Results 221 - 240 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 | Eph 3:19 | kalos | 130614 | ||
Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 DocTrinsograce, BradK, CDBJ, EdB, Emmaus, Hank, Makarios, Morant61, prayon, Searcher56, srbaegon and anyone else who wishes to reply: I recently received the following article in my email. I have been asked to evaluate it. I would appreciate the input of any and all of those named above as well as that of ANYONE ELSE who wishes to participate. In the following quoted article are the top reasons given by some to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and to prove that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. What I am asking for when you reply is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs, giving us the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence for your agreement or disagreement is what I am looking for. Give as much or as little detail as you wish. I am thanking in advance any and all who reply to this Question. Grace to you, kalos ____________________ [Following is the first of 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS and the RESPONSE to each. I will soon post the rest of the 10 REASONS and RESPONSES.] 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS 'Some have asked why the NT portion of the Hebraic Roots Version Bible is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek. Many have asked why we should the Hebrew and Aramaic is the original rather than the Greek? 'For more info on the Hebraic Roots Version, the first Messianic NT Version to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek see the HRV website at: (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account) '1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek. 'RESPONSE: 'Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E.. 'However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for. 'To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak. 'Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek. 'The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original. 'Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them. 'The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text. 'Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books. 'The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.' ____________________ (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) |
||||||
222 | Does Jude 1:17 answer Eph 4:11? | Eph 4:11 | kalos | 1676 | ||
Jude 1:17 proves that the 'pneumatika', spritual gifts, ceased at some point in the past? I hardly think so. Quoting Jude 1:17 to prove this point is really stretching things a bit, don't you think? Why do people quote 1-2 lines of Scripture followed by 20 lines of "reasoning" to make their point? Is there no clear verse of Scripture that answers Charis' question? | ||||||
223 | Define "local church." | Phil 1:1 | kalos | 7475 | ||
Define "local church". Scripture references preferred. | ||||||
224 | Authority to Ask God for One's Needs | Phil 4:19 | kalos | 156135 | ||
Authority to Ask God for One's Needs "We believe in the authority of the believer to ask freely of the Lord for his needs." Do you agree with the above statement of belief? Please include biblical references for why you do or do not agree. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
225 | Who moved the Sabbath to Sun.? | Col 2:16 | kalos | 1926 | ||
The Bible specifically says on the seventh day. The nation Israel always kept the sabbath on Saturday. There was never any confusion over which day was meant. Who changed the Sabbath from Sat. to Sun.? No one changed it. Christians are not keeping the sabbath (meant to be a day of complete rest for man and beast). Rather we celebrate Sunday as the Lord's Day. It has nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath. I thought I covered all this in my previous answer, "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians," JVH0212, 03-27-2001. . . . I wrote in part: . . . "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath." . . . The burden of proof to refute this lies with the reader. If the NT specifically commands Sabbath observance by Christians, then let someone come forth with a clear verse of Scripture. Show us the book, chapter and verse where Sabbath keeping by Christians is commanded in the NT. Remember most of the contents of the four gospels took place under the old system of the Mosaic law, before Christ died, was buried and resurrected and before the Church age, the age of Grace was ushered in. . . . Please read the entire posting for the details. |
||||||
226 | Do you keep ALL of the Mosaic Law? | Col 2:16 | kalos | 2031 | ||
Do you also keep all the dietary laws, the new moons, festivals, 20 percent tithe (look it up in the Mosaic Law -- the tithe Israel paid anually was much closer to 20 percent than 10), the command to stone a child who is continually rebellious, the blood sacrifices and all the rest of the ceremonial law contained in the Law of Moses? | ||||||
227 | Time to capitalize??? | Col 3:17 | kalos | 1383 | ||
It's time to decide? It's time to capitalize? And, pray tell, who shall make those decisions? The Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Trinitarians, Unitarians, Roman Catholics, Russian Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals, General Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists? The list goes on and on. If only the solution were that simple and simplistic! We're not talking about a new format for the Yellow Pages, we're talking about the sacred and imperishable Word of God. | ||||||
228 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | kalos | 153387 | ||
Will there be a partial rapture? Do you believe that only faithful Christians will be taken in the rapture, with unfaithful Christians left on earth to suffer through the Tribulation? Please give the reasons -- the Biblical evidence -- for why you believe as you do. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
229 | Questions for the KJV-Only cult | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 121463 | ||
'QUESTIONS FOR THE KJV-ONLY CULT 'by Gary R. Hudson '(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? '(2) Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? '(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? '(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? '(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? '(6) Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? '(7) Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] '(8) WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611... or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? '(9) In what language did Jesus Christ...teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? '(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521 |
||||||
230 | More questions for the KJV-only cult (1) | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 124231 | ||
More questions for the KJV-only cult (1) '(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? '(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from? '(13) Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? '(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"? '(15) What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist]. '(16) IF... the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? '(17) Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560]... English Bibles absolutely infallible? '(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23] '(19) If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement? '(20) Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus — "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521 |
||||||
231 | More questions for the KJV-only cult (2) | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 124235 | ||
More questions for the KJV-only cult (2) '(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?' '(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?' '(23) Who publishes the infallible "INERRANT KJV"?' '(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?' '(27) Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?' '(28) Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?' '(29) Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521 |
||||||
232 | More questions for the KJV-only cult (3) | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 124238 | ||
More questions for the KJV-only cult (3) '(31) Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe? '(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] '(33) Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] '(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek] '(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10] '(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol 27, 1881, page 485 — see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his and many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."] '(37) Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] 'Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation — the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]."? '(38) Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 — "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17] '(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6] '(40) Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521 |
||||||
233 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | kalos | 210 | ||
What is the difference between "apostasy" and "heresy" (see 2 Thess 2:3 NASB)? | ||||||
234 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | kalos | 167031 | ||
What is an apostate? | ||||||
235 | Who is "he who now restrains" (2Th 2:7)? | 2 Thess 2:7 | kalos | 118172 | ||
In 2 Th 2:7 (NASB), who is "he who now restrains" and "will do so until he is taken out of the way"? NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. |
||||||
236 | Can women serve as elders in the church? | 1 Tim 3:1 | kalos | 213 | ||
Can women serve as elders in the church? | ||||||
237 | Define the visible church. | 1 Tim 3:15 | kalos | 7473 | ||
Define the visible church, mentioned in 1 Tim 3:15 and other NT passages. | ||||||
238 | "doctrine of demons"? | 1 Tim 6:4 | kalos | 46972 | ||
Has everyone seen this? ID 46808 1 Thorn in the flesh. Note Is 57:1. heisthe1. Sat 04/27/02, 2:38am. ID# 46808 One more time What makes your doctrine a doctrine of demons - is the fact that it removes the blame from Satan and removes the blame from us - and places it squarely on God! Which is a lie! And then your doctrine twists scripture to support that lie. God is a GOOD God! And ONLY good - all the time! He is now and He always has been. And if ANYBODY tells me different - they are perpetuating a lie of the devil! I don't care HOW 'pretty' or 'religious' you make it sound or how you weave it into other teachings. Now, DON'T write me any nasty, venomous letters citing how many degrees you have, how many letters you have after you name and how many years you have been "in the way." And I'm sorry! I'm truly sorry - that after all the time, expense and expended energy that you still don't know any better! And yes, I know that I have just messed up some of your best sermons - but it's time that this doctrine was shown up for what it really is! A destructive lie! Suffering Doctrine! A little strong you say? A little sharp you say? Jesus called the religious leaders of his day - "vipers," "snakes in the grass," "sowers of stumbling blocks," "hypocrites," "fancy graves full of rotten bones." Why? Because THEY should have known better! Now you have been informed, r_______! |
||||||
239 | ANTI or PRO? Which is it? | 1 Tim 6:20 | kalos | 7406 | ||
ANTI or PRO? Which is it? "Does knowledge out weight truth Note 2 Tim 3:7 Lionstrong Wed 06/13/01, 4:40pm "That being said, your antipathy toward “book knowledge” is objectionable. Piety, our pursuit of holiness, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God does not require us to be anti-intellectual. The above verses show the Apostle Paul to be a man of the books. To quote the Greeks poets evidences that he was well read in non-Jewish literature. As Paul is an example, “book knowledge” can enrich us and help us to speak more effectively to our culture." (06/13/01) All of the following quotes were submitted under the same user name. But, did the same person who wrote the first seven quotes also write the above, which is the same as the last quote? Can one condemn, ridicule and dismiss ALL science, asserting that "science is false", and then say to another "your antipathy toward 'book knowledge' is objectionable" and "God does not require us to be anti-intellectual"? Did the Forum just slip into the twilight zone or become part of the bizarro world? Read the following and decide for yourself. ANTI "Do you really know that the sun doesn't rise? Do you really know that the earth rotates on its axis?...I know the Bible uses figures of speech, but as serious Bible students isn't the only reason you believe that the sun standing still is a figure of speech is that you believe what you've been taught about the earth rotating on its axis? Because Science says so?" (05/11/01) "If Scripture, God's word, is our only source of truth, then what can be proven true by science, and mathematics?...what obligates us to believe that the earth spends...So far, the only reason given to take it as figurative is NOT based on a study of Scripture, but by imposing a belief on the Scripture, a belief whose source is not the Bible, but science....How do you know Jesus loves you? But how do you know the earth spins on its axis?" (05/15/01) "Some of us believe that it is a scientific fact that our solar system is heliocentric...Some of us, I think, have an unquestioned faith in science (for them it should be spelled with a capital S). To even question that the solar system is heliocentric is anathema...How do we know that Copernicus found the truth about the solar system when he concluded that it was heliocentric?" (05/17/01) "I am not OBLIGATED to believe in the earth's rotation. I am only obligated to understand and believe God's word." (05/17/01) "Once one defines what truth is, and depending on how one defines truth, science may be found to be false." "Truth is not physical...If truth is unchanging, then science is false." (05/29/01) "If we start from the Bible as our sole source of truth (sola scriptura) we could not deduce from the Scriptural data that the earth rotates on its axis." (05/11/01) PRO "That being said, your antipathy toward “book knowledge” is objectionable. Piety, our pursuit of holiness, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God does not require us to be anti-intellectual. The above verses show the Apostle Paul to be a man of the books. To quote the Greeks poets evidences that he was well read in non-Jewish literature. As Paul is an example, “book knowledge” can enrich us and help us to speak more effectively to our culture." (06/13/01) My comment: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."--Emerson(?). No hobgoblins here! |
||||||
240 | Do you want to trust your soul to...? | 2 Tim 1:12 | kalos | 55779 | ||
Do you want to trust your eternal soul to the teachings of several men headquartered in Brooklyn, New York who claim to be the directors of God's organization on earth? Do you? Eternity is a long time to be wrong. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |