Different Transalations Of The Bible

[mtalamai]

Im asking this simply...

KJV, NKJv

why theneed for two

NIV?

why is it not as popular as the KJV
for using easier to understand words

other translation...

why are there so many
and if there is a controversy

why not have the argument

and do away with all the bibles that are not
as accurite with the Hebrew and Greek

is there even a most accurate english bible

then there should not be a any problem
right?

use that one

 

[Paul]

Im asking this simply...

KJV, NKJv

why theneed for two

NIV?

...

Part of the answer is simply, what did you grow up with, what version did you read when you were young in Christ?

I grew up with the KJV. All of my early Scripture memorization was from the KJV. During college and seminary we used the RSV or NIV for most of our class work, but I always had trouble finding my favorite verses from my youth. In seminary we also learned Hebrew and NT Greek but those languages are such that if you don't use them often you loose some of what you learned. I discovered the KJV along with the Strong's help a lot to remember both. I have, since, spent a lot more time working on the Greek and some time on the Hebrew.

I prefer the Greek and Hebrew, but it takes longer to read a chapter than if I read the KJV and look up questionable words in Strong's. The problem with Strong's is it translates a word but does not take into consideration the Hebrew and/or Greek grammar. That is vital to understanding many Greek and Hebrew words. Now when I use the Strong’s I also use a lexicon and good parsing guide.

As far as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, etc? Who do you trust to do your translating the most? For me, it's the KJV edited by Bullinger.

 

[Hamster]

I personally read the New Living Translation because it words it differently than the NIV. Although any translation is fine. If I know it's been properly translated by professionals and not by man's own heart (i.e. Jehovah's witnesses)

 

[Selene]

My priest finally got back to me about the translation betweeen the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. First of all, the Latin words "Dei," "Deo," and "Deus" all mean God. According to my priest, which word we use actually depends on the sentence that is being used. It depends on whether one is using a normative, vocative, genitive, dative, or ablative. For example, "Dei" is used only for the genitive such as "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God), or "Fiat Voluntas Dei" (God's will be done). Deo is used for either dative or ablative such as "Deo gratias" (Thanks be to God) or "Deo confidimus" (In God we trust).

My priest also said that I was incorrect when I said that the Latin Vulgate was the oldest Bible. It is the Codex. These manuscripts are much older than the Latin Vulgate. He used the Codex to compare the Latin Vulgate in Romans 14:10 and 2 Co. 5:10 and found the Latin version correct. The Douay-Rhimes, on the other hand used "judgement seat of Christ" in Romans 14:10 and my priest assumed that the translators associated the word "Christ" for God because they understood that Christ is God. All other Catholic Bibles such as the New American Bible (which the Catholic Church uses), the Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV Catholic Bible all used "judgement seat of God," which is aligned with the Latin Vulgate. My priest said that the meanings of the verses in the Bible should not change and all Catholic Bibles are approved by the Vatican or an archbishop. Sorry that this reply is so late. :)

 

[242006]

Im asking this simply...

KJV, NKJv

why theneed for two

NIV?

why is it not as popular as the KJV
for using easier to understand words

other translation...

why are there so many
and if there is a controversy

why not have the argument

and do away with all the bibles that are not
as accurite with the Hebrew and Greek

is there even a most accurate english bible

then there should not be a any problem
right?

use that one

Interesting questions. Basically, newer English renderings are designed to make the Bible read in a certain matter to fit the dogma of a particular religious affiliation. For instance, if one reads Eze. 13:20, one can see a marked difference in interpretation.

In the KJV -

Eze 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

In the NKJV -

Eze 13:20 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I am against your magic charms by which you hunt souls there like birds. I will tear them from your arms, and let the souls go, the souls you hunt like birds.

In the NIV -

Eze 13:20 Therefore this is what the Soereign Lord says: I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms; I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds.


Clearly, the KJV rendering can never be squared with the NKJV and NIV renderings. Not surprising to a Bible student, those religious affiliations that believe in the [false] 'rapture' of the church recommend the NKJV or the NIV as the best Bible -- as the KJV clearly speaks against such escape theology as the 'rapture'.

Though the KJV contains many mistranslations, it is the best study Bible. Usage thereof, along with the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance [by Dr. Strong], gives the English language people the best means to know the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. One cannot directly link the renderings in the NKJV and NIV to the original manuscripts like one can do with the KJV.

 

[fivesense]

My priest finally got back to me about the translation betweeen the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. First of all, the Latin words "Dei," "Deo," and "Deus" all mean God. According to my priest, which word we use actually depends on the sentence that is being used. It depends on whether one is using a normative, vocative, genitive, dative, or ablative. For example, "Dei" is used only for the genitive such as "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God), or "Fiat Voluntas Dei" (God's will be done). Deo is used for either dative or ablative such as "Deo gratias" (Thanks be to God) or "Deo confidimus" (In God we trust).

My priest also said that I was incorrect when I said that the Latin Vulgate was the oldest Bible. It is the Codex. These manuscripts are much older than the Latin Vulgate. He used the Codex to compare the Latin Vulgate in Romans 14:10 and 2 Co. 5:10 and found the Latin version correct. The Douay-Rhimes, on the other hand used "judgement seat of Christ" in Romans 14:10 and my priest assumed that the translators associated the word "Christ" for God because they understood that Christ is God. All other Catholic Bibles such as the New American Bible (which the Catholic Church uses), the Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV Catholic Bible all used "judgement seat of God," which is aligned with the Latin Vulgate. My priest said that the meanings of the verses in the Bible should not change and all Catholic Bibles are approved by the Vatican or an archbishop. Sorry that this reply is so late. :)

The three oldest Manuscripts, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which were penned in 160-300 A.D., and are nearly complete "New Testament" copies, have been compared to one another in the extreme. The differences between them are small in comparison to the extent that they agree with one another. They form the basis of what could be considered the closest to the original Writings that we have. Presently I use a version that is based upon those three manuscipts, attempting to keep a single English word for each corresponding Greek word, and not adding or taking away from the Scriptures unless idiomatically necessary. Most versions tend to interpret the Manuscript evidence, using many different words for one Original word. The more that is done, the more muddled it becomes, and truth tends to become lost in the translations. It is best to leave the student free to determine what the Spirit is saying when specific words are in question, and not make that decision for him or her based upon preconceived ideas and thoughts.

Tischendorff is a man of historical significance in this preservation of the written Word of God. If you read his story, you will be amazed. His finding of the Sinaiticus Manuscripts in the 1800's is an incredible story.

fivesense

 

[Selene]

The three oldest Manuscripts, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, which were penned in 160-300 A.D., and are nearly complete "New Testament" copies, have been compared to one another in the extreme. The differences between them are small in comparison to the extent that they agree with one another. They form the basis of what could be considered the closest to the original Writings that we have. Presently I use a version that is based upon those three manuscipts, attempting to keep a single English word for each corresponding Greek word, and not adding or taking away from the Scriptures unless idiomatically necessary. Most versions tend to interpret the Manuscript evidence, using many different words for one Original word. The more that is done, the more muddled it becomes, and truth tends to become lost in the translations. It is best to leave the student free to determine what the Spirit is saying when specific words are in question, and not make that decision for him or her based upon preconceived ideas and thoughts.

Tischendorff is a man of historical significance in this preservation of the written Word of God. If you read his story, you will be amazed. His finding of the Sinaiticus Manuscripts in the 1800's is an incredible story.

fivesense

Hello Fivesense,

Yes, those manuscripts is what my priest called "Codex." I wasn't aware of it at the time. St. Jerome lived in the 3rd century and even built a monstuary in Jerusalem. He was the one who translated the Greek and Hebrew Bible into the Latin Vulgate. My priest said that the Douay-Rhimes in Romans 14:10 was a mistranslation because the word "Christ" was used. He found that interesting because the other Catholic Bibles used the word "God" which is aligned with the Latin Vulgate and those older manuscripts that he compared it with. Translating from one language to another can be difficult. I should know because even to translate my native language into English can be a problem. For example, the word "he" "she" and "it" are exactly the same in my native language. Also, there are some words in my native language that has the same spelling but different meaning when pronounced a certain way. It's the pronunication that determines what the word actually means.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Paul]

Selene
Is your priest going to stand beside you when you stand in front of God?

 

[Selene]

Selene
Is your priest going to stand beside you when you stand in front of God?

What has this have to do with my reply? If I have a question about a verse in the Latin Vulgate, I would think going to someone who can understand Latin would be the logical thing to do. Do you think it's logical to go to someone who doesn't know Latin to interpret a verse for me? :unsure:

 

[veteran]

The way I understand it, there's three main areas that original NT texts spring from, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine.

The KJV NT is mainly from the Byzantine, and makes up the majority of known Greek manuscripts, hence the "Majority" text or Textus Receptus (Received Text).

The Alexandrian texts center in Alexandria, Egypt, with not a very wide dispersion found.

The Western texts are mainly Syrian in origin, and probably are the oldest of all three, being quoted often by the early Church fathers, including Origen at Alexandria.

Most all the later NT Bible versions of modern history are from the Alexandrian manuscripts, from Westcott and Hort's influence and claims that the Alexandrian texts are older than the Byzantine majority texts (KJV), even though not having the weight of being the most number of manuscript texts.

Those manuscipt texts DO read differently between them. It DOES matter which NT translation one reads based on which manuscipt texts were used, but only for the deeper Bible student who wants to study more at a scholar level.


Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
(KJV)

Rom 7:18
18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
(NIV)

There are deletions in the NIV and NKJV translations that have forced me to go back to the original KJV (like in Luke 4 about 'lest at any time'). The quickest way I found that out was in Bible studies with others who used those NIV and NKJV translations. I'm not a textual critic, so I can't say those deletions were done at the translation level, nor that they are totally missing in the Alexandrian manuscripts, but I know they do exist in the Byzantine manuscripts used for the NT KJV.

I also have a problem with the way the NIV translators chose to substitute the idea of a "sinful nature" in place of the Greek text word for 'flesh', which is present in the KJV from the Byzantine texts.

There were doctrinal problems at the Alexandrian school also; it sufferred from philosophical influence by Gnostic and Neo-Platonist pagan ideas (like Philo of Alexandria).

 

[bud02]

I
Clearly, the KJV rendering can never be squared with the NKJV and NIV renderings. Not surprising to a Bible student, those religious affiliations that believe in the [false] 'rapture' of the church recommend the NKJV or the NIV as the best Bible -- as the KJV clearly speaks against such escape theology as the 'rapture'.

Though the KJV contains many mistranslations, it is the best study Bible. Usage thereof, along with the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance [by Dr. Strong], gives the English language people the best means to know the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. One cannot directly link the renderings in the NKJV and NIV to the original manuscripts like one can do with the KJV.

I do believe you are on to the most interesting point.
Its not just the translators choice of words from one language to another, but also his, and maybe more importantly, perspective of proper theology and hermeneutics.

 

[242006]

I do believe you are on to the most interesting point.
Its not just the translators choice of words from one language to another, but also his, and maybe more importantly, perspective of proper theology and hermeneutics.

The corruption of text in newer English Bible renderings is hidden by the authors thereof. Sometimes, the claim made is that changes were made for ease of wording, etc. in order to deceive the readers thereof that there are no interpretational changes in the rendering. Usually, there is no denotation in the rendering which would give a clue to the reader thereof that there was a complete alteration of the KJV text meaning.

The corruption is not just reserved to the text only -- corruption exists in Bible dictionaries/lexicons as well. For instance, check out the word 'seed' in Gen. 3:15 -

Gen 3:15 And I will put[sup]H7896 enmityH342 betweenH996 thee and the woman,H802 and betweenH996 thy seedH2233 and her seed;H2233 itH1931 shall bruiseH7779 thy head,H7218 and thouH859 shalt bruiseH7779 his heel.H6119

[/sup]It is Strong's Concordance number H2233. In Strong's, it is shown to mean the following:


H2233

זרע

zera‛

zeh'-rah

From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

The figurative meaning is clearly 'posterity', when used in conjunction with people.

In the KJV, the word is used many times -


H2233

זרע

zera‛

Total KJV Occurrences: 230

seed, 221

Gen_1:10-12 (5), Gen_1:29 (2), Gen_3:15 (2), Gen_4:25, Gen_7:3, Gen_9:9, Gen_12:7, Gen_13:15-16 (3), Gen_15:3, Gen_15:5, Gen_15:13, Gen_15:18, Gen_16:10, Gen_17:7-10 (5), Gen_17:12, Gen_17:19, Gen_19:32, Gen_19:34, Gen_21:12-13 (2), Gen_22:17-18 (3), Gen_24:7, Gen_24:60, Gen_26:3-4 (4), Gen_26:24, Gen_28:4, Gen_28:13-14 (3), Gen_35:12 (2), Gen_38:8-9 (3), Gen_46:6-7 (2), Gen_47:19, Gen_47:23-24 (2), Gen_48:4, Gen_48:11, Gen_48:19, Exo_16:31, Exo_28:43, Exo_30:21, Exo_32:13 (2), Exo_33:1, Lev_11:37-38 (2), Lev_12:2, Lev_15:16-18 (3), Lev_15:32, Lev_18:21, Lev_20:2-4 (3), Lev_21:15, Lev_21:17, Lev_21:21, Lev_22:3-4 (3), Lev_27:16 (3), Lev_27:30, Num_5:28, Num_11:7, Num_14:24, Num_16:40, Num_18:19, Num_20:5, Num_24:7, Num_25:13, Deu_1:8, Deu_4:37, Deu_10:15, Deu_11:9-10 (2), Deu_14:22, Deu_22:9, Deu_28:38, Deu_28:46, Deu_28:59, Deu_30:6, Deu_30:19, Deu_31:21, Deu_34:4, Jos_24:3, Rth_4:12, 1Sa_2:20, 1Sa_8:15, 1Sa_20:42 (2), 1Sa_24:21, 2Sa_4:8, 2Sa_7:12, 2Sa_22:51, 1Ki_2:33 (2), 1Ki_11:14, 1Ki_11:39, 1Ki_18:32, 2Ki_5:27, 2Ki_11:1, 2Ki_17:20, 2Ki_25:25, 1Ch_16:13, 1Ch_17:11, 2Ch_20:7, 2Ch_22:10, Ezr_2:59, Ezr_9:2, Neh_7:61, Neh_9:2, Neh_9:8, Est_6:13, Est_9:27-28 (2), Est_9:31, Est_10:3, Job_5:25, Job_21:8, Job_39:12, Psa_18:50, Psa_21:10, Psa_22:23 (2), Psa_22:30, Psa_25:13, Psa_37:25-26 (2), Psa_37:28, Psa_69:36, Psa_89:4, Psa_89:29, Psa_89:36, Psa_102:28, Psa_105:6, Psa_106:27, Psa_112:2, Psa_126:6, Pro_11:21, Ecc_11:6, Isa_1:4, Isa_5:10, Isa_6:13, Isa_14:20, Isa_17:11, Isa_23:3, Isa_30:23, Isa_41:8, Isa_43:5, Isa_44:3, Isa_45:19, Isa_45:25, Isa_48:19, Isa_53:10, Isa_54:3, Isa_55:10, Isa_57:3-4 (2), Isa_59:21 (2), Isa_65:9 (3), Isa_65:23, Isa_66:22, Jer_2:21, Jer_7:15, Jer_22:28, Jer_22:30, Jer_23:8, Jer_29:32, Jer_30:10, Jer_31:27 (2), Jer_31:36-37 (2), Jer_33:22, Jer_33:26 (3), Jer_35:7, Jer_35:9, Jer_36:31, Jer_41:1, Jer_46:27, Jer_49:10, Eze_17:5, Eze_17:13, Eze_20:5, Eze_43:19, Eze_44:22, Dan_1:3, Dan_9:1, Amo_9:13, Hag_2:19, Zec_8:12, Mal_2:15

carnally, 3

Lev_19:20 (2), Num_5:13

child, 2

Lev_22:13 (2), 1Sa_1:11

fruitful, 1

Eze_17:5

seed’s, 1

Isa_59:21

seedtime, 1

Gen_8:21-22 (2)

sowing, 1

Lev_26:5

In each and every usage of this word in the OT related to people [seed or seed's], it speaks of posterity. However, when one looks of this word in the BDB [Brown-Driver's-Brigg's] dictionary, one see's the following addition:

H2233

זרע

zera‛

BDB Definition:

1) seed, sowing, offspring

1a) a sowing

1b) seed

1c) semen virile

1d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children

1e) of moral quality

1e1) a practitioner of righteousness (figuratively)

1f) sowing time (by metonymy)

Part of Speech: noun masculine

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2232

Same Word by TWOT Number: 582a

The additional definition 'of moral quality' was added in this dictionary simply for Gen. 3:15. None of the other uses remotely justifies such a definition. But, because the religious hacks of the BDB persuasion do not like the meaning derived from Gen. 3:15 using 'posterity', as it relates to the Serpent's Seed [meaning Satan has offspring], they added a completely unwarranted meaning of 'of moral quality' in effort to change the manuscript meaning. People using the BDB for their Bible study will be, unknowingly, misled into thinking that Gen. 3:15 is speaking of 'spiritual followers' of the Serpent, instead of Satan's posterity.

 

[bud02]

There is a lot to be said for the point you have made. A couple verses that may be hard to reconcile with ether definition of its self.


Deuteronomy 32
[sup]7[/sup]Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. [sup]8[/sup]When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


Romans 9
[sup]6[/sup]Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [sup]7[/sup]Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

[sup]8[/sup]That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

[sup]9[/sup]For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

[sup]10[/sup]And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

[sup]11[/sup](For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

 

[Deutisa]

What has this have to do with my reply? If I have a question about a verse in the Latin Vulgate, I would think going to someone who can understand Latin would be the logical thing to do. Do you think it's logical to go to someone who doesn't know Latin to interpret a verse for me? :unsure:

I was taken aback by the response from Paul to Selene. It was a bit harsh. In all the reading I did about different translations, I could have missed one but did anyone mention that God may have His hand in each and everyone of our lives leading us where we need to go, bringing to us the translation that best fits what we need for spiritual growth? Whether it is translations from Latin, Greek or Hebrew, or whether the translations are from one era or another? Personally if your Bible / Word of God is ministering to you and you are growing in the Lord who cares if your food comes from "Greece, Asia or Rome" as long as you are continually reading the Word and you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God with us and the Holy Spirit is part of your life through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.
All this debate is wonderful as long as we do not forget who was the original author. ...... I have heard about every argument there is throughout the years about various translations. If any debate about anything causes us to reach out and use words to wound another brother or sister in the Lord who is honestly seeking the Lord in their life shame on you.

 

[242006]

There is a lot to be said for the point you have made. A couple verses that may be hard to reconcile with ether definition of its self.


Deuteronomy 32
[sup]7[/sup]Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. [sup]8[/sup]When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.


Romans 9
[sup]6[/sup]Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [sup]7[/sup]Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

[sup]8[/sup]That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

[sup]9[/sup]For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

[sup]10[/sup]And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

[sup]11[/sup](For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

I am sorry -- don't see the problem. Maybe, you can clarify a bit so that I understand the issue that you are presenting.

 

[bud02]

I am sorry -- don't see the problem. Maybe, you can clarify a bit so that I understand the issue that you are presenting.

Nether you or I probably see a problem with Strong's Concordance as compared to other scripture.
But you did comment about the seed.

The additional definition 'of moral quality' was added in this dictionary simply for Gen. 3:15. None of the other uses remotely justifies such a definition. But, because the religious hacks of the BDB persuasion do not like the meaning derived from Gen. 3:15 using 'posterity', as it relates to the Serpent's Seed [meaning Satan has offspring], they added a completely unwarranted meaning of 'of moral quality' in effort to change the manuscript meaning. People using the BDB for their Bible study will be, unknowingly, misled into thinking that Gen. 3:15 is speaking of 'spiritual followers' of the Serpent, instead of Satan's posterity.

The point I was eluding to is you can not say that the seed of Abraham included all of his descendants as being blessed or recipients "promise". As we follow the trail of the Seed to Jesus you can clearly see its not by blood its by election.
Even the definition of posterity gives room to the notion of Satan perhaps siring Cain. How you understand this concept effects how you will interpret the rest of scripture. My personal take on it is there are 2 parts to Israel one of the flesh "all of the blood descendants" and "Israel of the Promise", or better stated one of the promise and one of the flesh. This is clear in Paul's teaching [Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children]---- [but the children of the promise are counted for the seed] Though God did extend the promise to all Israel during the OT may, just as today never knew the Lord. if you don't make this distinction in the old testament you will come away thinking there is one "unconditional" relationship from God to Israel and one for everyone else. Just as in Gen 3 the seed has 2 meanings first and foremost it is speaking of Jesus. Secondly it is referring to posterity, the decedents of Eve. But the bible clearly indicates that the path of the Seed is like the wind no man knows where it comes from or where its is going. And thirdly it clearly does not indicate all the decedents by virtue of posterity. The promise was not that all Israel would be saved, the Promise is Jesus the seed of Eve.

pos·ter·i·ty   /pɒˈstɛr

ɪ

ti/ Show Spelled[po-ster-i-tee] Show IPA –noun 1. succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity. 2.all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

I can't stop without commenting about the Holy Spirit. In the OT I see the HS resting on a few. Abraham Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, ect.
The finial atonement for sin had not yet come and the poring out of the Holy Spirit Acts 1:4 ..........but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

All the time the priest were offering sacrifices for sin for themselves and the people. A reflection of God covered Adam and Eve with a coat of skin the first sacrifice. I doubt God used road kill to cloth them, something had to die.
For God to be proactive in His fallen childrens life's this provision "temporary" atonement for sin was made. You can still see the modern rendition of this concept in the Catholic church today. If you attend mass and the go off a couple days later and sin, you must return to mass to be absolved of this new sin. This can only be done by a Catholic priest "Levi" same concept. This is why the path of the promise of the seed is not flesh and blood, its God working threw the HS pointing and demonstrating His plan for salvation. We do see people in the OT that God was pleased with along the way, and others who were also Israel He was not so pleased with. God is a reader of mens minds and the motives of his heart. No man can come unto me, except the Father which sent me draws him......... Im done I'm beginning to ramble :)

Now if you apply all of that to Satan's seed Gen 3 you come away realizing its not simply flesh and blood.

 

[sniper762]

people choose the translation that most closely justifies their actions. sad but true

 

[Foreigner]

I disagree.
Perhaps if you could give an example...

 

[sniper762]

just my observation in talking with christians who live by different translations.

 

[Foreigner]

So they have said they prefer a specific translation because it justifies what they want to believe?

That implies that there are translations that oppose what they want so they intentionally avoid them.

What a strange world.

I see where you are coming from Sniper. I wonder what God thinks about those people.