Romans 8:16

[Jerry]

Should be? No, that is what you prefer. If the word "auto" is gender neutral too, then what you have stated is merely your preference. There is nothing in the context to indicate masculine gender - just because you think it should be, doesn't make it an error. In fact, it would be an error if the translator decided to play God and translated it the way "it should be" instead of for what it actually says. Let the translators give us what the Bible actually says - and let the commentators interpret it. We don't need interpretations in our translations.

[brandplucked]

To call God "It" (no matter what Person of the Trinity, and no matter what English translation- KJV or MV) seems to me just about as offensive to God as your reply was to me. Or perhaps it just shows a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Trinity, and not just some entity.

In any event, you have resorted to personal attacks in an otherwise civil discussion on the topic, so I'm out.

Hi Kubel and other Bible correctors, you can get all huffy and take your toys out of the sandbox and go home, but the simple fact is there is NO Bible in any language that you accept as your Final Authority, and as I have abundantly shown, many other "scholars" and Bible translators differ from your own personal opinion and have translated the passages exactly like the Book (KJB) has it. Even the modern versions are inconsistent, and God Himself clearly refers to Jesus Christ as a neuter in 2 or 3 passages. "That holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

If pointing out your own hubris, and the fact that you do not consider any Bible to be the authoritative word of God is a "personal attack", then so be it. I am attacking your "every man for himself bible version" position.

Will K

[John the Baptist]

Should be? No, that is what you prefer. If the word "auto" is gender neutral too, then what you have stated is merely your preference. There is nothing in the context to indicate masculine gender - just because you think it should be, doesn't make it an error. In fact, it would be an error if the translator decided to play God and translated it the way "it should be" instead of for what it actually says. Let the translators give us what the Bible actually says - and let the commentators interpret it. We don't need interpretations in our translations.

The pronoun agreeing with the noun is just Greek gammer. I have had several years of New Testament Greek. You cannot accept this fact because of your view of KJV Only, but that is okay.

God Bless
JOhn

[brandplucked]

The pronoun agreeing with the noun is just Greek gammer. I have had several years of New Testament Greek. You cannot accept this fact because of your view of KJV Only, but that is okay.

God Bless
JOhn

Well, John, did all these Bible translators NOT have several years of N.T. Greek, and were thus ignorant of your superior insight and learning?

The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.

The first verse is John 1:32.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

This verse came to mind.


1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.