First Prev
of 9
Next Last
yep

Marion, NC

#164 Aug 21, 2012
over educated wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides the word "blood", what else has changed in the new translations? Why would the word "blood" objectionable?
Because its all about the blood of Jesus Christ.

Ive done my homework, you need to do yours. Im using certain examples, there are MANY others, too many to list.

Most people dont want to know.
yep

Marion, NC

#165 Aug 21, 2012
OFpreach, You have not answered any of my questions other than saying accuracy this and that.

You didnt answer about the people I specifically mentioned who translated and published these versions. Did God choose these people to do his work?? answer it.

Also, one more thing, explain the logo that is on all NKJV bibles. Do you have a problem with it? Would God allow such a logo on His word?? Please answer this question. Dont side step. Answer it please.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#166 Aug 21, 2012
yep wrote:
The KJ was used until the early 1800's in which more people were saved than any other time in our history. The devil needed a way to enter our churches and he has done this through these versions. In my opinion the laodecian church age started around late 1800's to early 1900's. Our churches have been in a steady decline ever since.
Show me one mega church that preaches from the KJV. You cant do it. The KJ will still convict sinners of their sins. Its pure. Why is the word blood taken out of these versions?
The is one God and many false gods.
There are christians and false christians.
There are preachers and false preachers.
There are churches and false churches.
Why is it so hard to believe there is a Bible(KJV) and many false Bibles??
If you were to look and not take someone else's word for it you would see in the Greek the word that was translated "blood" in the KJV is qal, which is used as a pronoun like "it" or "that" referring to "blood" mentioned earlier in the text. The KJV put the word blood where a pronoun was used in the original text. The translations you are insulting actually translate it as it is written.

As I said before, to measure a translation by anything but the text it was translated from is either ignorant or dishonest. You can search out every difference between KJV and reputable newer translations and you will find accurate expression of what appears in the original manuscripts. I have researched almost all of them.

If nesessary you can point out the differences you feel are wrong or different from the KJV and I will give you the original language and definition.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#167 Aug 21, 2012
yep wrote:
OFpreach, You have not answered any of my questions other than saying accuracy this and that.
You didnt answer about the people I specifically mentioned who translated and published these versions. Did God choose these people to do his work?? answer it.
Also, one more thing, explain the logo that is on all NKJV bibles. Do you have a problem with it? Would God allow such a logo on His word?? Please answer this question. Dont side step. Answer it please.


Not only did God use a homosexual king and sinful translators, God used a tax collector, a two hot tempered fishermen, even a murderer to bring us His Word. Like I said, I try not to judge who is a worse sinner than others. Anything less than the perfection of God is just as bad as the foulest of sinners.

As for the symbol on the NKJV, it dates back to about the 14th century and has been used as a universal symbol of the trinity. But again, call me crazy, but I tend to base my opinion on the NKJV on what's printed inside rather than outside.

You on the other hand seem to be flippant when it comes to accuracy of translation. I guess as long as it has KJV on it that's all you need, and try not to worry about all that confusing stuff like evidence, proof or truth.
sportsfan71

Albemarle, NC

#168 Aug 21, 2012
If you were to look and not take someone else's word for it you would see in the Greek the word that was translated "blood" in the KJV is qal, which is used as a pronoun like "it" or "that" referring to "blood" mentioned earlier in the text. The KJV put the word blood where a pronoun was used in the original text. The translations you are insulting actually translate it as it is written.
That doesn't make sense preacher, I'm pretty sure no matter which language the word "blood" is translated from, there is no way, in which one can make a mistake in it's translation or could mistake the noun "blood" for a pronoun. Every language has a word for the life source that flows through our veins, but none of them mean anything different, not then and not now. Are you saying the original texts of the Bible, made no mention of the Blood of Christ, being shed for the remission of man's sins?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#169 Aug 21, 2012
sportsfan71 wrote:
If you were to look and not take someone else's word for it you would see in the Greek the word that was translated "blood" in the KJV is qal, which is used as a pronoun like "it" or "that" referring to "blood" mentioned earlier in the text. The KJV put the word blood where a pronoun was used in the original text. The translations you are insulting actually translate it as it is written.
That doesn't make sense preacher, I'm pretty sure no matter which language the word "blood" is translated from, there is no way, in which one can make a mistake in it's translation or could mistake the noun "blood" for a pronoun. Every language has a word for the life source that flows through our veins, but none of them mean anything different, not then and not now. Are you saying the original texts of the Bible, made no mention of the Blood of Christ, being shed for the remission of man's sins?
Let me explain.

The blood of Jesus is a powerful thing. It can wash away the sins of the world.

Here are 2 sentences about the blood of Jesus. But in one sentence the word blood is not used. In the place of "blood" is the pronoun "it".

In the Greek the word qal is translated in to many different English words, and is referring to the blood, so in effect the word could be translated either way and not lose the meaning.

Does that make sense?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#170 Aug 21, 2012
sportsfan71 wrote:
That doesn't make sense preacher, I'm pretty sure no matter which language the word "blood" is translated from, there is no way, in which one can make a mistake in it's translation or could mistake the noun "blood" for a pronoun. Every language has a word for the life source that flows through our veins, but none of them mean anything different, not then and not now. Are you saying the original texts of the Bible, made no mention of the Blood of Christ, being shed for the remission of man's sins?
THICKER THAN MOLASSES!

You are obviously a thickheaded moron. The preacher has been
E X T R E M E L Y patient with you. Your lack of BASIC knowledge is the problem here. He's trying to explain things over and over but you can't grasp what he is saying - like a kindergartner trying to argue about a chemistry concept.
sporsfan71

Peace Valley, MO

#171 Aug 21, 2012
OlFortpreacher wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain.
The blood of Jesus is a powerful thing. It can wash away the sins of the world.
Here are 2 sentences about the blood of Jesus. But in one sentence the word blood is not used. In the place of "blood" is the pronoun "it".
In the Greek the word qal is translated in to many different English words, and is referring to the blood, so in effect the word could be translated either way and not lose the meaning.
Does that make sense?
That would be all well and good, however, the Greek word for blood is "haima", not qal.
yep

Marion, NC

#172 Aug 21, 2012
The Bible claims that in the last days men wont endure sound doctrine. This thread is proof of that.

This is my last post. Preacher, your doctrine is wrong, and if your doctrine is wrong nothing else can be right. Only God can change you.

I really shouldnt be suprised though, you preach at the wesleyan church in Old Fort. A church who has a history of running off men of God who when they preach Gods word, are run off and talked about. A typical dead church that hasnt witnessed the presense of the Holy Spirit in years. Sad but true, and typical of most churches today.
sportsfan71

Candler, NC

#173 Aug 21, 2012
I for one wrote:
<quoted text>
THICKER THAN MOLASSES!
You are obviously a thickheaded moron. The preacher has been
E X T R E M E L Y patient with you. Your lack of BASIC knowledge is the problem here. He's trying to explain things over and over but you can't grasp what he is saying - like a kindergartner trying to argue about a chemistry concept.
I'm thick? You're not exactly lending anything intelligent to the conversation. The Greek word for blood is not "qal" it is "haima" the Hebrew word for blood is not "qal" it is "dam". But don't take my word for it though, I'm like a kindergartner arguing chemistry, just Google it.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#174 Aug 21, 2012
yep wrote:
The Bible claims that in the last days men wont endure sound doctrine. This thread is proof of that.
This is my last post. Preacher, your doctrine is wrong, and if your doctrine is wrong nothing else can be right. Only God can change you.
I really shouldnt be suprised though, you preach at the wesleyan church in Old Fort. A church who has a history of running off men of God who when they preach Gods word, are run off and talked about. A typical dead church that hasnt witnessed the presense of the Holy Spirit in years. Sad but true, and typical of most churches today.
If sound doctrine means believe only what you are told and never learn for yourself, if sound doctrine means cling to what is old regardless of proof and evidence, if sound doctrine means celebrating the failures of fellow Christians, if sound doctrine means everybody is going to hell but you, if that's what you mean by sound doctrine, you're right. Old Fort Wesleyan Church is different. We believe we should be a blessing to our community. We believe anyone can be redeemed if they believe on Christ and repent. We believe thorough study of God's Word is beneficial and not dangerous. We are seeing believers added to the kingdom and believers being baptized. We believe in discipleship. We also believe in praying for the sick and have seen many miracles through our prayers. We believe in praying for fellow believers. We believe in loving like Jesus loved and living like Jesus lived. I don't know what church you are a part of because you have kept that hidden. But I pray that your church spend as much time bringing people to the gospel as you spend rejecting them. I pray you see fruit of God's word lived out in your members. I am proud of Old Fort Wesleyan Church and what God is doing here. I am not ashamed of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I am not ashamed of His Gospel, and I am not ashamed of His church.

I can see how you see a lot of differences in this church and yours.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#175 Aug 21, 2012
sporsfan71 wrote:
<quoted text>That would be all well and good, however, the Greek word for blood is "haima", not qal.
Yes but the Greek word for "it" is qal, and clearly qal is referring to the subject previously mentioned which happens to be haima, just like in the example I gave. The KJV translators restated the subject rather than referring to it as "it"
sportsfan71

Charlotte, NC

#176 Aug 21, 2012
So what you are saying is, that in the original Greek text, where the writer used the word "haima"(blood) and then afterwards, in the same writing used a(qal), which means "it", but is still referring to "haima"(blood).So you are saying that the KJV is wrong because, it did away with the original writers assumption, that you knew, he was still talking about blood and removed "it"(qal) and inserted blood, and made sure you knew the writer, was still referring to "haima"(blood). Sounds like newer versions are trying to make the text more complicated or confusing, by removing the word blood, because it wasn't in every sentence of the original text, even though the writer was clearly intending to show, they were still talking about blood.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#177 Aug 21, 2012
sportsfan71 wrote:
So what you are saying is, that in the original Greek text, where the writer used the word "haima"(blood) and then afterwards, in the same writing used a(qal), which means "it", but is still referring to "haima"(blood).So you are saying that the KJV is wrong because, it did away with the original writers assumption, that you knew, he was still talking about blood and removed "it"(qal) and inserted blood, and made sure you knew the writer, was still referring to "haima"(blood). Sounds like newer versions are trying to make the text more complicated or confusing, by removing the word blood, because it wasn't in every sentence of the original text, even though the writer was clearly intending to show, they were still talking about blood.
I'm saying that both translations are accurate, and neither is confusing. Qal was clearly a reference to blood and is clearly translated to be used as a pronoun "it". It's only as confusing as the word "it". My point is that translators were not trying to remove the idea of "the blood", but rather to translate as it is written in the original text. Neither word changes the intent of the writer, and the thought is communicated clearly both ways.

It would be the same as if i were writing you a letter, but instead of referring to you as sportsfan71 in every sentence I use pronouns part of the time referring to you as you, your, he or his rather than using your name repeatedly.
sporsfan71

United States

#178 Aug 21, 2012
I understood what you were saying, but I am afraid we have lost many with our conversation. At first I thought you were saying the word "qal" meant blood, not that the writer was using a qal "it" to show they're still talking about blood. I got ya brother, but most will only see that newer versions are removing the word blood, from particular verses. Try and understand what I'm saying, most people who have used the KJV their entire life and who pick up a new version and read a particular verse, that to them has always said "blood" but now reads "it" will only see that someone has replaced the word blood, with it, even though "it" still means blood and is written the way the original Greek text read.
amen

Marion, NC

#179 Aug 21, 2012
OlFortpreacher wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying that both translations are accurate, and neither is confusing. Qal was clearly a reference to blood and is clearly translated to be used as a pronoun "it". It's only as confusing as the word "it". My point is that translators were not trying to remove the idea of "the blood", but rather to translate as it is written in the original text. Neither word changes the intent of the writer, and the thought is communicated clearly both ways.
It would be the same as if i were writing you a letter, but instead of referring to you as sportsfan71 in every sentence I use pronouns part of the time referring to you as you, your, he or his rather than using your name repeatedly.
Thanks preach for explaining so clearly :)
OlFortpreacher

Marion, NC

#180 Aug 21, 2012
sporsfan71 wrote:
I understood what you were saying, but I am afraid we have lost many with our conversation. At first I thought you were saying the word "qal" meant blood, not that the writer was using a qal "it" to show they're still talking about blood. I got ya brother, but most will only see that newer versions are removing the word blood, from particular verses. Try and understand what I'm saying, most people who have used the KJV their entire life and who pick up a new version and read a particular verse, that to them has always said "blood" but now reads "it" will only see that someone has replaced the word blood, with it, even though "it" still means blood and is written the way the original Greek text read.
I understand that there are differences in wording from KJV to other translations. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. I could understand if it meant something totally different, but this example is no more confusing than all the times Jesus is referred to as He or Him.
sportsfan71

Greenville, SC

#181 Aug 21, 2012
My only fear is, that with there being so many different translations, with different wording, that people won't study it out to find out they are saying the same thing, but will totally dismiss them all because, they think the translators can't agree what the Bible really says. I hope you can understand my concern. I understand you have spent a great deal of time in studying these translations, maybe even more than myself, but always keep in mind most people aren't even willing to read and get a firm grip on one translation for themselves, let alone read several translations and compare them with original texts. Sad to say, but a lot of people around here can't even tell you the difference between a noun and a pronoun. I believe God wants us to keep the truths of the Gospel simple, so anyone can understand it, that's all I'm saying . God Bless

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#182 Aug 21, 2012
sportsfan71 wrote:
My only fear is, that with there being so many different translations, with different wording, that people won't study it out to find out they are saying the same thing, but will totally dismiss them all because, they think the translators can't agree what the Bible really says. I hope you can understand my concern. I understand you have spent a great deal of time in studying these translations, maybe even more than myself, but always keep in mind most people aren't even willing to read and get a firm grip on one translation for themselves, let alone read several translations and compare them with original texts. Sad to say, but a lot of people around here can't even tell you the difference between a noun and a pronoun. I believe God wants us to keep the truths of the Gospel simple, so anyone can understand it, that's all I'm saying . God Bless
I understand the concern but I have yet to find a translation that was anything but an honest attempt to communicate clearly what is found in the original texts. That being said reading that translation would be a clear communication of the original text.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Marion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Final Warning, Ferguson Negroes DONT RIOT! 25 min WeAreAllEqual 2
Students nix First Sheboon's menu's 42 min IR Love 4
Another future Nobel Prize winner gone. 1 hr Robert Carpenter 14
Hot Single Milfs? 2 hr dirty bird 11
Cosby removed as advisor at High Point University 5 hr William Joyce KVK1 4
Barack Ebola 5 hr William 11
Darian Mosley and Dawn Chapman (Mar '13) 7 hr bobby ray 74
Marion Dating
Find my Match

Marion People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Marion News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Marion

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:43 pm PST

Bleacher Report 1:43PM
Jason Avant to Chiefs: Latest Contract Details, Analysis and Reaction
NFL 2:19 PM
Jason Avant signs with Kansas City Chiefs
NBC Sports 2:24 PM
Column: NFL should realign after NFC South debacle - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:32 PM
Roman Harper fined $8,268 for unnecessary roughness
NBC Sports 2:32 PM
Roman Harper fined $8,268 for unnecessary roughness