How To Be Washed in the Blood

Originally posted by @divegeester
I don’t get this...

4th post down on this page: you made a second reply to my question “are you going to ignore this post sonship?” claiming your first reply on the previous page (where you said “no” ), was a “typo”. It wasn’t a typo.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you because you replied twice to same post for some reason?

Is this really that important, tiger? You’re being obstinate and silly. Just apologize like a big boy and I’ll make you a PB&J sandwich with the crust cut off.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Have you heard of the Geneva Bible? If so, what’s your opinion on that? Apparently, it predates the 1611 King James Version.

Before I answer your questions let me first say that I unecessarily provoked Divegeester probably by using the REPLY button simply to make a correction of a post typo in the discussion. I can see that this annoyed him because it did not specifically continue a line of thought about Bible versions, namely the RcV.

I will try to avoid sloppy use of the REPLY button. In a sense I am doing the same thing here - speaking to another point from the specific question.

Sorry to posters. This is a little sloppy of me.


Sorry Divegeester.
===========================================

Now, I have heard of the Geneva Bible. But know little about it.
I know versions went before the KJV.

One of the things on my To-Do list is to re-read a very good book I read decades ago by Giesler and Nix which was, I thought, an excellent source on questions about the Bible's coming into existence. - A General Introduction to the Bible published by Moody Press.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I don’t get this...

4th post down on this page: you made a second reply to my question “are you going to ignore this post sonship?” claiming your first reply on the previous page (where you said “no” ), was a “typo”. It wasn’t a typo.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you because you replied twice to same post for some reason?

I have been sloppy about my use of the Reply button.
This is not a good practice. I am going to try to do better.

I apologized to you above. I'm sorry.
I take some responsibility for your misunderstanding.
=============================================

Now, IF I recall correctly you wanted to know whether the Recovery Version was the BEST version on this or that subject.
My answer will probably have to be - Not necessarily.

Now I think the BEST version of the Bible for a person is the one that they read while opening to God and touching God. That could be any number of good versions. (I do not recommend something like the JW NWT).

The mechanics of the "version" of the Bible is important. It probably will never be AS important as a prayerful spirit, an open heart to God, and a willingness to allow the Word of God to change you within.

Having said that, and hoping you have grasped that, there are lots of good Bibles with good footnotes. I think one that is very uptodate, current, relevant to the present problems of the Christian church is the Recovery Version.

But to dub it the OFFICIAL " best version " of the Bible from now on - No, I am not going that far. I doubt that any of the websties would make that kind of claim - "THIS IS THE BEST FROM NOW ON !!"

But I recommend it. And especially the study version with Witness Lee's voluminous footnotes.

Does that answer your question?
If so, just quite while you're ahead.
That's all I want to say about that for now.

Originally posted by @sonship
I apologized to you above. I'm sorry.

Your apology is accepted.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Your apology is accepted.

Well I guess we learned who’s the man in that contretemps (hint: it wasn’t you.)

Originally posted by @divegeester
Your apology is accepted.

'Takes a man to tender an apology, and a man to accept it and move on.'

Wise man.