Results 401 - 420 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79752 | ||
Tim: Well said! Upon further consideration, I will amend my earlier question to read: Are we obligated to tell the enemy anything? Radioman2 |
||||||
402 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79755 | ||
Ed: It is I who should apologize. In fact, I did not mean to imply that you suggested I advocated trickery or misrepresentation. I know that you never said or implied that in regard to myself. I should have clarified that in my earlier post. Radioman2 |
||||||
403 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79853 | ||
Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I am a war veteran and was a radio operator. | ||||||
404 | Are you onced saved always saved? | John | Radioman2 | 102419 | ||
George: Exactly where in Scripture does it say that one "can remove his name from the Lambs Book of life"? Please give us the book, the chapter and the verse where it actually says this. I know you used the word "teaches," but since you put it in quotation marks, I'd like to know what verse of the Bible says that one "can remove his name from the Lambs Book of life." In this post, I'm not trying to argue or debate the Once Saved Always Saved question. I merely ask where in the Bible does it actually come right out and say that. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
405 | Are you onced saved always saved? | John | Radioman2 | 102420 | ||
George: You write: 'In the case of the "prodical son". Had that son died in the process of splurging his inheritance, would he have died within the will of his father? I think not. The father would have grieved because he loved the child, but he would have never condoned the childs action.' George, in the story of the prodigal son the adult child's action may have interrupted fellowship with his father, but at what point did he cease to be the son of his father? Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
406 | Are you onced saved always saved? | John | Radioman2 | 102447 | ||
In other words, you cannot answer my question. You cannot tell us the book, chapter and verse where it SAYS what you say it does. Am I "with limited or no discernment and, or void of understanding"? |
||||||
407 | Are you onced saved always saved? | John | Radioman2 | 102449 | ||
Hank: Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I, too, have been weighed in the balances and found wanting, in the opinion of George. Haven't you heard? I am "with limited or no discernment and, or void of understanding." Woe is us. I guess if anyone disagrees with him it is because that person is mentally deficient or an ignorant fool. --Radioman2 |
||||||
408 | Are you onced saved always saved? | John | Radioman2 | 102470 | ||
khuck: Yes, you were helpful. Thank you. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
409 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 76133 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
410 | What is the difference between a | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90675 | ||
'Catholicism Is Not a Cult (Note: Due to space limitations, not all 10 Reasons can be reproduced here. Go to the link at the bottom of this post to read the entire article, including all 10 Reasons.) 'Ten Reasons Why Catholicism Is Not a Cult 'What those who label Catholicism a cult do not seem to understand is that even if one considers Catholicism to be unscriptural and greatly mistaken on many important doctrinal issues (certainly this writer does), it is simply misplaced and erroneous — for a variety of reasons — to classify Roman Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult. Let me give ten reasons why I say this.9 '(1) Cults, generally speaking, are small splinter groups with a fairly recent origin. Most American-based cults, for example, have to a greater or lesser degree splintered off from other Christian groups, and emerged in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered. '(2) Cults are usually formed, molded, and controlled by a single individual or small group. The Catholic church, by contrast, has been molded by an incalculable number of people throughout its long history. Catholicism is governed by creeds, councils, and the ongoing magisterium. '(3) Cults typically exercise rigid control over their members and demand unquestioning submission, with disobedience punished by shunning and/or excommunication. While Catholicism has exercised a triumphalism and an unhealthy control over its members in times past, this is far less true today, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Contemporary Catholicism's broad diversity as illustrated in Part One of this series certainly proves this point. '(4) An appropriate description of a cult is "a religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy."10 Regardless of one's criticism of Catholicism, even if it is heretical at certain points, it does not fit this description. It does not originate in heresy, and, as was mentioned before, it possesses a structural orthodoxy that other cults simply do not have (see comparison chart). '(5) Cults (when defined as heretical sects) are classified as such because of their outright denial or rejection of essential Christian doctrine. Historically, this has principally been a denial of the nature of God (the Trinity), the nature of the incarnate Christ (divine-human), and of the absolute necessity of divine grace in salvation (the Pelagian controversy).11 While Protestants have accused Catholicism of having an illegitimate authority and of confusing the gospel (two serious charges to be examined later), Catholicism does affirm the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and that salvation is ultimately a gift of God's grace (a rejection of Pelagianism).12 I challenge anyone to name a recognized cult that affirms the Trinity or the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (see comparison chart). (...) 'In summary, a cult generally emerges as a group that rejects orthodoxy and remains fervently committed to heresy. Catholicism's problem, by contrast, is of a different nature. It affirms teaching which is both extraneous and inconsistent with its historical affirmation of orthodoxy. From an evangelical Protestant viewpoint, Catholicism is definitely "too much" — but the cults are clearly "not enough." 'Roman Catholicism is not a cult. The classification of Catholicism as given above is much more accurate and preferable to the overly simplistic and misguided classification of Catholicism as a non-Christian cult.' CRI STATEMENT DC170-2 WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Two): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism by Kenneth R. Samples (http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-2.htm) |
||||||
411 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90815 | ||
Part 1 JWs and John 1:1 ____________________ No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! ____________________ The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation ' This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc. ' The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God. ' The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used. 'Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." 'Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name." ' We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God. ' Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god? ' But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God." '"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16). '"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).' (continues in Part 2) (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm) 87716 |
||||||
412 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90993 | ||
Truthfinder: I wish to preface my note by saying that in this and other posts of mine in reply to you, my intent is not to personally attack you or question your good character in any way. You have consistently been courteous and considerate in all your postings. Even though I disagree with the doctrines you present, I must commend you on the good spirit in which you present them. Take care! Radioman2 ____________________ 'The most widespread change in the Watchtower Bible is the insertion of the name JEHOVAH 237 times in the New Testament. Of course, it is appropriate for a translator to choose to use the divine name JEHOVAH or YAHWEH in the Old Testament where the Tetragrammaton YHWH actually appears in the Hebrew text. However, the Watchtower has gone beyond this by inserting the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament, where it does not appear in Greek manuscripts. One need only look at the word-by-word English that appears under the Greek text in the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation to see that the name JEHOVAH is not there in the Greek.' (http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm) |
||||||
413 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91196 | ||
'Consider this statement from the "Principles of Translation" of the NASB: '"In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus, the most common name for Deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letter YHWH (Exodus 3;14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated Lord. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated God in order to avoid confusion. '"It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh; however, no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation." 'The WBTS has criticized this practice as indicative of Jewish and Christian attempts to obscure the sacred name of Jehovah God from its people. They argue that it demonstrates the satanic nature of modern religious practice. 'Granted, some Christian scholars acknowledge that the use of LORD instead of the sacred name is unwarranted and that perhaps Yahweh or Jehovah should be the standard English transliteration. That being said, the WBTS contention that the Tetragrammaton is somehow the exclusive sacred name of God is also unwarranted. In fact, in the Old Testament, several other common names for God are utilized in Hebrew including Elohim (a generic word for God); El (a shorter form of Elohim); and other combinations of terms such as El-Elyon (God Most High) and El-Shaddai (God Almighty).' ____________________(http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/new_world_translation.asp) |
||||||
414 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91197 | ||
'Thus, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, (WBTS), makes a reasonable case for using the sacred name in the Old Testament and criticizing those who do not. However, in their translation of the New Testament, which they call The Christian Greek Scriptures, they commit an even more grievous and presumptuous error. The NWT inexplicably translates the common Greek words for Lord (kurios) and God (Theos) as "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. This unwarranted substitutionary use of the Old Testament name of God is made, however, only when kurios is used in the context of a clear reference to God in a generic sense, or when used in a passage that is a quote from the Old Testament. However, not once do they translate kurios as Jehovah in the nearly 400 times in the New Testament when it is applied as a title to Jesus Christ. There is simply no legitimate textual or linguistic basis for making that distinction. The word kurios should always be accurately translated, according to context, as Lord or Master, and the word Theos as God, but never either as "Jehovah." 'The reason for the NWT committee’s placement of this name of God in the New Testament is obvious to anyone who understands Jehovah’s Witnesses theology. The WBTS, since its inception over a century ago, has totally rejected the key doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the full deity of Jesus Christ. As a result, in their literature, and especially in their translation of the Bible, they have sought to obscure the clear New Testament teachings of those truths. This deliberate concealment is obvious when one makes a simple comparison of the NWT to the word-for-word translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text in the WBTS’ own book The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1985). 'The use of Jehovah to translate kurios (Lord) or Theos (God) 237 times in generic reference to God, but never as a title of Jesus, was clearly done to reinforce the distinction between God and Jesus in the minds of uninformed Jehovah’s Witnesses. The truth is that the New Testament writers, following Jewish tradition in the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Old Testament, understood the term kurios (Lord), in most cases, to be a reference to deity in the fullest sense. Thus, when New Testament writers call Jesus "Lord," they are identifying Him with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh or Jehovah).' (http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/new_world_translation.asp) |
||||||
415 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91199 | ||
'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's, (WBTS’), denial of Jesus’ deity is evidenced in numerous biased and inaccurate renderings of key passages by the NWT translators. Consider the following examples: 'John 1:1 – The NWT renders this verse: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Nearly every other standard English translation agrees with that of the NASB: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 'John 8:58 – The NWT renders this verse: "Jesus said to them, 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'" The NASB renders it, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'" The term "I am" (Greek: ego eimi) is a definite allusion to the Old Testament name of God (YHWH), which is a derivative of the word for "I am." 'Acts 10:36 – The NWT translates this verse: "He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ: this One is Lord of all [others]." The NASB renders it: "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)." 'Titus 2:13 – Rendered in the NWT: "...while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus." The NASB, in agreement with all other versions, says: "...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." 'Each of the above biblical examples, and many others, demonstrate the conscious effort by the NWT translators to deny the full deity of Jesus Christ in accordance with WBTS doctrine. For other examples, see the Interfaith Evangelism brochures “Belief Bulletin – Jehovah’s Witnesses (0840089554) and "A Closer Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ View of Christ" (0840089155). 'Conclusion 'The WBTS maintains that its English translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, is the best version ever produced. The evidence does not bear that conclusion. Actually, the facts show that the NWT ranks as one of the most unscholarly, biased, and wooden Bible versions ever produced. 'Unfortunately, millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are required to consult the NWT exclusively. Thus, only the doctrinal biases and distortions of the WBTS are inculcated by faithful Jehovah’s Witnesses. 'Christians must help them understand the reasons why the NWT cannot be trusted. Christians need to demonstrate the problems of the NWT and point to clear biblical teachings from accurate Bible versions. This is especially critical when addressing key doctrines such as the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the way of salvation. Salvation comes only by repentance of sin and receiving the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9).' ____________________ (http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/new_world_translation.asp) |
||||||
416 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91220 | ||
Good post, Tim. Perhaps the translators of the Septuagint demonstrate "the satanic nature of modern religious practice[s]" which are "Jewish and Christian attempts to obscure the sacred name of Jehovah God" -- according to JWs. If this were so, then it would seem that Jesus and Paul erred in quoting the Septuagint throughout the NT. Poor old Paul! If only he'd had the benefits of reading the Watchtower; If only he'd had the teachings of Copeland, Hagin, Price, Meyer, Hinn, et al.; If only he'd known he was supposed to mention water baptism every time he wrote of the gospel; Then he could have avoided all the alleged errors he made in his NT writings. Radioman2 |
||||||
417 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 92719 | ||
Truthfinder: You ask: "I still wonder if you truly agree with the quotes you post. They contain many errors." I reply: If I really thought the quotes I posted "contained many errors," I would not post them. Just because someone else is of the opinion that there are many errors in my posts does not make it so. I do not go around posting as my own beliefs those quotes with which I disagree. I do not knowingly post a lie or anything that I do not believe to be true. I do all I can to avoid erring in my facts, yet I do not claim infallibility for myself or for those whom I quote. However, I will not post a quote that I don't understand. I will not post something that I know to be a lie with the intention of passing it off as the truth. Nor will I bend the truth to support something I believe; nor use a weak or faulty argument to prove a point. On the other hand, I do not necessarily agree with every last syllable I quote. Do I have the learning or the resources needed to defend every last point in the quotes I post? No, I do not. And, as I've said before, don't ask me what Dr. Smith or Professor Jones means in his writings. Go to his website or the website to which I attribute the quote. Ask Dr. Smith to explain Dr. Smith. Radioman2 |
||||||
418 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 92774 | ||
Truthfinder: Actually I have asked many Jehovah's Witnesses to show and tell me what they believe. I have a cousin that I've been very close to since childhood. She is a Jehovah's Witness or JW (when I use the abbreviation JWs I'm not using it in a derogatory manner; I also use initials or abbreviations for the names of various churches and denominations. I merely use the abbreviation JWs as anyone would use any abbreviation). Anyway my cousin, we'll call her Rachel (not her real name), has been an active, baptized Witness since 1962. Over the years I have spent many hours in conversation with Rachel and her friends and in reading the Watchtower literature (books and magazines). So I am very, very well-read and well-acquainted with the teachings of the organization. I've heard and read the teachings first-hand. What I say now is not meant to be rude or offensive, but I can't help wondering: Do you and other Witnesses visit the church meetings of or read for yourself the writings of Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.? Or does your knowledge of their beliefs come through reading Watchtower publications? If am not mistaken, the Witnesses are discouraged from attending services held by the churches of "Christendom", including weddings and funerals. So IF your knowledge of Baptist doctrine comes through the filter of Watchtower publications, then what is wrong with our knowledge of JW doctrine coming through our own churches' publications? Again, please don't take the above question as a put-down. It seems to me that it is a reasonable question. Thank you, Truthfinder, for dialoguing with me and reading my understanding of these matters. Radioman2 :-) |
||||||
419 | The Only Way to Heaven | John 3:3 | Radioman2 | 88653 | ||
Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test? (NASB 2 Corinthians 13:5) AMPLIFIED 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves [not Christ]. Do you not yourselves realize and know [thoroughly by an ever-increasing experience] that Jesus Christ is in you--unless you are [counterfeits] disapproved on trial and rejected? |
||||||
420 | Isn't believing Christ for salvation suf | John 3:3 | Radioman2 | 91237 | ||
As usual, when someone asks you what you mean or what your point is, you evade the question. If you have a point in any of your threads, it's time to tell us what it is or wrap up the thread and be done with it. Hint: Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. "What thou doest, do quickly." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [40] >> |