|
As I told you when we talked together of this ... Growing up, I was taught that King James was the "hard" version, full of words from the more strict english period, and the Living bible and other versions to be the "current" or real versions. In most cases, the verbage and wording were often very similar, but there are the occasions where the omittance or addition of a word changed the entire context of the meaning. I am coming to the conclusion myself after years of blind belief, that something is amiss.
I am hard put to call one version better than the other ... or one the original and the others interpretations of that original because somewhere, someone calling themselves Christian is going by the words in THEIR bible as The Word. Is it really for someone else to say they are less of a Christian because they interpret what God means to them differently based on the context of the supposedly universal bible. So to answer your question ... I'm starting to form the opinion you cannot ... each man is ultimately left to make his own individual interpretation of God as he sees fit. What bible form he chooses and the ultimate manifestation of that choice transforms God into his personal combination. This possibility of this happening then raises the debate of whether this undermine's God's status as supreme and eternal.
__________________
Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna
|