Bible Discussion Thread

Glad I was able to help. Didn't mean to come off as agruementive. But I learned that the best commentator of the Bible is the Bible - comparing spiritual things with spiritual ( 1 Cor. 2:13). Lexicons, concordances, Hebrew/Greek interlinears etc. are not spiritual. Those are man's take on God's words. For example, in Genesis 1:28, the word "replenish". A lot of fundamentalists say that word should read "filled" instead of "replenished", as the Bible says. Their reasoning for this is because they don't believe that God is telling Adam to re-populate the Earth. They appeal to the Webster's 1828 dictionary for the definition. While it is true that replenish can mean to initially "fill", it does mean to "re" fill, you still can't take that away, like in refinish, refurbish,re-do, etc. You put a "re" in front of something, that means to do something again that was done before. But when you force replenish in the AV to mean "fill", you're missing a lot of commentary the Holy Spirit is trying to show you. There's a reason the King James translators translated the Hebrew word as replenish, instead of fill. If you look at Genesis 9:1, God gave Noah the same commission as Adam.The population of the earth was destroyed during Noah's flood, and God gave Noah a commission to repopulate it. The Hebrew word for replenish in Gen. 1:28 and 9:1 is the same word back in Gen 1:22,yet the translators used fill that time instead of replenish. Now critics of the King James Bible would call this an "unfortunate translation", and insist that replenish be changed to fill in all 3 verses. If you look in a modern translation like the NIV, NASV, HCSB etc you'll see they did change replenish to fill. But the Holy Spirit makes this distinction in the KJB for a reason, because as I said above, God gave the same commission to Noah after the earth's population was destroyed through the flood.