[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by BiHeathen

I am probably going to get blocked for this, but here's a different translation of that scripture (pls moderators don't block me I love learning more about different opinions about the scripture)
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
Take with that what you will

We are aware that other versions give different renderings. But if God's Word is indeed infallible (Jn 10:35) and has been perfectly preserved throughout the ages as He promised (Ps 12:6-7), then only one rendering can be correct. Could you imagine the confusion that would ensue if we couldn't be sure which version was the right one? We could never be sure what God's Word really meant. This is why we use The King James Bible – not a translation but the original! -- the crystal-clear Word of God.

[BiHeathen]

Psalm 12:7Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Notice the word 'shalt' It was a commandment, and it doesn't mean it was followed through. The original bible was written in Hebrew, so all translations are welcome to human error, as God is the only one who makes no mistakes

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by BiHeathen

I am probably going to get blocked for this, but here's a different translation of that scripture (pls moderators don't block me I love learning more about different opinions about the scripture)
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
Take with that what you will

Dear sinner,

Yes, we can assess this. Let us look at the alternatives. First, the one that we know and cherish, the KJV:

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And your "opinion about the Scripture, the NIV:

2 Peter 1:20
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

For comparison, let us take the Westcott-Hort, a reliable source of the original utterings in the language that was spoken in ancient Grease:
τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται,

For your convenience, the words that are necessary for the asseement are in red italics (not in greeks, if you allow the pun ).

The word-by-word translation would be: This is the first of the knowing: that any prophecy (προφητεία ) of the Scripture is not of its (ἰδίας) own interpretation.

1. We can see that unlike in your NIV, the word "prophet" does not appear. (KJV-NIV 1-0)
2. We can also see the word "its" - could it be that this "it" refers to the "prophet" and it would be OK to replace the pronoun with a noun? We'll see.

So, ἰδίας is the pivotal word. It is adjective genitive singular of ἴδιος. Can it mean a "prophet"? Is it a suitable replacement for that word?

It is not.

If it referred to the word prophet, προφήτης, it would have to take the masculine singular genitive form of ἴδιος, which is ἰδίου. Thus, NIV fails (KJV-NIV 2-0). "Its" cannot refer to a prophet. It refers to the word "prophecy". Thus, a suitable proxy for the original would be as follows: This is the first of the knowing: that any prophecy (προφητεία ) of the Scripture is not of the prophecy's (ἰδίας) own interpretation. What the heck does this mean, you might ask. To unravel that, we can look at the next verse, as the sentence actually continues.

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

or...
οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι. (Still the Westcott-Hort)

As you can see, this means that the prophecy was dictated by the Holy Ghost. The Greek original confirms this (πνεύματος ἁγίου - genitives here). It also means that twisting the prophecy - such as the people producing the NIV have done - is actually work against the Holy Ghost. This means that by accepting the NIV one commits the unforgivable sin (KJV-NIV ∞-0). I really do hope that you still haven't made up your mind to choose that travesty of translation. Perhaps you can still join us first here and then in Heaven!




Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by BiHeathen

Psalm 12:7Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Notice the word 'shalt' It was a commandment, and it doesn't mean it was followed through. The original bible was written in Hebrew, so all translations are welcome to human error, as God is the only one who makes no mistakes

"Thou shalt" is often an imperative (or command), but it can also express determination, which is how it's used here. You don't really think King David meant, "Lord, Thou shalt preserve Thy Word!", do you?

But yes, you are correct. The original manuscripts were written in Hebrew and Greek, with small portions of the Old Testament written in Aramaic. These originals no longer exist. But we believe God has preserved His Word because His Word tells us He would.

Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Jn 10:35c And the scripture cannot be broken.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Ps 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Humans make mistakes. God doesn't. But if God hasn't found a way of keeping the copyists and translators of His Word from making mistakes, or deliberately distorting it, how can you be sure He is perfect? In fact, it would mean the God of the Bible isn't perfect, because He has broken His Word.

[BiHeathen]

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-n...vailable-today

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by BiHeathen

Idle attempt to avoid discussing the actual issues

Dear sinner,

Please, make an effort and produce a post of your own where you actually assess the things you've been challenged with instead of referring to extra-Biblical authorities.

Proverbs 29:2
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

If you only wish to "discuss" with obscure links, there is a much more valid link that can do better than yours:




Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by BiHeathen

Psalm 12:7Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Notice the word 'shalt' It was a commandment, and it doesn't mean it was followed through. The original bible was written in Hebrew, so all translations are welcome to human error, as God is the only one who makes no mistakes

Dear Sinner,

This verse, also, can be assessed. Is it a commandment that can be neglected? A fair question. Let us look at the Masoretic text for advice:

Psalms 12:7 (Masoretic)
אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ ׀ מִן־הַדֹּ֖ור ז֣וּ לְעֹולָֽם׃

The two forms in bold red typeface are the crucial ones here:

• תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם from the root שָׁמַר "to keep." OK so far. This is the qal imperfect (do not mix it with the American past tense) second person (you) masculine (a man) singular (a male thou) with the object suffix for the masculine plural (referring to the previous verse).
• תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ fro the root נצר "to preserve", again, qal imperfect 2nd person masculine with the object suffix for the masculine singular. This may seem confusing until you realize that in Hebrew singular is often used distributively in reference to a plurality.

The command forms in Hebrew are jussive for the 3rd person commands (thus, not the case here) and the actual imperative for 2nd person commands (also the cohortative for the first person, but that is obviously also not the case here). The imperative would be שֳׁמְרָה without the prefix תִּ. Thus, in Psalms 12:7 the verb is not in imperative. The imperfect has a different meaning, it depicts an ongoing or an unfinished action. Fits well the future reference of an action eternal and ongoing. KJV wins again.

Last but far from the least. Who is the "Thou", the subject? It is God! God shall keep the words. We do not command Him (unlike you imply). We admire, fear (Ecclesiastes 12:13), and state the simple fact that He preserves the words. This is so well expressed in the previous verse.

Psalms 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Maria-Rosa]

Hello Ms. Olivia! I hope you and I can have many wonderful discussions on the future! For now, all I ask is this, How are you? That is all.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Alan Swallows

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

I had to smile. A Romish catholic said to me, when I shared the Scripture you posted, "You see, there ARE different degrees of sin!" I don't want to use the word gleeful but was reminded from the demeanour of most heretics how they see the world in terms of scoring points or making merit

[anthonyijackson]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Hi, sweetie, and to our Godly forum!





KJV = King James Version.

Nope.

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

If they lust but don't act upon it, that's still a sin:

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if they don't feel anything towards a person of the same sex, then they're not homosexual.

Of course God will bless us, and send you to Hell.

Praise !

Both quotes specify only man and woman, so if we are going in literal terms the second quote is telling me that it's only a sin if a man looks upon a woman, and not if a man looks upon a man or a woman looks upon a woman with lust. I'm not sure if i got the point I have in mind across effectively but know that I tried my best.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by anthonyijackson

Both quotes specify only man and woman, so if we are going in literal terms the second quote is telling me that it's only a sin if a man looks upon a woman, and not if a man looks upon a man or a woman looks upon a woman with lust. I'm not sure if i got the point I have in mind across effectively but know that I tried my best.

You sure did, sweetie! Too bad that in order to be truly effective, you'd have to read the whole Bible first.

Homosexual lust is covered in other verses, dear. For example:

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I hope that was helpful.