s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello Evandr2,
When I inquired:
Perhaps you'll be the first (all others previously entreated have evaded lending any specificity in reply) to name which version/translation of Scripture as THE definitive version. (I can't promise any valued door prize, but you may earn a bit of due credibility and respect in so doing).
By your quoted commentabove , you obviously regard (by amorphous implication) some "older" version of Scripture as [being] definitive and ultimately authoritative.
In order to fairly rebut your faith-based perspective/rationale, it would be only fair (and incumbent upon you) for you to qualify which translation/version (name names please) of the particular BIble you deem as authentic "Scripture".
I hope you won't disappoint, or evade in lending specificity. I just want to insure that we're all playing on the same level field. I anxiously await your declaration/qualification as to which version/translation of Scripture you deem as valid and "true".
If you will, we'll progress from that point...
You offered:
Forgive me, but when you said; "For a vast number of Christians that point is prayer and the King James Version of the Bible."--was that intended as some general observation, or as definitive answer to the question posed?
Is it your position that the KJV translation is the "definitive and ultimately authoritative" version of Holy Scripture, and remains the singular and inerrant testimony of "God's Word"?
Help an infidel and unbeliever to know (beyond any reasonable doubt) which English translation of the Bible is the only "true" version worth referencing and quoting.
Thanks. Your unequivocal and specified reply is appreciated.
When I inquired:
Perhaps you'll be the first (all others previously entreated have evaded lending any specificity in reply) to name which version/translation of Scripture as THE definitive version. (I can't promise any valued door prize, but you may earn a bit of due credibility and respect in so doing).
By your quoted commentabove , you obviously regard (by amorphous implication) some "older" version of Scripture as [being] definitive and ultimately authoritative.
In order to fairly rebut your faith-based perspective/rationale, it would be only fair (and incumbent upon you) for you to qualify which translation/version (name names please) of the particular BIble you deem as authentic "Scripture".
I hope you won't disappoint, or evade in lending specificity. I just want to insure that we're all playing on the same level field. I anxiously await your declaration/qualification as to which version/translation of Scripture you deem as valid and "true".
If you will, we'll progress from that point...
You offered:
I apologize for taking so long but I am happy to clarify my stance about New versions of scripture.
Scripture is the word of God so long as it is written and then rewritten correctly.
A person must have a starting point. For a vast number of Christians that point is prayer and the King James Version of the Bible.
Granted, who's to say that this text has not suffered some distortions down through the ages by the hands of it's translators but it is the surest collection of documented writings of the prophets of God that we have access to. The free will of man gives him that right to subvert scripture to fit personal interpretations as evidenced by the numerous re-written interpretations of the Bible floating around the world today, one of which you chose to reference.
But by the same token we have to start somewhere. The versus of the Bible can be confusing enough without the guidance of the spirit. To set aside the Bible for a modern interpretation is to set aside the written word of God as best we have it in the Bible for the wisdom of mortal man.
Thanks but NO-Thanks, If I need interpretations of the written word of God I will let the Holy Ghost impress it upon my heart after I have searched the best source we have.
I believe that no man has the right to re-write the Bible according to their own interpretation. The wisdom of man is just too lacking. To do so is to make a mockery of the word of God. Only by revelation from God can his words be known and then accurately written with truth and power to the world and then only by the mouths of His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)
Being worthy of salvation is far too critical a task to be left to the interpretations of mortal man.
Vandr
Its late so I will return tomorrow evening
Forgive me, but when you said; "For a vast number of Christians that point is prayer and the King James Version of the Bible."--was that intended as some general observation, or as definitive answer to the question posed?
Is it your position that the KJV translation is the "definitive and ultimately authoritative" version of Holy Scripture, and remains the singular and inerrant testimony of "God's Word"?
Help an infidel and unbeliever to know (beyond any reasonable doubt) which English translation of the Bible is the only "true" version worth referencing and quoting.
Thanks. Your unequivocal and specified reply is appreciated.