I use the Message and like it. But it is not something to do a deep bible study with in order to truly exegete the scriptures. The KJV is best for that, in my opinion.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I use the Message and like it. But it is not something to do a deep bible study with in order to truly exegete the scriptures. The KJV is best for that, in my opinion.
I LOVE to exegete! in fact we did that with 2Tim1 this sunday! very good stuff....
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I use the Message and like it. But it is not something to do a deep bible study with in order to truly exegete the scriptures. The KJV is best for that, in my opinion.
How so? KJV is in a different language than the one you and I speak.
And when it comes to exegesis, that's more than reading. I would think having an interlinear would be preferred, as well as a rendering in multiple versions.
How so? KJV is in a different language than the one you and I speak.
And when it comes to exegesis, that's more than reading. I would think having an interlinear would be preferred, as well as a rendering in multiple versions.
The KJV is much more faithful to the actual terms used in the original languages. For example, using CUBITS instead of feet allows us to keep the number that is a type in and of itself and is lost when conversion is made.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
The KJV is much more faithful to the actual terms used in the original languages. For example, using CUBITS instead of feet allows us to keep the number that is a type in and of itself and is lost when conversion is made.
An excellent and key point to understanding many passages. I find it kind of clumsy if the point is the number of cubits (or whatever measure) and you have to go back and interpret with a recalculation of what the original had said.
The various lengths and measures are given for their symbolic importance - not as useless detail to clutter up the text. When we lose the original values we lose the original altogether.
An excellent and key point to understanding many passages. I find it kind of clumsy if the point is the number of cubits (or whatever measure) and you have to go back and interpret with a recalculation of what the original had said.
The various lengths and measures are given for their symbolic importance - not as useless detail to clutter up the text. When we lose the original values we lose the original altogether.
Got an example?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
The KJV is much more faithful to the actual terms used in the original languages. For example, using CUBITS instead of feet allows us to keep the number that is a type in and of itself and is lost when conversion is made.
Not sure I agree, Mike. But fortunately it's not a deciding factor for fellowship
Why use cubits if that means nothing to me when it meant something to the original audience? Why use language that I can't relate to? What's the point?
The authors originally used a language that was understood to the original audience.
An excellent and key point to understanding many passages. I find it kind of clumsy if the point is the number of cubits (or whatever measure) and you have to go back and interpret with a recalculation of what the original had said.
The various lengths and measures are given for their symbolic importance - not as useless detail to clutter up the text. When we lose the original values we lose the original altogether.
Not sure I agree, Pel (as I already replied to Blume).
My objections with KJV as a primary Text for exegesis, of course, go back further than this point.
But, I'm not sure that everytime the measurement "cubit" is used that it's symbolic. I mean, Noah's Ark is a real story. Why leave a word that people a couple hundred years ago perfectly understood, as something we can no longer relate to? The point may/may not be about the measurement, but it's in the story to add "dimension" to the details (pun intended) and that certainly doesn't clutter the story. Maybe for people like RDP who may create or form a doctrine of cubits or something
Linear Mode
