Reducing it for personal understanding isn't always bad

Duoay Rheims Version didn't attempt any complexity, it just went for a proper translation.

KJV perplexes me because it has language that wasn't even common nor necessary at the time

I think they were trying to make it more esoteric or royal sounding or such

If only I could speak Latin or such so I didn't have to concern myself with this

@Eoppa Hm, the issue is

One who understands the Bible in a very basic way knows, in the grand scheme of things, the same as someone who spent they're entire life studying it

Because 1 of infinity, and 1000 of infinity are still infinitely small

Then tell me why there are those who deny the divinity of Christ? You can easily interpret wrong.

The amount of information not known is exactly the same

I use gnt because I've read thru maybe 30 different translations

And gnt is the best balance for me

Between readability and complexity

If there is one that is better, please let me know

And yet we come to much different conclusions

That probably is a good translation, but not for a more in depth analysis

Oh I know, I don't use it for in depth analysis

But for just reading

For in-depth I personally opt for kjv just because I grew up with it

I'll sometimes use KJVA, I grew up with KJV too

My Bible study leader, he uses CEB for reading and your DR edition for studying

Why did kjv become so popular

It seems like it's the most commonly used

Or at least most widely known

it should be dhouay rheims

I haven't looked too far into it, but it probably has to do with the King wanting to get rid of the books the Catholic church recognized and such.

Catholic Church is true church

so

Yes

@Eoppa u here?

Now I am

@Eoppa since you are familiar with "purus actus" or the "argument from motion" can you explain to me how does it prove a god?

it proves there must be something

and it doesn't have to be god

the argument just labels it as god

why couldn't it have been something that was actual in the previous instance of time? because the argument implicitly assumes that things are not in causal relations through time only in a specific instance of time

It proves there must be an omnipotent/omniscient, perfect, non composed, one immutable being.

It doesn't assume things are not causal over time

Only that there are essential and accidental causation, they are two sides of the same coin

how does it prove omnipotent, omniscient, perfect and that it must be a being?

also isn't omnipotent a self contradicting attribute?