Guest Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Yes Satan has already been destroyed according to the spurious translation NKJV [see Ezekiel 28:18] This teaching coming from this NEW modern interpertation is suggesting Universalism where there is no devil to worry about neither a law to obey. Don't cheat yourself now and fail to read this verse from the bible [KJV} that tells that Satan will be devoured & turned into ashes in the future. Quote
there buster Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 beware of camels Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
wicklunds Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Beware of the new theologian Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
there buster Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Quote: Beware the new theologian. Given our respective ages, and when we began, I guess that would be you. Sorry, I take it back. You're just new. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
Guest Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Quote: beware of camels ============================= I know that there are church magazines articles that takes it's readers on a rabbit trail safari off into ya/ya land, but are you telling me that there are wild camels out there as well I should be aware of as well? Tell me, did you even bother to read the contrast of this bible verse between a real translation [KJV] and new interpertation [NKJV]?? And while you have your bible open read Haggai 2:7 where the NKJV suggest that everyone will be saved. Is this Adventist teaching at present? Quote
Ron Lambert Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Be careful Ed--you don't want to be seen as being too zealous in attacking the Bible in any translation. But come now, why should we have more confidence in the men who translated the King James Version of the Bible 500 years ago than we do in the people who translated the more modern versions of the Bible? Many Bible scholars like the New American Standard Bible, because of the effort its translators made to be as literal in their translation as possible, with no more interpretation that is necessary to render the proper sense of the original languages and their idioms. All the translators were required to sign a statement that they believe the Bible is verbally inspired. While we as SDAs do not believe in verbal inspiration (the writers of the Bible "were God's penmen, not His pen" to quote Ellen G. White), I like the thought that the translators of the NASB did believe the Bible to be verbally inspired, since that would have to make them much more careful to provide as accurrate and literal a translation as possible. Even so, I know there are a few passages where I would prefer to quote from other versions that make the text clearer. The same is true of virtually all translations. So I always consult at least six different translations whenever I am studying out anything in the Bible. Quote
Guest Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Ron I take all cautions given to me seriously, but tell me did this verse in Ezekiel 28:18 say EXACTLY what this THREAD IS all about??? Is it translated wrong in the KJV, or is it wrong in the NKJV??? Has Satan already been destroyed? Did you even compaire the contrast before engaging your keyboard? Let's try and stay away from those revolving doors where talk goes around in circles, and nail something down this time. OK? Quote
Ron Lambert Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 I don't see the problem you do, Ed. God can speak of the future as if it were past. For example, look at Revelation 19:20: "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." This is from the KJV. Notice it speaks in the past tense. But we know from the context of the prophecy that it is yet future from today. Quote
wicklunds Posted November 19, 2005 Posted November 19, 2005 Quote: Ed Dickerson said: Quote: Beware the new theologian. Given our respective ages, and when we began, I guess that would be you. Sorry, I take it back. You're just new. I guess I'll have to stick around and observe the denomination's best and brightest so I can become what I outta be eh? I'll go ahead and pass on that one... Quote It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}
Moderators Gerr Posted November 21, 2005 Moderators Posted November 21, 2005 Quote: Ed White said: Yes Satan has already been destroyed according to the spurious translation NKJV [see Ezekiel 28:18] This teaching coming from this NEW modern interpertation is suggesting Universalism where there is no devil to worry about neither a law to obey. Don't cheat yourself now and fail to read this verse from the bible [KJV} that tells that Satan will be devoured & turned into ashes in the future. [:"blue"]The context of Ezek 28:18 is a lamentation against and for the King of Tyre. In that context, it IS an accomplished fact that Tyre is no more, and is therefore translated appropriately in the past tense in the NKJ, NIV, YOUNG'S LIT. TRANSLATION, NLT, NCV, RSV, NASB, GNT. [/] Gerry Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted November 25, 2005 Moderators Posted November 25, 2005 P.S. It occurred to me that Ed is just as frozen in time to the KJV in Biblical translation as he is frozen in time to EGW in the practice of medicine, i.e. nothing new has been discovered since the KJV came to being, and nothing new in medicine has been discovered since EGW wrote her views on health. Gerry Quote
Ron Lambert Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 He is also frozen in time in the sense that about six months ago he was told he would not be allowed to post anything more to this forum, so he cannot respond to your comments now. Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted November 26, 2005 Moderators Posted November 26, 2005 Sorry, I didn't know that. How come he was able to reply a couple of times? I had been waiting & waiting for his reply. It's a good thing I wasn't holding my breath. Gerry Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.