User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2018 8:58:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Be careful with some translations. A lot is left out of the newer versions I like the KJV Companion Bible with appendixes by Bullinger. It is a little pricey but it gives you the key words and what they mean. Plus it is outlined in the margins.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2018 9:40:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Personal preference, but the KJV’s phrasing is distracting to me. On the other hand, the other version you have, the NLT is easy to read, just too loose in translation. I prefer the NRSV.
This site offers a good comparison. In for what others prefer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2018 10:18:42 PM EDT
[#3]
I prefer NKJV but NIV is a close second.
The churches I went to used one or the other generally. My wife has a NLT or ESV and I will say you can sometimes see more of the picture when you combine the two. I think between those 4 you aren't going to be misled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2018 10:40:58 PM EDT
[#4]
I'd agree as above -- KJV for me is the closest to the original you're going to get, NKJV is basically just a slightly modernized language version of that and that's what we read in my house. I've read NIV and wasn't impressed with it, and as posted many of the newer "translations" really aren't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2018 10:45:24 PM EDT
[#5]
This isn't really an answer to your question, but IMHO the bible you will actually read is likely more important than most other considerations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 12:20:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't really an answer to your question, but IMHO the bible you will actually read is likely more important than most other considerations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 1:25:43 AM EDT
[#7]
A lot of it has to do with how strict the translators were to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They are complicated languages which don't translate perfectly to English - and its various versions throughout the years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 2:44:34 AM EDT
[#8]
 Failed To Load Title  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 9:57:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Different translations exist because no two languages are a direct 1-for-1 translation. For example, there are four words for "love" in Greek (link), and their word for "faith" has at least four meanings in English (belief, faith, confidence, assurance). Each human language has within it a different philosophy on the world and how things related to each other.
That said, you get into "word-for-word" translations vs. "thought-for-thought" translations. The problem with the latter is that it assumes the translators (which is a committee) know what the author is trying to say rather than simply translating what is literally written and letting the Holy Spirit teach you how it is being related philosophically as you study and think about it. I prefer the NKJV or the NASB, but don't think you have to stick to one translation. Use them all, they are free on the internet. Whatever translation you get, get a REFERENCE Bible and check the reference verses when reading a passage. I dont' recommend study Bibles as they tend to have more of the philosophy of men than the Word of God in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 10:00:09 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryPaul summed them up nicely to Timothy: 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, remain in Ephesus that you may command some that they teach no other doctrine, 1:4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edification which is in faith, so do. 1:5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 1:6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talking, 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 10:06:53 AM EDT
[#11]
OP, something you should keep in mind when reading the Bible:
 Charlie Bing - A Truth and B Truth, Salvation vs. Discipleship |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 12:53:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I need to know that Seventh-Day Adventism is wrong is in Galatians, Hebrews, and Acts 10. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 1:51:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree. Veith makes maybe two or three statements over the course of 3.5 hours that tangentially reflect his SDA beliefs which didn't impact the overall message. I considered adding a disclaimer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I need to know that Seventh-Day Adventism is wrong is in Galatians, Hebrews, and Acts 10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 3:38:06 PM EDT
[#14]
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations.
The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 4:26:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations. The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 4:58:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's no such thing as a word for word translation. It's not really possible given the vast differences between the languages. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 5:03:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's no such thing as a word for word translation. It's not really possible given the vast differences between the languages. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 5:11:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I did not use the right words, however the KJV is the best translation to English there is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: There's no such thing as a word for word translation. It's not really possible given the vast differences between the languages. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 5:11:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's how I see it too. Hebrew, and Greek, words usually have multiple meanings. It's up to the translators to decide which meaning is most accurate, based on their preconceived ideas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: There's no such thing as a word for word translation. It's not really possible given the vast differences between the languages. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 6:07:37 PM EDT
[#20]
As long as you stay away from the new libtard translations you're fine. There's nothing really wrong with the good old KJV. All the translations have mistakes, and the KJV's are well known and documented, so it has that going for it.
There's a new translation called the Pure Word that looks very promising. Whatever you do, you will need to study as opposed to just reading it. You gotta really dig if you want to understand any of it. There's so much metaphor, idiomatic speech, allusion, etc. that you have to have the context, and that context is unfortunately very alien to us today. So much obscure and lost history. The Blue Letter Bible (online) is of immense importance. It cross references all the uses of the root words, so you can get context for translations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 10:47:18 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no such thing as a word for word translation. It's not really possible given the vast differences between the languages. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations. The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. OP: If you're not going to learn ancient languages, your best bet is to know strengths and weaknesses of each, roll with the one you find most comfortable to read, and later you can own multiple bibles and make comparisons and whatnot if you really want. However, one of the benefits of, shall we say, older Bibles like Douay–Rheims or KJV is the existence of a you (plural). Modern English really suffers without a you (plural). As a Catholic, the one I actually have printed on my shelf is Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. I have others on my phone (because it's 2018). But, seriously, to start, whatever you're going to be comfortable to read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 11:24:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. It's known that KJV was translated in order for the Church of England to push back against some upstart groups challenging the King, so certain word choices were made. We're also up against the fact that English is a straight up garbage language with many words having different meanings in different contexts and so on (which is why it's such a pain for foreigners to learn). This doesn't make KJV bad or incorrect (it's not), it's just that for centuries English translators have to make choices and go by their best theological judgement. It's the languages fault, not theirs, really. OP: If you're not going to learn ancient languages, your best bet is to know strengths and weaknesses of each, roll with the one you find most comfortable to read, and later you can own multiple bibles and make comparisons and whatnot if you really want. However, one of the benefits of, shall we say, older Bibles like Douay–Rheims or KJV is the existence of a you (plural). Modern English really suffers without a you (plural). As a Catholic, the one I actually have printed on my shelf is Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. I have others on my phone (because it's 2018). But, seriously, to start, whatever you're going to be comfortable to read. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations. The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. OP: If you're not going to learn ancient languages, your best bet is to know strengths and weaknesses of each, roll with the one you find most comfortable to read, and later you can own multiple bibles and make comparisons and whatnot if you really want. However, one of the benefits of, shall we say, older Bibles like Douay–Rheims or KJV is the existence of a you (plural). Modern English really suffers without a you (plural). As a Catholic, the one I actually have printed on my shelf is Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. I have others on my phone (because it's 2018). But, seriously, to start, whatever you're going to be comfortable to read. Also, English is actually one of the most precise languages on the planet, along with German and Japanese. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are very different languages, and the difficulties in translation have nothing to do with anything being a "garbage" language. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 11:32:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Than k you for all the help and resources. To answer the one poster, we’re just reading it like a novel. We read 1 chapter a night, then talk about what it means to us. Try to understand how it relates to Christmas. We’re using the Authorized King James Version because that’s what we have and that’s the Bible a minister gave me that has great sentimental value to me.
I really appreciate all the help and guidance! You guys are awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 11:37:22 PM EDT
[#24]
The KJV was made because the Geneva Bible had lots of notes and references that the King didn’t like. They spoke of the sovereignty of God and not the King. The KJV did not contain these. The pilgrims used the Geneva Bible if that helps explain better.
I use lots. ESV, KJV, NASB, older NIV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2018 11:48:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Lots of bad info on the KJV in this thread:
 Three Myths about King James Bible |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 12:42:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The KJV was made because the Geneva Bible had lots of notes and references that the King didn’t like. They spoke of the sovereignty of God and not the King. The KJV did not contain these. The pilgrims used the Geneva Bible if that helps explain better. I use lots. ESV, KJV, NASB, older NIV. I’m not sure the Pilgrims are the best place to take doctrine either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 7:48:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Than k you for all the help and resources. To answer the one poster, we’re just reading it like a novel. We read 1 chapter a night, then talk about what it means to us. Try to understand how it relates to Christmas. We’re using the Authorized King James Version because that’s what we have and that’s the Bible a minister gave me that has great sentimental value to me. I really appreciate all the help and guidance! You guys are awesome. But it is not about Christmas, The whole Bible is about man's problem which is sin. And the answer to mans problem for sin is the Cross of Christ. Next time before you read, ask the Holy Spirit to re-veal what God wants you to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 7:57:16 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t think the sovereignty of God is missing from the KJV, at least I was never confused by it. I’m not sure the Pilgrims are the best place to take doctrine either. KJV history |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 8:08:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personal preference, but the KJV’s phrasing is distracting to me. On the other hand, the other version you have, the NLT is easy to read, just too loose in translation. I prefer the NRSV. https://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart_files/image004.jpg This site offers a good comparison. In for what others prefer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 8:36:03 AM EDT
[#30]
One thing I will say, the NIV is a horrible translation which is why it's known as the Nearly Inspired Version.
Take John 15:2 for example: 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. The problem is the phrase "cuts off" is not in the Greek. It's the word "airo" and literally means to physically "lift up" (link). It's a reference to how a vinedresser would pick up grape vines off the ground and lay them back over the trestle because they would mold and rot if left on the ground. God does not cut people off if they don't "show fruit", which is what people think if they only read the NIV. That's the problem with "thought-for-thought" translations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 8:51:46 AM EDT
[#31]
KJV is what makes sense to me....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 9:33:09 AM EDT
[#32]
I use the ESV, NIV and KJV.
I am somewhat concerned about the NIV. If you look at the original editorial board of the NIV, one of the people is now an avowed witch and another (now deceased) was thought to be homosexual. My concern is how much their beliefs tempered the version. Lately, I hear a lot of people quoting "The Message". If one compares verses in that paraprhase of the Bible to the real Bible, there are instances where the original message is way out of line from the real Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 10:06:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m not talking about their doctrine. I was saying they were some of the people using the Genev Bible. They were also some of the ones having issues with the King. The sovereignty of God isn’t missing at all in the KJV. The notes were. KJV history Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I don’t think the sovereignty of God is missing from the KJV, at least I was never confused by it. I’m not sure the Pilgrims are the best place to take doctrine either. KJV history |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 10:07:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use the ESV, NIV and KJV. I am somewhat concerned about the NIV. If you look at the original editorial board of the NIV, one of the people is now and an avowed witch and another (now deceased) was thought to be homosexual. My concern is how much their beliefs tempered the version. Lately, I hear a lot of people quoting "The Message". If one compares verses in that paraprhase of the Bible to the real Bible, there are instances where the original message is way out of line from the real Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 10:15:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Notes don’t matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2018 11:21:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Than k you for all the help and resources. To answer the one poster, we’re just reading it like a novel. We read 1 chapter a night, then talk about what it means to us. Try to understand how it relates to Christmas. We’re using the Authorized King James Version because that’s what we have and that’s the Bible a minister gave me that has great sentimental value to me. I really appreciate all the help and guidance! You guys are awesome. With regard to your original question, understand that there are some very significant differences between the different versions; e.g.: the Catholic Bible does not have all the books that an Orthodox Bible does, Protestant Bibles do not have all the books that a Catholic Bible has, Jehova's Witnesses Bible intentionally translates sentences to fit their theology, etc. Be careful which one you pick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2018 1:24:59 AM EDT
[#37]
NKJV for me.
I came from a KJV only church. I find the NKJV a better translation and easier read (not that the KJV is terrible) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 12:43:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I don't think that's known or accepted. Also, English is actually one of the most precise languages on the planet, along with German and Japanese. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are very different languages, and the difficulties in translation have nothing to do with anything being a "garbage" language. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations. The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. OP: If you're not going to learn ancient languages, your best bet is to know strengths and weaknesses of each, roll with the one you find most comfortable to read, and later you can own multiple bibles and make comparisons and whatnot if you really want. However, one of the benefits of, shall we say, older Bibles like Douay–Rheims or KJV is the existence of a you (plural). Modern English really suffers without a you (plural). As a Catholic, the one I actually have printed on my shelf is Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. I have others on my phone (because it's 2018). But, seriously, to start, whatever you're going to be comfortable to read. Also, English is actually one of the most precise languages on the planet, along with German and Japanese. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are very different languages, and the difficulties in translation have nothing to do with anything being a "garbage" language. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 2:10:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is. And, as a Catholic, I too don't have any problem with the CoE trying to ensure that validly ordained clergy in a set episcopal structure was emphasized. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 3:35:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is. And, as a Catholic, I too don't have any problem with the CoE trying to ensure that validly ordained clergy in a set episcopal structure was emphasized. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do use and recommend the King James Version because it a word for word translation, before thoughts and feelings were introduced with some latter translations. The KJV is not that hard to understand, and if you are "Born Again" then you have the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you. I would agree that the translators tried to make the most faithful translation there had been to that time with the KJV, but claiming it's word for word simply isn't accurate. OP: If you're not going to learn ancient languages, your best bet is to know strengths and weaknesses of each, roll with the one you find most comfortable to read, and later you can own multiple bibles and make comparisons and whatnot if you really want. However, one of the benefits of, shall we say, older Bibles like Douay–Rheims or KJV is the existence of a you (plural). Modern English really suffers without a you (plural). As a Catholic, the one I actually have printed on my shelf is Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. I have others on my phone (because it's 2018). But, seriously, to start, whatever you're going to be comfortable to read. Also, English is actually one of the most precise languages on the planet, along with German and Japanese. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are very different languages, and the difficulties in translation have nothing to do with anything being a "garbage" language. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. I’ll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 3:39:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Part of it is that the early English translators like Tyndale didn't add more needed words to the English dictionary than they already had. It's been postulated in Free Grace circles what modern theology would have looked like if the English word "repent" wasn't used and they simply transliterated the Greek word 'metanoia'; because they don't mean the same thing . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It is. And, as a Catholic, I too don't have any problem with the CoE trying to ensure that validly ordained clergy in a set episcopal structure was emphasized. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. Definition 1 is the one I was always taught. I’m not sure where or when repent only meant to feel bad, but I’ve never understood the word to mean that. It’s almost exclusively used in this particular context to mean the first definition in Webster in my experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 6:05:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repent Definition 1 is the one I was always taught. I'm not sure where or when repent only meant to feel bad, but I've never understood the word to mean that. It's almost exclusively used in this particular context to mean the first definition in Webster in my experience. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: It is. And, as a Catholic, I too don't have any problem with the CoE trying to ensure that validly ordained clergy in a set episcopal structure was emphasized. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. Definition 1 is the one I was always taught. I'm not sure where or when repent only meant to feel bad, but I've never understood the word to mean that. It's almost exclusively used in this particular context to mean the first definition in Webster in my experience. The Apostles didn't write the Bible in theological technical language loaded with presuppositions. They wrote it in simple Koine Greek that was the common everyday language and used common everyday terms. That's why context is so important. Many people are confused because they read simple words like "saved" or "justified" and assume the context instead of asking the context "saved from what?" and "justified to whom?". Most of the time "saved" is not in the context of heaven or hell and you can be "justified" to any thinking being, to include God (Romans 4) or men (James 2). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 6:25:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the problem; it's not what the Greek (or Hebrew) word means in the bible, which is a "change of mind or thinking". The link I posted explains it well. The problem is the English word provides it's own context, that's not the case for the Greek word it replaces, which the context determines what the change is about. The Apostles didn't write the Bible in theological technical language loaded with presuppositions. They wrote it in simple Koine Greek that was the common everyday language and used common everyday terms. That's why context is so important. Many people are confused because they read simple words like "saved" or "justified" and assume the context instead of asking the context "saved from what?" and "justified to whom?". Most of the time "saved" is not in the context of heaven or hell and you can be "justified" to any thinking being, to include God (Romans 4) or men (James 2). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: It is. And, as a Catholic, I too don't have any problem with the CoE trying to ensure that validly ordained clergy in a set episcopal structure was emphasized. English is pretty terrible, and if it was particularly precise we wouldn't have these issues. When your preacher has to say about a Bible verse "well, this word in greek/hebrew can mean these things and in this context was used here so [theological point]...", the Greek is doing a lot more work that a native speaker would've grasped immediately than the English is. Definition 1 is the one I was always taught. I'm not sure where or when repent only meant to feel bad, but I've never understood the word to mean that. It's almost exclusively used in this particular context to mean the first definition in Webster in my experience. The Apostles didn't write the Bible in theological technical language loaded with presuppositions. They wrote it in simple Koine Greek that was the common everyday language and used common everyday terms. That's why context is so important. Many people are confused because they read simple words like "saved" or "justified" and assume the context instead of asking the context "saved from what?" and "justified to whom?". Most of the time "saved" is not in the context of heaven or hell and you can be "justified" to any thinking being, to include God (Romans 4) or men (James 2). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 6:29:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Webster's first definition is the definition described in the article.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2018 9:22:25 PM EDT
[#45]
I like the HcSB (now reworded and sold as CSB).
I got it to have a Bible I could read with my wife and not have her get frustrated as a new Bible reader by the sometimes more complex phrasing and vocabulary in the ESV. I recommend it to many. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
