Results 4221 - 4232 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4221 | The Bride of Christ | Rev 21:9 | kalos | 120116 | ||
The Bride of Christ The church is called the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23). Ephes. 5:22-23 (ESV) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Ephes. 5:27 (ESV) so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Bride of Christ. 'A symbolic term used to designate the Christian church in its relation to Christ as one who is a pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2), loved by Christ (Eph. 5:22-33), who will be in the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7)' (www.carm.org). NASB Revelation 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." '"Come here, I shall show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb" is clearly metaphorical language. That said, I am not sure of the literal referent intended here. In Revelation 19, the wife of the Lamb consists of believers. In Revelation 21, the wife of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem' (http://www.revelationcommentary.org/21_chapter.html). 'Revelation 19:7 '(1) Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, (2) for the marriage of the Lamb has come and (3) His bride has made herself ready." '1. "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him" begins the second reason for exaltation. These three actions are warranted in light of God the Father’s next agenda item. '2. "For the marriage of the Lamb has come" is the reason for the call to rejoice, be glad and the giving of glory. The wedding of the Lamb is announced. This, of course, is metaphorical. There will be no literal wedding. '3. "His bride (wife) has made herself ready" completes the metaphor of a wedding. One would expect the text to refer to a bride (numpha) at this point, but the Greek uses the term guna (wife). "Wife" suggests the wedding is completed. However, in Jewish marriage customs, the betrothed virgin was bound to her husband. The marriage ceremony was a consummation of the legal process begun months and sometime years before. 'The apostle Paul on two separate occasions spoke of a church relationship to Christ in terms of the bridegroom/bride metaphor. 2 Corinthians 11:2 and Ephesians 5:25-32 both develop different aspects of this concept' (http://www.revelationcommentary.org/19_chapter.html). |
||||||
4222 | Who knows? | Rev 21:27 | kalos | 7379 | ||
Tim: Thank you for providing us with relevant and enlightening scripture references and for sharing with us your excellent observations. May I just add the following: Rev 3:5 "Book of Life." A divine journal records the names of all those whom God has chosen to save and who, therefore, are to possess eternal life ( Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27,: 22:19; compare Dan 12:1; Luke 10:20). Under no circumstances will He erase those names . . . , as city officials often did of undesirable people on their roles. (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1996) Phil 4:3. "Book of Life." In eternity past, God registered all the names of His elect in that book which identifies those inheritors of eternal life . . . (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1828). When were our names written in the book of life? "From the foundation of the world." Before the first man was ever born, the names of the elect were written in the book of life. Rev 17:8 NASB "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come." Rev 13:8 (NASB) All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. "Lamb slain". The Lord Jesus who died to purchase the salvation of those whom God had chosen was fulfilling an eternal plan. "from the foundation of the world". According to God's eternal, electing purpose before creation, the death of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever (compare Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). Antichrist can never take away the salvation of the elect. The eternal registry of the elect will never be altered, nor will the saved in the Antichrist's day worship him. (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 2010) |
||||||
4223 | "yielding its fruit every month" | Rev 22:2 | kalos | 22815 | ||
Revelation 22:2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve [kinds of] fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (NASB) Many interpret "time will be no more" (Rev. 10:6, KJV) to mean that time will eventually pass away. Actually Revelation 10:6 is better translated "there will be delay no longer," as it reads in the New American Standard Bible and several other translations. And in Revelation 22:2 we see that months (units of time) are still being used to measure time. Hence, time shall not have passed away. Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: (KJV) and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer, (NASB) |
||||||
4224 | "yielding its fruit every month" | Rev 22:2 | kalos | 23115 | ||
Nolan: Thank you. All I can add is: that at my age it is good to know "There will be delay no longer..." :-) Grace, kalos |
||||||
4225 | The NASB is interpreting here | Rev 22:12 | kalos | 131992 | ||
Steve and Dalcent: It is not uncommon for a modern English Bible translation to change a noun into a verb in order to make the meaning clearer. Of course, when the translators do this they are deviating from the strictly literal translation. However, I'm not convinced that the majority of us would be happy with a translation that was 100 percent literal. Sometimes an overly literal translation of a word or phrase does not faithfully convey what the words actually mean, as is the case with Hebrew idioms, for example. Grace and shalom, Kalos |
||||||
4226 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149140 | ||
Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired "What is the Apocrypha? Do the Apocryphal books belong in the Bible?" 'Answer: Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Christian Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha with respect, but never accepted the Apocrypha as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha, but almost always rejected them from being included in the Bible. Probably the most conclusive argument against the Apocrypha being included in the Bible is the fact that the New Testament nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal books. 'The Apocrypha teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. The Roman Catholic church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible after the Protestant Reformation because it supports some of the things that the Roman Catholic church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but if you read it, you have to treat it as a fallible historical document, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.' ____________________ http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
4227 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149141 | ||
"What About the Apocrypha?" 'The Catholic institution claims the apocrypha is inspired. Protestants don't. Therefore, within the Body, there are two different lists of supposedly God-inspired authoritative Scripture. So... How can we claim the Bible is authoritative when there are two differing lists of supposed Scriptures within Christianity...Two different Bibles? My next question is akin to the first: How do we know with certainty which list is THE list?" Both of these questions center on authority. Who do we trust as our God approved authority able to testify for us on behalf of Scriptures? 'It is no wonder that the other religions of the world do not take true Christianity seriously when such fundamental divisions exist within the Body. 'The Apocrypha is not included as part of the inspired text because it does not meet the criteria of the inspired canon. Here are just a few examples. 'The Apocrypha contains historical errors. In Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar is reigning in Ninevah instead of Babylon. 'The Apocrypha contains unbiblical teaching. 2 Maccabees 12 teaches to pray for the dead. Tobit 12:9 teaches faith by works, a clear contradiction to the Bible (Ephesians 2:8-9). 'Jesus and the Apostles do not quote the Apocrypha. We do not see it directly quoted in the New Testament. 'Finally Jesus tells us where the inspired canon ends in Luke 11:51. He says the prophets extend from Abel (Genesis 4) to Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). So the line of prophets ends with the Jewish Old Testament, the Masoretic text that Jesus used as authoritative. 'The history of the Apocrypha is interesting. It was not part of the Catholic Church's inspired canon until 1545 AD. No council recognized it in the first four centuries. The historical evidence goes against the Apocrypha. It was incorporated by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant challenge to several unbiblical teachings such as praying for the dead and penance. Hope this helps.' Patrick Zukeran Probe Ministries ____________________ http://www.probe.org/docs/e-apocrypha.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
4228 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149143 | ||
The Apocrypha By Gregory Koukl 'The books of the Apocrypha were Jewish books, both wisdom books and historical books, written (for the most part) during the intertestamental period, between Malachi and the Gospels. (...) 'The Jews never did (and still don't) accept these books as inspired on par with the rest of the OT Scripture (the Palestinian Canon, 22 books in Hebrew, equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). However, the Apocrypha were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, circa 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian canon. The 1 century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi). The Talmud concurs. Jews did not consider this collection of their books as canon. 'Reasons to Reject the Aprocrypha: '1. Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don't know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon. '2. The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God. '3. Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46). '4. Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith.' ____________________ To read more go to: http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
4229 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158636 | ||
Christian dream interpretation? Are our dreams from God? 'GotQuestions.org is not a Christian dream interpretation service. We do not interpret dreams. We strongly believe that a person's dreams and the meaning of those dreams is between them and God alone. Does God still speak through dreams? God has spoken to people many times throughout the Scriptures by means of dreams. Examples would be Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel), Joseph the husband of Mary, Solomon and many others. There is also a quotation of Joel the prophet made by Peter in Acts 2:17 that mentions dreams. So the simple answer is yes, God speaks through dreams, among other ways. 'There is a difference of how we apply that truth to today however. One thing we must keep in mind is that the Bible is finished, having covered everything we really need to know from now till eternity. This is not to say that God does not work miracles or even speak through dreams today. The difference from how it works in the past though is that God has already revealed the way He chooses to deal with mankind from now to eternity, and anything He says, whether it is a dream, vision, "still small voice" etc., will line up completely with what He has already revealed. Dreams cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the word of God either, as this puts the dream into the place of authority rather than the Scriptures. If you have a dream and feel that perhaps God gave it to you, prayerfully examine the Word of God and make sure your dream is in agreement with Scripture. If so, prayerfully consider what God would have you do in response to your dream (James 1:5).' ____________________ www.gotquestions.org/ Christian-dream-interpretation.html |
||||||
4230 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158638 | ||
What it does NOT say - 2 Tim 3:16 What it does NOT say: 2 Timothy 3:16 All DREAMS are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (Emphasis added.) What it DOES say: NASB 2 Timothy 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (Emphasis added.) Note that the definition of Scripture includes only WRITINGS -- only that which is WRITTEN. 'scrip·ture Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin scriptura, from Latin, act or product of WRITING, from scriptus 1 a (1) capitalized : the books of the Bible -- often used in plural (2) often capitalized : a passage from the Bible b : a body of WRITINGS considered sacred or authoritative 2 : something WRITTEN' (Emphasis added.) (www.m-w.com) I've never before seen anyone interpret 2 Tim 3:16 to prove something that is not Scripture (i.e. dreams) is inspired. It's like taking the verse and reinterpreting it to mean the opposite of what it actually says. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
4231 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158641 | ||
Bows44: My sincere thanks to you for the clarification. Grace and peace, Kalos |
||||||
4232 | Playing with the NT Greek text? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 55774 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) (Retxar: what follows does not directly answer your questions, but it does give us a good example of problems with the NWT. Also note: anyone who thinks I am dependent solely on www.carm.org to refute the false teachings of the Watchtower organization is badly mistaken.) '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." _____________ (...) 'Just a side note, I found this quote in the Watchtower's official website, www.watchtower.org in the "How can you find out what God Requires" section, paragraph #3, -- "God made sure that the Bible was accurately copied and preserved." 'Then why was the New World Translation Bible needed?' (www.soulright.com/nwt.html |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 ] |