59
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 145:
Line 145: + + + + + +
Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations (view source)
Revision as of 03:52, January 9, 2009
, 03:52, January 9, 2009→Significance of "The Past"
:::: The translations are correct and there is no mistake about the KJV and NKJV. Both use the term "past" in a trivial way and for a different meaning from its common substantive usage today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: The translations are correct and there is no mistake about the KJV and NKJV. Both use the term "past" in a trivial way and for a different meaning from its common substantive usage today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::::You misunderstand what I said. All I stated was that the Biblelogos passages are all from the ASV. Hover over the boxes and you will see right next to the chapter and verse, ASV. I believe those were your edits, Andy. You simply need to recode them because they '''are''' from the wrong versions.
:::::I don't get where you are saying that the usages are different from modern ones. "and the time is now past", "And when the sabbath was past", "Now when the Sabbath was past". You could certainly argue, and I would agree that they do not represent the past as in someone's history but modern usages
:::::[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/past][http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/past]
:::::do take into account these particular meanings of "before the present". So to say that they use a "trivial" version is grossly incorrect in that you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't come up with "before the present" in reference to the past.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)