|Contents by Subject||
Contents in Alphabetical Order
I am not questioning your interpretation of the Hebrew language but am trying to gain further understanding myself of its meaning. You seem at times overly sensitive to questions, as if under attack, when in actuality people are just trying to get some questions answered. After re-reading Gen. 48 (something I should have done first before writing you), I see that the expression "a nation and a company of nations" is not the wording used for Ephraim and Manasseh, as you of course pointed out in no uncertain terms. Your take on its meaning is undoubtedly the correct interpretation and I stand corrected.
OK. Thank you. I appreciate your asking these questions. In fact we need you and others to do so. We learn from them and important points become clarified through them. My apparent sensitivity should be accepted as inherent. I was not offended by your question but rather pleased at the opportunity to further elaborate on this point. I also did not intend to offend you by my answer.
God bless you
PS. In the past we had raised the possibility that
A NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS referred to Judah and the Ten Tribes but only now have we confirmed this explanation through an analysis of the Hebrew text.
This to our mind helps confirm the Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement outlook that the division between the two halves of the Israelite Nation had a Divine Purpose behind it.
This needs to be emphasized.
In the past there was the conception amongst Believers in our field that this expression applied solely to Joseph. Others ignored it. We should come out of our shell, become more orientated towards Judah and his place in Scripture and ALSO compel (through persuasion and use of the sources) mainstream Christians to relate to us.
The concept that Judah and Joseph are separate entities with different prophesied destinies should be considered an integral aspect of Scriptural understanding.
(a) From Eric Schendel
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1387
In 1833 the American linguist Noah Webster published a Bible that is very faithful to the KJV (even includes the thou/ye singular/plural distinction) but without the archaic words and expressions that sometimes make the KJV difficult to understand. He based it on the KJV but went back to the original languages to make his revisions. There have been a few later versions, too. I use the 1995 Revised Webster Bible (RWB). It is free and downloadable.
A modern translation that is free and downloadable (although with some minimal copyright restrictions) is the NET Bible. It is not as literal as the KJV, tending to be somewhat more interpretative, so it provides a contrast with the KJV/Webster. However, what I really like about it are the really extensive and detailed footnotes.
(b) Robert Smith
Subject: which bible
My name is Robert Smith e-mail is email@example.com. For information sake I and many of my friends believe the KJ version is the most incorrect, inaccurate version written. The English language was changing between 1600 and 1611.
In my most humble opinion the two best are Restoration Scripture (study bible), and the Sacred Scriptures (bethel edition).
(c) From: diane herndon
As for me and my household, any version of the Bible other than the KJ would be preferred.
GOD bless you, Diane
"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." Psalm 122
GOD BLESS YOU !
Pleased with what you read?