• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

i'm a noob what can i say?

GiantHouseKey

Well-Known Member
The problem is that in order to translate it from the original languages it has to be "interpreted".

It isn't like the Bible reads like stereo instructions should read. You know, with there being only one possible way to "interpret" it.
Sure I understand what you're saying. I guess it's just something about translating it like a children's book that I don't like :shrug:

Maybe I just prefer things that are slightly more difficult to read?

Either way, KJV is the best bet :)

GhK.
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Sure I understand what you're saying. I guess it's just something about translating it like a children's book that I don't like :shrug:

Maybe I just prefer things that are slightly more difficult to read?

Either way, KJV is the best bet :)

GhK.
My big problem with the KJV is that it uses a dialect of English unique to itself.
I also have problems with additions and blatant mistranslations.
 

S-word

Well-Known Member
My big problem with the KJV is that it uses a dialect of English unique to itself.
I also have problems with additions and blatant mistranslations.

The bible is written in such a way it appears to be cogs within cogs, wheels within wheels, here a little and there a little. Sure, certain translaters can interpret incorrectly, but the bible will prove itself, such is the case as seen in 1st chronicles 2: 6; where the Hebrew word "achoth" which means "Sister" and Is correctly translated as "Sisters" by the KJV, but because the translators of the Good News Bible and others, believed that the sisters of David had to have been sired by Jesse, have incorrectly interpreted this verse to mean that the sisters of David were in fact the "daughters" of Jesse.

But the Bible itself proves this interpretation to be incorrect in 2nd Samuel 17: 25;, where it is shown that Zeruiah and Abigail were the daughters of King Nahash, who was also the father of Davids other older brother who was not sired by Jesse who must have married one of Nahash's discarded concubines, see 1st Samuel 16: 6 to 13, to see the 7 older brothers of David and see 1st chronicles 2: 13; to see that Jesse sired only seven sons of which David was the youngest.
 
Last edited:

Light On

Member
^ Uhuh, that's the problem with KJV. Although you have the comfort of knowing that's the Bible not 'played with'. Or that's what I like to think o_O Lord knows.
 

rojse

RF Addict
You don't actually think it's acceptable to interpret & evaluate the bible for YOURSELF... do you?

You might come up with some crazy ideas. :yes:

UltraViolet is right. Don't read it to come up with crazy ideas yourself; let others come up with them for you.
 
Top