Results 3581 - 3600 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3581 | Why would you include 1 John 5:7? | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98659 | ||
Greetings Ray, I would take issue with that statement. :-) Makarios |
||||||
3582 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98673 | ||
Greetings JustAnotherChristian! You have responded in the way that I thought that you would have, since I have encountered those before who think the way that you do. Let's look at Psalm 12:6-7.. My first question is, "Where does Psalm 12 say that the 'words of the LORD' refer to the King James Version of the Bible?" Of course, the verse does not. Secondly, nowhere does this passage tell us HOW God will preserve His words. Does this mean He will do so by ensuring that no one can ever change the substance of those words, or does it mean that He will always make sure that there is one infallible version in one or more languages or translations? The passage does not even begin to address such things concerning Bible versions, or one Bible version in particular, and there is NO WAY to support such a notion. As for Psalm 68:11, a more correct rendering would be: "The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host:" [NASB]. Morever, the 1584 Douay Old Testament, which PRECEDES the KJV, states, "The Lord shall give the word to them that preach good tidings with great power." [Psalm 68:11] In no way does Psalm 68:11 in the KJV support such a notion that God's Word is preserved for all time and to all people, or is inspired through the KJV. In fact, the KJV rendering is entirely misleading in its context, which is another excellent example for a need of revision. Let's see some more! :-) In the meantime, here's something for you to ponder: Does a Russian or Spaniard have to learn English to read the true Word of God?? Makarios |
||||||
3583 | KJV "inspired"?? | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98708 | ||
Greetings JustAnotherChristian, I know EXACTLY what the KJV translators wrote in their Preface! :-) In fact, I can post it in its entirety to this Forum. You would be surprised to read what it says for yourself, and what the KJV translators THEMSELVES say about their OWN translation! :) Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3584 | KJV "inspired"?? | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98795 | ||
Quote taken from the Authorized Version 1611 Preface.. "TRANSLATION NECESSARY "But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand: How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? As it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many), so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue barbarous, though Pope Nicholas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed." |
||||||
3585 | KJV "inspired"?? | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98797 | ||
I have it already, but it's way too large to include at this Forum in its entirety.. | ||||||
3586 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98798 | ||
Excellent insight, my friend! | ||||||
3587 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98800 | ||
JustAnotherChristian, You know, your arguments would have a lot in common with those who vociferously fought against the KJV in favor of the Latin Vulgate. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3588 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98801 | ||
JustAnotherChristian, The "faith of Abraham", as you state it, has absolutely nothing to do with the KJV. Also, we have many other verses besides 1 John 5:7 that prove that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine: Matt. 3:16, Matt. 28:19, Luke 3:22, John 3:34-35, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7, John 16:13-15, Acts 1:2, 1:4-5, Acts 2:33, Acts 10:36-38, Romans 1:3-4, 8:9-11, 8:26-27, 1 Cor. 12:3-6, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, 2 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 13:14, Galatians 4:4,6, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Thess. 2:16, 1 Tim. 3:16, Titus 3:4-6, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 1:2, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 5:6-7 Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3589 | WILL YOU ADD TO, TAKE AWAY FROM, OR LEAV | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98806 | ||
Very true, very true! :-) | ||||||
3590 | Where did evil come from? | 1 John 5:19 | Makarios | 110781 | ||
Amen, Colin! | ||||||
3591 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10822 | ||
Steve, I appreciate your answer, however 'weird' it may get.. :) It is not disputed that John himself is, in fact, the author, describing himself as "The Elder" in 2 John 1, and most of the "experts" seem to think that he wrote this in Ephesus, shortly after 1 John, but none of them agree on the date.. :) MacArthur's Study Bible goes out 'on a limb' and says that the 'lady' is a woman who was well known to John. Zondervan's NIV Study Bible doesn't state which, and neither does Ryrie. Nelson's Study Bible leans towards saying that 'lady' means church.. Oxford's Annotated RSV states that it is a church! So the "experts" don't agree on this either.. My opinion? I honestly do not know, and I ask the question if any of the 2,200 members of this Forum has any decisive 'evidence' for this question.. Thank you, Nolan |
||||||
3592 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10870 | ||
Dear JVH0212, I sincerely apologize. In no way did I mean to offend, demean, or put down in any way, shape, or form, the people who have made all these resources that I keep referring to possible. I did not mean to put them in a 'negative' light and I do apologize. I only meant to show the 'discrepancy' of agreement amongst the 'collective reasoning' of these resources that concern this particular passage of scripture. I meant no harm by calling these distinguished gentlemen and women as 'experts', and I hope that no personal offence was taken in regards to you, my friend. As for me, I will continue to keep referring to them as the Forum continues to allow a person such as myself to continue to log onto it. Nolan |
||||||
3593 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10888 | ||
Interesting idea, EdB, and one that I have never even remotely considered before.. :) Nolan |
||||||
3594 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10895 | ||
Yes, my friend, Yes, this is cleared up, my dear brother! I was hoping that I did not cause any offence towards you in the least bit, my brother, and that is what I was most concerned about. You know that I would go to great lengths to avoid even coming near to offending you, and you have reassured me that I haven't done so here. I love you dearly, and you know that! I only have peace and admiration when it concerns you, my friend! Your encourager, Nolan! |
||||||
3595 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10901 | ||
EdB, You really have no business mocking me here, Ed. My intentions here were made plain and clear. Don't provoke it any further. Nolan |
||||||
3596 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | Makarios | 10904 | ||
Ok, EdB, I apologize and will forget about it. This was a misunderstanding on my part and I apologize for assuming that you were 'mocking' my apology to John. | ||||||
3597 | Diotrephes a church dictator? | 3 John | Makarios | 10852 | ||
I appreciate such a detailed answer again, Steve! :) Your situation with your church sounds interesting, but tragic. We can only pray that the people will actually READ their Bibles and begin to discern the truth about all the lies that had been fed to them through the preacher/dictator that you mentioned. It is amazing that he refused to step down, even without the support of the church! Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
3598 | The cannonization of Jude | Jude | Makarios | 9519 | ||
It was mostly the Aramaic speaking Mid-Eastern churches that did not accept the book of Jude as cannon. Jude was rejected on the grounds that it quoted the book of Enoch in Jude 1:4-5 (which matches Enoch 1:9 word-for-word) and they felt like cannonizing Jude meant they had to accept the book of Enoch as canon as well, which traditionally was not included. Jude also quotes from a book called "The Assumption of Moses" which is also called the Testament of Moses in Jude 1:9, which says "even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!". However, the Tanak references many non-biblical writings that were not accepted as canon, but it only references the fact they exist by alluding to their content, but never quotes them directly as a source like Jude did. Books referenced by the Bible, but not included in the Bible, are... Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7) Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14) Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18) The Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Samuel 10:25, 1 Chr 29:29) Book of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chr 9:29) Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41) The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29); Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chr 12:15) The Book of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr. 9:29) Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29); Acts of Abijah/Story of Prophet Iddo (2 Chr 13:22) The Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22); Book of Jehu (2 Chr 20:34) Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (?) (2 Chr 33:19) Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14) Another apocryphal work is quoted in Jude, but not mentioned by name. May be "The Assumption of Moses". This writing records an account of a dispute between Michael the archangel and satan on the body of Moses. (Jude 1:9) a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); a missing epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16); Eventually, this list helped bring acceptance to the book of Jude. In the end, most parts of the world accepted all 27 books of the NT based on authorship - anything authored by the first 12 apostles, or under their authority was accepted. Anything not was rejected. Mark was Peter's interpreter, so it was presumed that the gospel of Mark had Peter's approval. Paul was accepted as an apostle based on Peter's comments as such in 1st or 2nd Peter, Luke's comments, and Paul's own comments. The writings of Luke (Luke and Acts) were accepted under Paul's authority as an apostle, in that he was part of Paul's ministry. This is why the latter part of Acts focuses on Paul more than any of the other apostles. There were other writings of early believers and even other gospels from people during the first century, but they were not included in scripture based on the fact that they were not written either by apostles or men under an apostle's ministry. |
||||||
3599 | "Preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." | Jude 1:1 | Makarios | 7649 | ||
'Preserved' (Jude 1:1) Oxford Annotated RSV.. "God has 'called' the Christians, shown them His love, and keeps them for the coming of Jesus Christ." Zondervan's NASB Study Bible.. "'kept for Jesus Christ.' He who holds the whole universe together (see Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) will see that God's children are kept in the faith and that they reach their eternal inheritance (see John 6:37-40; 17:11-12; 1 Peter 1:3-5)." Ryrie's Study Bible says, "Jude addresses the called; i.e., all Christians who have been called to a knowledge of God through Christ. They are beloved in God and kept for Jesus Christ at His second coming." Nelson's NKJV Study Bible states, "'called': This is the primary description of Jude's readers: They had been chosen by God to represent Him in this world." MacArthur's NKJV Study Bible comments, "'called.' As always in the epistles, this refers not to a general invitation to salvation, but to God's irresistible, elective call to salvation (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:23,24; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:13,14). This call yields: 1) fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9); 2) peace (1 Cor. 7:15); 3) freedom (Gal. 5:13); 4) a worthy walk (Eph. 4:1); 5) hope (Eph. 4:4); 6) holiness (1 Peter 1:15); 7)blessing (1 Peter 3:9); and 8) eternal glory (1 Peter 5:10). Cf. "grace of our God" (v.4)." ... "'preserved'. See note on v. 24. God not only initiates salvation but He also completes it through Christ, thus preserving or keeping the believer secure for eternal life (cf. John 6:37-44; 10:28-30; 17:11,15; Rom. 8:31-39; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 7:25; 9:24; 1 Peter 1:3-5)." ... Note on verse 24.. "The power of Christ would sustain the sincere believer from falling to the temptation of apostacy (cf. Job 42:2; Psalm 37:23,24; 121:3; Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37; John 6:39,40,44; 10:27-30; Eph. 3:20)." |
||||||
3600 | Why the dispute? | Jude 1:9 | Makarios | 9087 | ||
Steve, We do know that God 'intervened' in this situation (Jude 1:9) through the archangel Michael, and God prevailed over Satan in this situation, since only He knows where Moses was buried. As I have stated in a former post, we do not know the magnitude or full scope of this situation, since Satan's motives are not given and there is very little detail here, except for the fact that Michael didn't dare to even slander Satan, being the chief prince of evil. The "experts" do their best and I have found their reasoning much more sound than mine own in myriad occasions while studying the Bible, Steve! And I will continue to consult them and to offer their 'sound' interpretations to the Forum- some "experts" of which are Presidents of Seminaries and spent many years and many hours of each week studying the Bible.. The credentials of these 'experts' speak for themselves and sure beat any 'credentials' that I, myself, could possibly offer to anyone.. So their interpretations not only command our acknowledgement, but our limited understandings would gain a great boost if we actually agreed with these 'experts' from time to time! I'm not saying that they are always right, but the commentary and guidance of these experts has been formulated and created by people who have levels of specialization that far exceed or outway anything that you or I have achieved. Therefore, we would be 'wise' to consult them and at least listen to them before dismissing them for a 'wild' scheme or speculation, since the 'weight' of the argument of the 'experts' is usually far greater then the 'weight' of speculation. Nolan |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 ] Next > Last [185] >> |