|
|
USER COMMENTS BY KENNY |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 18 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
12/14/08 11:37 AM |
kenny | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
From Webster Online: FEW: "not many persons or things". Maybe to be more specific I should have used 'minimal'. Also from Webster Online: MANY: "consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number". Maybe to be more specific I should have used myriad, countless, innumerable, untold number. Comparing the alternate readings in the AV to the enormous number of confusing textual & manuscript footnotes in the NKJV is like comparing a spring shower to the Genesis flood. I do put the KJV on a pedestal in the sense that it is far and above in every way anything else that's available. I can read it cover to cover, over and over and never once have cause to question the validity of a single one of God's Words. Not only did the translators explain everything they did and why (TTTR) but they even went to the trouble of placing the words in italics that are necessary for clarity. Do you think the 'translators' of the NKJV bothered with anything close to that? No. They created a monstrosity that causes those seeking God's words to man to wonder if it's even possible to know for certain whether they exist. |
|
|
12/14/08 12:18 AM |
kenny | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil wrote:"Thus, it is a double-standard to accuse the NKJV translators of reporting manuscript variations when the KJV people themselves did the same!" No it's not. Comparing the few true variant (possible alternate translations of a Greek word or phrase) readings in many KJV editions to the enormous number of doubt-creating NU and M Text readings in the NKJV is absurd. The NKJV isn't offering alternate translations, it is offering optional choose-your-own wording and phrasing based on completely different manuscripts and text bases than the ones that the KJV are translated from. I know first hand how confusing the footnotes in the NKJV can be. I bought one when Nelson first published it in 1982 (?) and it had me totally frustrated trying to determine which reading was the right one. How can anyone have confidence in a book that calls itself the Word of God yet cannot make a firm commitment to what those very words are? I believe that's one of the reasons for all of the confusion and ambivalence toward doctrine and Biblical standards today. Nobody using the modern versions can decide what the Bible actually says. Folks have no faith in God's Word because even those who claim to believe it can't agree on what it says. |
|
|
11/13/08 6:15 PM |
kenny | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
"Christians have a habit of shooting their own wounded..."I hear that all the time. What does that mean? Nobody shot Ted Haggard. Ted Haggard shot himself by sodomizing a man, no doubt spent money entrusted to him by his church to pay for it, lied and was deceitful until he had no other choice. "But I didn't hear the word repent, is he angling on a return to church leadership?" Would he have repented if he hadn't been caught? "We are all sinners regardless of what has happened in our lives, sin will follow us wherever we go..." Correct. So what? "Our leaders should be beyond reproach, I'm sorry that knowing he was struggling he didn't pro-actively step down before his sin came to light. His testimony would be so much more powerful and believable." Struggling? Ted Haggard was a married man with children, a so-called preacher of the Gospel, a so-called Christian leader and yet he was sodomizing another man. He lied about it until backed against a wall. That's not struggling. Nobody dragged him to his hotel room meetings with a sodomite. When you lose a big paying job, the respect and admiration of your peers and family and especially your reputation (not to mention future employment prospects) you have no choice but to apologize and appear repentant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|