Results 81 - 100 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Informed opinions of the ESV please? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 98087 | ||
Greetings Ed, I'm right there with you, my friend. I won't buy another NIV, or a NIVI, NIVr, TNIV. I am completely boycotting anything from Zondervan/IBS. I already have more than what I need with the NASB and ESV, and the HCSB coming out next year and the NKJV. So I can very easily live without the NIV, and I will. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
82 | Informed opinions of the ESV please? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 98119 | ||
May the Lord continue to bless your efforts, and spread His wisdom whereever His word is found! Makarios |
||||||
83 | Informed opinions of the ESV please? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 98203 | ||
Thank you, my friend! May the Lord forever be praised! Your Brother in Christ, Makarios |
||||||
84 | Is the KJV Only position wrong? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99785 | ||
Greetings Dairy Leader 5, I tried that above link (http://wwww.geocities.com/bible/translations), and the link was not found. - Makarios |
||||||
85 | Is the KJV Only position wrong? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99790 | ||
DL5, That link is working - http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/ - Makarios |
||||||
86 | Endorsing the TNIV, how can this be? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99978 | ||
Greetings Justme! I honestly do not see how anyone could view the TNIV as an improvement over the text of the original NIV.. That completely baffles me! Perhaps some are just enamored with dynamic equivalence to any extent! It amazes me that there is even a market for Bible versions that are so "free"... But some hold it as their preference, I suppose, to have a translation that reads like a sports magazine rather than the Book of Books!! I, for one, am not willing to concede away any reverence at all for Bible translation, and in how it should be presented- in nothing short of Holiness and Authority. The greatest thing about reading the NASB is that you get the impression that you are delving deeply into God's Word, really studying it on a level that is much closer than could be achieved with dynamic equivalence. You come to believe that the words on the page are arranged as you would arrange them, and are placed in the way that would seem the best way in light of the original languages, or you get the impression that it is closer to those languages than any other translation. And that is the single trait of the NASB that draws me to it the most! Yes, the wording may be awkward here or there, or seem 'stilted,' even in passages that I love the most, like Isaiah 53:6. But, even so, there are reasons why the form is presented in those ways! There are reasons behind what seems as the awkward presentation of the text. And such presentation demands deeper study from its readers, causing you to come to an understanding of why the words were put there in that way. The NASB helps me in this way, being in my mind the single translation that has been able to further my study of the Word moreso than any Bible translation yet.. However, the "personality" of the NASB is not in majesty, like the King James, but moreso a humility that is not found in other translations. The KJV alone is such a majestic beauty of translation, that no other translation can come close to it, and all those that attempt to "improve" on its personality are mere copies, mere 'pretenders' to the one that simply is. Every translation is unique, having its own "personality" and way of carrying over the meaning of the text. For me, the NASB carries over a 'personality' that is very well suited to my tastes and demanding precision in study, moreso than any other translation. The original NIV, for me, is the translation of the "common".. :-) The KJV is the Majestic "royal highness" of all translations, flowing in blue and purple robes.. :-) The ESV is a like the ark made out of gopher wood and pitch (Gen. 6:14), carrying forth the gist (essential pieces) of a passage with vigor.. The Amplified Bible is just that- AMPLIFIED.. :-) The RSV is much like the ESV, but a shade colder- lacking in spirit and majesty. The HCSB (New Testament, anyway) is like a breath of fresh air that is warm to the spirit, but at the same time fleeting, difficult to dwell on for a great length of time.. The NKJV at times peaks the curiousity and brandishes the Truth in its eloquence; but yet, other times makes you question whether or not an English sentence should be chopped up in such ways! And then there is the NASB, that is not "flashy" or eloquent at times by any means (that clearly not being its goal), but trips you up when, perhaps you really should be tripped up to understand a particular passage, and is flowing where you have read so many other times before! :-) Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
87 | Something to read | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101368 | ||
Excellent verses, Shalor! Isaiah 55:7, the verse before Isaiah 55:8-9, says, "Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the LORD, and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon." Isaiah speaks volumes! :-) Makarios |
||||||
88 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101794 | ||
Greetings Taleb, Please provide Scripture references of where Junias, Andronicus, Barnabas, Timothy, Epaphroditus and Silas are explicitly described as "apostles." Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
89 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101797 | ||
Greetings Taleb, Please provide Scripture references of where Junias, Andronicus, Barnabas, Timothy, Epaphroditus and Silas are explicitly described as "apostles." Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
90 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101922 | ||
Greetings Taleb and Tim Moran! Whew! What a day.. :-) Tim Moran: To bring you "up to date", I cited a reference from one of Ron Rhodes' books about "Apostles", and Taleb asked what about some other so called "apostles".. Since I was lazy, I asked Taleb if he had any Scripture references for those other "apostles." :-) Taleb: I apologize for the wait in getting back with you.. By no means am I "inflexible" on this issue, and I hope that you didn't take my post as such. I was simply asking for the Scripture references for those other "apostles" that you mentioned.. Now, let's look at it... Acts 14:14 "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out.." Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Yes, Scripture states that Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus were "apostles." So, Taleb, you are absolutely right, and I was wrong in my first post in saying that there were only 12. Now, I have to re-define what I wrote regarding what is meant by "apostle", and how an "apostle" is distinguished from a regular disciple of Christ, since we have no Scriptural record of Christ appearing to Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias or Epaphroditus, even though Scripture clearly refers to them as apostles also. I also agree that Timothy and Silas are not mentioned as "apostles" in Scripture. So, therefore, that is where I suggest we draw the line: that if a person is not explicitly described as an "apostle" in Scripture, then they did not hold that office. After reading 2 Cor. 8:23, I believe that this passage is much too vague to lend apostleship to Timothy.. With 2 books written from Paul to Timothy alone, you would think that there would at least be another verse or two that would confirm Timothy's apostleship if he actually held that office. So therefore, in my 4 points in my first post, we have to completely throw out point #1, since it is obvious that apostleship extends beyond the original Twelve. As for point #2, the "revelation" spoken of would then extend to Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus, since they are also considered as apostles. I have always believed that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, so I have no problem with extending this point to those who are specified as "apostles" in Scripture. But as for points #3 and #4, I believe that they still hold true, since the apostles were especially commissioned as such in order to 'lay down the foundation' for the church (point #3). Therefore, if we hold to this point, then there can be no "apostles" of the church today, since the foundation of the church has already been laid. As for point #4, that point would also hold true for all of the apostles (Barnabas, etc. included), since through them alone would there be miraculous signs performed. In that sense, we can only understand Revelation 21:14 in a sense that the verse would be referring to the original Twelve apostles, and not the other apostles that are seen in the rest of the New Testament, which I personally find a bit "odd." I do not believe that an apostle is the same office as that of the missionary. Interesting material! Blessings to you both, Makarios |
||||||
91 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101923 | ||
Greetings Taleb, I agree, Scripture does mention Epaphroditus, Barnabas, Junias and Andronicus as apostles.. You are absolutely right, and I was wrong in my first post. Now, let's look at Silas and Timothy.. Tim Moran mentioned a vague reference for Timothy in 2 Corinthians, which I believe does not have enough weight, in and of itself, to lead us to believe that Timothy was also an apostle, but let us look at the other verses that you have come up with before making a final verdict on the matter.. As for 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6, I agree that the book was written to Christians from Paul, Silas and Timothy, but I am not so sure that 2:6 is "concrete" evidence for the apostleship of Timothy and Silas, even though we know that Paul was indeed an apostle. Therefore, I need a little more "solid" Scriptural evidence that speaks more directly about Silas and Timothy to convince me that those two were also designated as "apostles" in Scripture. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
92 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102045 | ||
Greetings Tim, You have a very interesting view on the word "apostle" that does work, at least, even though it seems a bit strange to retain the word "apostle" for those who are 'sent' today.. I guess we could say little "a" and bit "A", or something of that consequence.. I'm sure Ray would enjoy that. :-) Interesting stuff! Perhaps I could just drive over there to Evansville and you could show me in person.. :-) Between you and I, I would say that we represent the Hoosier state very well at this Forum! Blessings to you dear Brother, Makarios |
||||||
93 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102046 | ||
Greetings Tim! Sorry, my mistake! You are right, it was the reference to Titus as an 'apostle' in 2 Corinthians, not Timothy. Makarios |
||||||
94 | Please I'm looking for your opinion! | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102224 | ||
Amen, EdB! | ||||||
95 | Please I'm looking for your opinion! | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102226 | ||
EdB, I agree with Tim, most excellent post! And a verse that I would add is: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." James 5:16 [ESV] Blessings to you dear Brother, Makarios |
||||||
96 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102232 | ||
Greetings Mommapbs! No, your question is not "too" controversial! Contrary to what many believe, it is "OK" for Christians to have questions and doubts, which are answered by studying His Word. Philippians 2:5-8 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!" [NIV] I believe that Christ did not give up any of His attributes. His "making Himself nothing" ultimately boils down to 3 things: 1. A 'veiling' of His preincarnate glory 2. A voluntary nonuse of some of His divine attributes 3. Taking on the 'appearance' of a man 1. I believe that part of "making Himself nothing" involved veiling the glory that is His for all eternity as God, which would be necessary if He were to take on the appearance of a man. Christ never surrendered His glory (note the Transfiguration), but He simply veiled His glory so that He could dwell among His creation, "appearing" as one of His created beings to His creation, even though He was the Creator Himself. :-) If He had not chosen to veil His glory, then human beings would not have been able to associate with Him! Everyone would have been like John the Apostle in Revelation 1:17, or like Isaiah in Isaiah 6:5 (see also John 12:41) in relation to Him. 2. I believe that Christ voluntarily did not use some of His divine attributes on some occasions, so that He could accomplish everything that He came to do. I don't believe that He ever could have actually surrendered any of His attributes, since He would then have ceased to be God. But He did voluntarily choose not to use some of His attributes as the Son of God so that He could live amongst us humans and our limitations during His time here on earth. However, He DID use His divine attributes of omniscience (John 2:24; 16:30), omnipresence (John 1:48), and omnipotence (one example - John 11). So, in whatever limitations that Christ may have had to endure when he 'made Himself nothing', He did not subtract a single divine attribute, or in any way make Himself less than God. 3. Third, Christ "took on the appearance of a man", literally looking like a man, taking up residence inside a body that grew from an infant to full grown adult, and being 'truly' human. And this humanity was also subject to temptation, distress, weakness, pain, sorrow and limitation. However, He was "made in human likeness": even though He was similar to humans, He was still different from us. Though His humanity was genuine, He was different from everyone else in that He had something that you and I don't have- He was perfectly sinless. But even though He was not sinless, He still "made Himself nothing" in a sense that He had to take on our likeness, which was a great condescension on His part. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
97 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102234 | ||
Greetings again, Mommapbs, As for Matthew 24:26 in relation to Jesus and His omniscience, I believe that it was His choice not to reveal to us whether or not He knew of the date or hour, since that was not His focus in His First Advent. It is always possible that He could have known and revealed to us the exact date and time of His Second Advent, but He explicitly chose not to reveal to us what our limited minds and limited viewpoints could not accept. We weren't ready to know that information at that time, and we still are not ready to know or handle that information. He gave to us what we essentially need, and that only, even though He admonished us to ask for everything else in prayer. Could He have known the date and time on the calendar (which, as it turns out, would be turned upside down all over the world by His First Advent) for His Second Advent? Yes! Would He have told us? No! :-) And for good reason! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
98 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102245 | ||
You are most welcome, my friend! All praise and glory to the Lord! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
99 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102247 | ||
I apologize, Mommapbs, Here is a revision of my 2nd post to you.. "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Matthew 24:36 [ESV] As for Matthew 24:36 in relation to Jesus and His omniscience, I believe that it was His choice not to reveal to us whether or not He knew of the date or hour, since that was not His focus in His First Advent. It is always possible that He could have known and revealed to us the exact date and time of His Second Advent, but He explicitly chose not to reveal to us what our limited minds and limited viewpoints could not accept. We weren't ready to know that information at that time, and we still are not ready to know or handle that information. He gave to us what we essentially need, and that only, even though He admonished us to ask for everything else in prayer. I believe that perhaps this may be yet another way in which "he made Himself nothing", by carefully choosing when and where He used His divine attribute of omniscience. Could He have known the date and time on the calendar (which, as it turns out, would be turned upside down all over the world by His First Advent) for His Second Advent? Yes! Would He have told us? No! :-) And for good reason! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
100 | Are we supposed to observe the Sabbath? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 103553 | ||
Greetings Kathy, The almost universal observance of a seven-day "week" is one of those habits so ingrained in man that most of us don't stop to realize how remarkable it is. The month and the year have an obvious basis, in astronomy, but this is not true of the week. The seven-day week was not simply adopted in the Western world because of the Christian Scriptures, as is obvious from the fact that the days of the week all have pagan names. Although not all nations have observed a seven-day week, the practice existed long before the Jewish nation was formed and the Ten Commandments were given. The only really satisfactory explanation for this very ancient and almost worldwide custom is found in Genesis 2:1-3. God Himself established the sabbath as a rest day commemorating creation! "Thus, the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." [KJV] God ordained in the beginning that one day out of seven should be observed as a day of rest and worship. When God established Israel as a covenant nation, and gave the Ten Commandments, the fourth of those divine laws was: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: ... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11, KJV). Therefore, from the very beginning the seventh day was set aside by God as a day of commemorating the completed creation, and of fellowship with its Creator. If people needed such a day in the Garden of Eden, we certainly need it much more now in our fallen condition. As Jesus said: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27, KJV). Observance of the sabbath day was especially important for the people of Israel, so important, in fact, that breaking this law was punishable by death (note Numbers 15:32-35). Later, as Israel fell into deep apostasy, their desecration of the sabbath was a basic cause of God's judgment upon the nation: "If ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, ... then will I kindle a fire in the gates hereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" (Jeremiah 17:27). "What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?" Nehemiah said to those that had returned to Jerusalem from their exile: "Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath" (Nehemiah 13:17,18). Although the sabbath was a day of rest, it was not intended as a day of lethargy, but rather of worship and study of the Scriptures. A time of such spiritual refreshment is really the most satisfying and fruitful way to rest from one's daily labor. Christians today are no different in this respect. In fact, human nature is such that we need the sabbath day. It was made for man. He must spend at least one day in seven in rest from his job and in spiritual renewal, or he will inevitably deteriorate both spiritually and physically, sooner or later. It is significant that every one of the Ten Commandments is repeated at one place or another in the New Testament and is stressed as applicable in the Christian's life. Christ has fulfilled the Law and redeemed us from its curse (Galatians 3:13), but it is still "holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7:12). The sabbath and its fulfillment in Christ is discussed in Hebrews 4:1-10, and it specifically says "there remaineth therefore a rest (literally 'keeping of a sabbath') to the people of God" (Hebrews 4:9). The new sabbath of which the Scripture speaks here is a more meaningful sabbath than that of the Jews, because now it commemorates not only the completion of God's work in creation but also the completion of His work of salvation! The Christian's sabbath, therefore, is pre-eminently a time of rejoicing in the work of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is still a rest day, but it also is the Lord's Day! (continued) - Makarios |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [185] >> |