My answer to a question about why some Christians say the KJV is the best.

[WhiteWings]

In venturing into this next post, I'll suggest aloud, that at some point maybe we can get too picky?????  :sigh:  Hard to know when that is though, because obviously translational issues can be so important.  The word "Hell" is obviously a glaring example of that.  I'm one that does like to pay attention to words and their accuracy, but at some point I don't think that should become THE major focus or a continual bone of contention.  However, sometimes, some words and their useage are probably crucial.  As with everything else, we need to be led by the Spirit.

But OTOH we should translate as accurate as possible because the originals are also guided by Holy Spirit. Or Pure Spirit as CB translates it.
For those who have daily chats with the Spirit it doesn't matter much (although they should verify things)
But what about those who never got a bit of guidance? I think that's the vast majority. For those people a crappy translation is the source.
Corrupted source => corrupted understanding.
For just reading the Bible is often makes little to no difference. But for those who like/try to correlate verses a single letter can make  a huge difference....
IMO  :winkgrin:

[shawn]

I'm not sure how this bible version would work without these words. What word does it use for Jesus Christ?

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

Jesus = Yesu (the annioted One)
Lust = desire
adultary = extramarital sexual intercourse
Son of man = Son of Humanity

lust = desire , I like it , but could be misleading, for one can use the term desire for other things, such as I desire to see chalice cup, doesn't mean I lust after a cup.

Adultery - extra martial intercourse, seems to explain it better for those who don't know what adultery is, but is also an interpretation of what the author thinks adultery is, so from their point a married man can go french kiss another woman, for it does not address this.

A few thoughts while I was mowing my lawn  :bigGrin:

Sometimes we may say something like "lust for life", and I don't believe that's generally considered bad.  As far as "french-kissing another woman", although surely not desirable for a married man, IMO, still doesn't technically fit the description of adultery.  However, Jesus put a bit of a different twist on it didn't He, as the following indicates.  The following also indicates the differences in useages/translations.  I personally think, at least in many instances, the Christian Bible is actually clearer, in that it a) specifies exactly what it's talking about, rather than using a word that leaves it open to individual interpretations, assumptions, or current jargon, and b) again, is supposedly most literal to the Koine greek words - yet still, extremely readable.  WW, being from the Netherlands and English not being his primary language, has found it very clear and understandable, I do believe.

Matthew 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  KJV

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  NIV

You have heard it was declared, 'You must not have extramarital sexual intercourse.  28.  Yet I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to desire her, has already had extramarital sexual intercourse with her in his heart. The Christian Bible

I will say this however...I recently read an opinion from Martin Zender which stated he believed lesbian relations ok based on the "fact" that sexual sin is based on the act of penetration.  Needless to say I stopped reading anything Zender wrote shortly after that.  I would have to assume new wording will bring out new misunderstandings.  This is inevitable but regardless needs to be said.

[WhiteWings]

I will say this however...I recently read an opinion from Martin Zender which stated he believed lesbian relations ok based on the "fact" that sexual sin is based on the act of penetration.

According to this article/Rabbi he's right.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/are-lesbians-treated-the-same-as-gays-in-the-bible.html

[jabcat]

I will say this however...I recently read an opinion from Martin Zender which stated he believed lesbian relations ok based on the "fact" that sexual sin is based on the act of penetration.  Needless to say I stopped reading anything Zender wrote shortly after that.  I would have to assume new wording will bring out new misunderstandings.  This is inevitable but regardless needs to be said.

Yes, I very much disagree with Mr. Zender on this (and the rabbi) and I believe the scriptures do too.  Paul addressed those things in the following manner; (I'll say first, it's a sin for me to judge, so I may be very wrong - would it be a good guess though to suggest if the rabbi isn't Messianic, He doesn't believe in Jesus so is isn't spiritually born anew from above, and also then probably doesn't read/believe the New Testament?  :winkgrin:)  OTOH, you'd hope M. Zender might know better.

"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Some of the other passages without "the words"...in Romans 1

"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"
"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"

* I'll post what The Christian Bible says in Romans 1, and I believe even with different wording, it's quite clear;

For this reason God delivered them over to the uncleanliness that is in the desires of their hearts...God delivered them over to dishonorable passions, so that their females exchanged their natural use for an unnatural one.  Likewise, their males also left the natural use of the female, and became inflamed in their craving for one another, males with males, practicing acts that aren't respectable, and getting back for themselves the repayment that they ought to have for their going astray.

[shawn]

Yeah Jab the rabbi's explanation of that scripture left me scratching my head.  Paul was only concerned about idolatry but not the act?   :dontknow:

[jabcat]

Well, seems we have multiple things in play as we try to wrestle with such things.  We've been talking about translations.  I think we also have veiledness/blindness (things not being spiritually discerned), along with denial/the will to gratify our flesh.  I've had all the above, especially the last one.  I've tried and tried to justify things in my own mind, trying to find some way to feel OK about them and an "out" in the scriptures - i.e., "well, it doesn't really mean that, or just a little bit of X,Y,Z is OK"...it may for others, but it doesn't work for me.  I do a lot of things wrong out of ignorance, and sometimes even disobedience, but deep down, if our conscience isn't seared, we know.  There's that still small voice... :2c:

[Cardinal]

:cloud9: Beats me, since it was in Greek. Yahshua HaMaschiah? Blessings...

I've heard of Yashua but that last word does sound a bit like themessiah :Chinscratch:

:cloud9:  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Yes, I very much disagree with Mr. Zender on this (and the rabbi) and I believe the scriptures do too.  Paul addressed those things in the following manner; (I'll say first, it's a sin for me to judge, so I may be very wrong - would it be a good guess though to suggest if the rabbi isn't Messianic,

Jacob Milgrom, a Conservative rabbi and modern Bible scholar, is a, if not the, leading authority on Leviticus.

[WhiteWings]

"You shall not lie with a man as
one lies with a woman, it is an
abomination." (VaYikra 18:22)
This week's parasha outlines the
Torah's prohibition against
homosexuality.Ê It is clear from
articles that have appeared recently in
the local Jewish press that there is a
need for clarification of the Torah's

Click here to read the full article. Page 1 - Column 1

[WhiteWings]

More articles:

Page 4 halfway down column 2
Therefore, homosexual relations
represent an overt denial of the Creator's will.
It must be acknowledged that the homosexual
may be an innocent victim of his desires.Ê His
engagement in homosexual relations does not
necessarily represent a desire to rebel against the
Almighty's plan.Ê Also, we cannot assume that a
specific homosexual repudiates the importance of
procreation or the benefits of a heterosexual
orientation.Ê The homosexual may agree with the
position of Nachmanides and Ibn Ezra but find
himself unable to control his preference and desire.
This is a tragedy.Ê However, homosexual behavior
is nonetheless prohibited.

Page 4. 2/3 down column 2
God teaches that homosexuality is a deviation, as is abortion.

More editions of the magazine.
Front page.

[Scrondublius]

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

Jesus = Yesu (the annioted One)
Lust = desire
adultary = extramarital sexual intercourse
Son of man = Son of Humanity

Adultery - extra martial intercourse, seems to explain it better for those who don't know what adultery is, but is also an interpretation of what the author thinks adultery is, so from their point a married man can go french kiss another woman, for it does not address this.

Is this the bible version that Bill Clinton was using?  This could explain a lot.

[ded2daworld]

We must pray for all the people of the world that have a bible in their own language but it is not one of the nine authorized (by whom?) King James versions. Everyone knows without an authorized KJV they will burn first at the stake and then in Hell :laughing7:

[Scrondublius]

We must pray for all the people of the world that have a bible in their own language but it is not one of the nine authorized (by whom?) King James versions. Everyone knows without an authorized KJV they will burn first at the stake and then in Hell :laughing7:

Next you'll tell me that Jesus didn't speak in Olde English.  I met a guy that had a parallel bible with Arabic and for the English portion it was the KJV.  I was thinking it would have been funny if the Arabic was translated from the KJV.  Old English Arabic.