Results 201 - 220 of 270
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: djconklin Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25812 | ||
All I know is that: 1) The Law is spiritual in nature (Rom. 7:14). 2) God gave us the Law to keep us out of sin in the first place. 3) If we sin we have an advocate with the Father who will cleanse us from all unrightousness. 4) The Sabbath is a sign that we are resting from our own works and that we accept God's work to sanctify us (Ezekiel 20:12). |
||||||
202 | Who was that masked man? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25859 | ||
Ed "asked": "What makes you think this discussion is about you!" Easy, just like adding 2 and 2 together. |
||||||
203 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25865 | ||
Steve, Oh boy! I AM NOT PREACHING A WORKS RIGHTEOUSNEES GOSPEL--OKAY!?! The sacrifices are completely ineffective if one does not have faith. On the other hand, faith without works is dead (James 2:20). --- "Your words condemn you, sir." Matthew 5:22. |
||||||
204 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25878 | ||
A little more on the history of the Bible (from the LXX to Anchor Bible (mid-60's)) can be found at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap32.html In regards to the development of the KJV the author writes: "The Bishops' Bible was to be followed and only altered where necessary. Old ecclesiastical terms were to be retained. No marginal notes were to be included except to give suitable alternate readings or to cite parallel passages. Wherever Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, the Great Bible, or the Geneva Bible, were closer to the original text, these translations were to be followed." |
||||||
205 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25891 | ||
Fixed a bug on the introduction page of my study to Colossians 2:16 (for some reason I got clipped!); here's part of it: For those who might wish to skip the analysis altogether here's the real high points: 1) The words translated as "in meat and drinks" is not about unclean food or dietary laws. This is because there are simply no laws about unclean drinks. Also, the words translated as "in meat and drinks" should be translated as "in eating and drinking." Therefore, it is most likely that these words are about "feasting and fasting as the case may be." So, the believers in Colossae were being criticized about feasting on the days that follow; rather than fasting which the Gnostic ascetics alleged would bring them into a closer union, or communication, with God. 2) The words translated as "in respect of" mean "in portion of"; thus when we link the previous observation with this it is reinforced: the believers at Colossae were being criticized about feasting on the days that follow rather than fasting which the Gnostic ascetics alleged would bring them into a closer union, or communication, with God. It is amazing the number of people who can't seem to read the English translations correctly! The words "in respect of" tell you the days on which the believers were feasting and fasting. In their rush to condemn the seventh-day Sabbath far too many people (even some high-powered scholars among them!) have simply glossed over these very simple words. These words are one of the major keys to understanding these two verses. In effect, these words begin a parenthetical statement that could be dropped with no effect on the meaning of the verses. 3) The Greek word translated as "holyday" (heorte) in the KJV is never used in reference to the Feast of Trumpets or the Day of Atonement. If you wish to check the txts for yourself they are provided in Table 3.16 And both are ceremonial sabbath days. So, Paul would not be redundant to say "sabbath days" if he was trying to list all of the feast days of the Jewish religious economy. This is a crucial key to understanding the text. 4) In looking at the days that are mentioned in Col. 2:16 I believe that it is we as Westerners who would tend to assume that Paul is talking in terms of a calendrical progression: annual, monthly, weekly. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support this assumption. It is true that there is a relationship between the terms; but there is no evidence that it is basedsolely, and only, on the calendar. This idea is being read into the text. 5) Some sources incorrectly claim that the following OT texts exhibit the same, or exact, or identical, progression of terms: 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17 and Hos. 2:11. In fact, only the last two have the same sequence of terms. The verses are given in Table 1 along with notes about the relevant Hebrew words -- see if you can spot the pattern! In Table 2 are three more verses with differing sequences of terminology of worship days. 6) Another key to understanding what Paul meant by "sabbatwn" is given when Paul appears to refer to it as a "shadow" in vs. 17. When compared with the facts that a) the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted before sin and thus before any shadow was necessary and b) even in both accounts of the Law it is given as a memorial and not a shadow or type of something to come.17 Thus, it would be mis-leading, at best, to refer to the seventh-day Sabbath as a "shadow-sabbath." 18 The reasons just given alone, at a minimum, strongly imply that Paul is not talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in vs 16 but rather the ceremonial sabbaths. It has been interesting to note that virtually all of the critics of this study to date never seemed to have had read anything beyond this point! They seem to develop a real severe case of tunnel vision that prevents them from seeing any further. 7) A number of sources attempt to escape the implications of the present tense in vs 17a by changing it to a past tense! |
||||||
206 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25908 | ||
Tim, "I did some more research on 'heorte' and found that that the basic meaning is "appointed"." Where'd you find that out? I just double-checked it through the lexicon that comes with BibleWorks and the only two words it had were feast and festival. I'll see if there are some online lexicons. |
||||||
207 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25919 | ||
I have checked the following sources: 1) http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html Condensed Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon OR Thayer's Greek Lexicon 2) http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/ The New Testament Greek Lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; 3) http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon searching for appointed yields no results; appoint in ancient Greek finds one word: "prostasso"; in modern Greek: "diorizo" |
||||||
208 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25920 | ||
Ah,the point! The point is simple: The verse isn't saying what many people think it says. a) It isn't talking about dietary laws. And when today's scientists tell you that a vege diet is better for you and that just so happens to be what God laid out (plus fruit and nuts and grains) then why should I say that neither knows what they are talking about? b) The verse isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath either. It is talking about the believers being judged on their feasting and fast (as the case may be) on the days that then follow. Secondly, I just found out that my file had been clipped and so I fixed it. I shared part of what had been clipped assuming that others who are interested in studying the Bible would also be interested in what I found. Of course, we all know how dangerous it is to assume--but then agian, hope springs eternal, right? |
||||||
209 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25951 | ||
Tim, Okay. Yeah I already knew that the Hebrew word "mow'ed" means appointed time or season. Now compare how that word is used with how "chaq" is used. The Greek word "heorte" means feast or festival not appointed time/season |
||||||
210 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25960 | ||
Well, then we're in a bind Ed because I don't know how to make it any simpler. Maybe from my email feedback someone will give me a hint. | ||||||
211 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25970 | ||
Ah, now I see where you are at! First, a little thing about exegesis (I also have a small page at my web site where I list about 25 links to which one can go so one can learn how to do it) (in very broad terms here): you start with the grammatical and linguistic analysis, then you look at its context (literary and historical), then and only then do you move to application. So, in this case, I have a ways to go to get where you want to be. However, I can tell a few things based on what I have seen. 1) If your church is having potluck after church and someone comes in and says that if you are really serious about communing with God then you shouldn't be feasting, that instead you should be fasting then based on this verse I would say that you can safely ignore what they are saying. However, I have never seen this type of scenario in today's world. 2) The more likely scenario is that someone will tell you that in this verse Paul is saying that we don't have to follow the dietary laws or keep the Sabbath. Based on what Paul actually wrote we can now know that is not the correct interpretation of this verse--which makes me wonder about any other translation of any other verse that the person may then talk about--note the "contra" (source(s)) that I have in the footnotes to my study, these people are particularly suspect. 3) Paul is definitely not talking about "not celebrate sabbaths", but rather the believers at Colossae were being judged for _how_ they were celebrating. Since he wrote this between 57-62 A.D. that means that the believers at Colossae were celebrating the days without condemnation from Paul. So, does that mean we should doing it? I don't know; I have noted a number of people who think we should. |
||||||
212 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25980 | ||
Well, when you go to your doctor for your yearly physical and he tells you start eating decent ... ;) My grandfather went in and told him that after every breakfast he'd have these gas pains. So,the doctor asked what he had for breakfast. "Eggs, hash browns and pork sausage" Well, do away with the prok sausage" And presto the gas pains went away! Or, you watch the news and they tell you that too many Americans are overweight, they tell you about the rise of diabetes, they tell you about high cholestoral, how unheathy junk food is, etc., etc. doesn't all start to make sense that the manufacturer would tell you what not to eat? And after having worked a long hard grind at work isn't it nice to have a day off? And since there isn't a clear word that either the dietary laws or the Sabbath has been done away with (we know it isn't in Col. 2:16-17 at least) doesn't that mean that they are still in effect? The best I can do right now is from the negative angle. |
||||||
213 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 26009 | ||
Ed, I don't "dance" period! I refuse to be the "instant expert" type who spouts off. All I can tell you is what I found. My personal life is betrween me and God just as yours is between you and Him. He gave us a brain to use and I'll use mine the best I can. If you don't like it and have to attack me then that says more about you than me. |
||||||
214 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 26130 | ||
Thanks for your kind note Paul. What year are you in? Seminary or undergrad? Since you have to do a new study how about Gal. 4:10? |
||||||
215 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 27882 | ||
My apologies Ed, for not responding sooner. My computer completely died and so I'm re-installing my software, and of course, when it died it took all the links with it and I have been working 10-12 hour days 6 days a week at work. --- "I assumed that after your monomaniacal defense of “your” interpretation of Col. 2:16 you had some application/agenda to go with it." 1) ROFL! The last time I was described as "monomanical" was when I defended the traditional dating of Daniel! The Bible critic just could not face the facts and deal with them as they were so he had to engage in an ad homenium attack. He did it again when I showed that the Heb. word "'almah" in Isa. 7:14 meant virgin--of course, then I could point out that "mono" means one and I had just dealt with two so in reality I was a bimanic!!! With the work on my web page I'm up around 7--septmaniac? 2) It is unfortunate that you dealt with with people in past who had a agenda and so you assumed that I had one as well. Well, I hate to disappoint you but I don't--unless you count digging for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth an agenda. --- "All that effort for what? " See #2 above, last part. BTW, I now have almost 190 sources for my study. --- "If I’m mistaken, I then have misjudged you and what you were doing and if that be the case I’m very sorry." As I have noted before you are a bigger man than some give you credit for. It is really a pleasure to deal with someone who is polite for a change (Bible critics typically resort to swearing and personal when they are losing). |
||||||
216 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 27883 | ||
jensen, "You may know the technicalities of this verse so well that you have unlearned the clear teaching of most of the other verses." It would help a great deal of you supported your assertion with concrete examples. In fact, if you had actually read my study as some have done you would have noted that i did in fact interact and deal with other versees in the context of these two. In fact, they support what I am saying. --- " Anyone can have a web page and say anything, truth or fiction." That's mostly true--right up until the timne you try to make one. Also note how shallow the others are, note how many and what kinds and types of sources I give (most others seem to think that they are a type of mini-pope). |
||||||
217 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28268 | ||
Ed, I didn't say that you were losing at anything; please re-read what I wrote without prejudice. --- "... there are a few that say Daniel was written post historic rather than pre but no one takes them seriously." Actually, it is the norm of most scholars that Daniel was written late. And if you defended traditional Christian beliefs against the attacks of the Bible critics you would know how vocal and vociferous they can be. --- "So why should we take someone that defends against these jokers seriously?" Because if you do not defend tradititional Christian beliefs against the attacks of the critics then some souls will be lost because they will think that the critics are making valid and reasonable points. Jesus died to save sinners--so you should not call anyone any name at any time (Matt. 5:22) or if you do then you should stop calling youself a Christian, eh? --- "On the one point that people do care, should we worship on the Sabbath or Sunday, you say many things but do not state your belief." Why should you care what I believe? Am I the Pope or something? What does the Bible say? What did God say to do? |
||||||
218 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28271 | ||
"Just what is your point? Never mind. I already know that you do not have one :-D" 1) You assume too much. 2) Sarcasm is unbecoming of a Christian. |
||||||
219 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28335 | ||
It's the other way around. Try reading very carefully and learn. | ||||||
220 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28345 | ||
Well Ed, let's see how well you analyze things: "I have learned from you: You have a web site!" Yeah, one right! "You rather proud of your education." I have never said such a thing; see Hosea 4:6. "You are rather impressed with you scholarship." Nope, two wrong! "The leading and foremost Bible translators are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception as to the day of worship." Never said such a thing; three wrong. "Most if not all commentators either do a half baked job or simply use what was previously written on the subject." The amateur commentators do it in part. Note the number of lexical sources I use that contradict some of the commentators I do cite. Where the writers of the lexicons wrong? Am I wrong in noting what they say? Am I wrong in simply pointing out that some commentators are wrong? "Most Bible scholars of today are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception about which day we as Christians should worship." Never said that either, four wrong. Try reading the full study; perhaps you are trying to read too much into the litle posts here. "Most Christian denominations are wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception on what day to worship." Since we never even talked about various denominations this is really a totally mis-read. "Most “scholars” question the veracity of date the Bible implies as to when Daniel was written." See the study on the date of the book of Daniel; there are very many well-known scholars who say that the book was written in about 164 B.C.. "However my own experience shows most genuine theologians now agree Daniel was written at the time of Daniel’s experiences." "genuine"? How do you determine who is and who isn't? "Most theologians do not understand Greek as well as you." Never said that--five wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of the your 195 references." Nope, never said that either--six wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of you two years of your studying the meaning of Col. 2:16." Nope, never said that either--seven wrong. "That you can not or will not verbalize what it is you believe." I did, repeatedly: Col. 2:16-17 isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath. Anything about that is irrelevant as in I do not believe in child baptism, I do believe in the Trinty--now are you happy? "Nor will you reveal your religious affiliation." Who cares? How about: Reformed Druid? "You have a Web site." Repeat from above. Now, since we now know that you read way too much into stuff why don't you actually try reading the full study? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [14] >> |