "doctrinally confusing": Hebrews 2:6 (itself a quote of Psalm 8:4). By substituting human beings for man in saying, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them or mortals that you care for them," the passage omits an important messianic reference. "In the book of Hebrews, this passage refers to Christ," Olasky wrote. The three NIV translations treat the verse differently.

NIV "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"

NIVI "What is a human being that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"

TNIV "What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"

Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christianity Today magazine.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 3/2/2002 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

Payaso,

Thanks much for the Greek link! You are da man!!

Starkman

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 3/2/2002 6:37 AM (GMT -6)

I can clearly see the problem with those passages translation-wise. But, the message was not just to men so that they may believe, but to men and women, so I can also clearly see the intent of the TNIV translators. I don't like the fact that Wayne Grudem did the criticism. Here is why:

quote:

John 6:44

NIV No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

NIVI No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Criticism "Might easily be understood to support the neo-orthodox and Arminian view that God chooses and calls groups of people, not individuals; this is done by mistranslating two singular Greek words. Individual assurance of resurrection is also obscured."

The change in the passage was to make it gender inclusive, NOT TO SUPPORT ARMINIANISM. He has such a hatred for anything non-calvinistic, that he seems to read more into things than are there. Obviously this is a big verse for Calvinists so I guess he automatically started thinking about that after reading this passage.

Kyle Essary

77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual