Results 4041 - 4060 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4041 | where has this verse gone | 1 John 5:7 | kalos | 3447 | ||
The changes in the Scofield Reference Bible may not have come about until recently. But the fact is: this verse has no manuscript authority and has been inserted. It had no manuscript authority in 100 A.D. It had no manuscript authority when Erasmus translated the NT. It had no manuscript authority at the time of the Reformation. It has none today. In short, this verse never did, does not now, and never will have any manuscript authority, regardless of which edition of the Scofield reports that fact. | ||||||
4042 | Evidence against authenticity 1 John 5:7 | 1 John 5:7 | kalos | 29842 | ||
1 John 5:7 "How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek mss and yet goes back to the original text?" (Note: In the Amplified Bible "Italics point out: 1. certain familiar passages now recognized as not adequately supported by the original manuscripts" (The Amplified Bible)). New English Translation (NET Bible) 1 John (5:7) For there are three that testify, (5:8) the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement. '(“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). 'This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647-49. 'Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500’s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. 'Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. 'The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. 'He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. 'Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR equals the original text.) 'In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek mss and yet goes back to the original text? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. 'Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others' (Translators' Note, NET Bible). (www.bible.org/index.htm) |
||||||
4043 | What is the AKJV? | 1 John 5:7 | kalos | 152912 | ||
NASB John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." AMPLIFIED John 3:36 And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God's displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.] [Hab. 2:4.] |
||||||
4044 | Sin Not Leading To Death | 1 John 5:16 | kalos | 178545 | ||
If anyone sees his brother [believer] committing a sin that does not [lead to] death (the extinguishing of life), he will pray and [God] will give him life [yes, He will grant life to all those whose sin is not one leading to death]. There is a sin [that leads] to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 1 John 5:16 Amplified New Testament *sin not leading to death* (NASB). "Believers can sin to the point where physical death results as the judgment of God (compare 1 Cor 11:30). The Greek reads *sin*, not *a sin*, in vv. 16 and 17" (p. 1885, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody, 1976, 1978). the *sin leading to death.* "Such a sin could be any premeditated and unconfessed sin that causes the Lord to determine to end a believer's life. It is not one particular sin like homosexuality or lying, but whatever sin is the final one in the tolerance of God. Failure to repent of and forsake sin may eventually lead to physical death as a judgment of God (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 5:5; 11:30)" (p. 1974, MacArthur Study Bible, Word 1997). What is God's purpose in such a judgment? 1 Cor 5:5 (Amplified New Testament) "You are to deliver this man over to Satan for physical discipline...that [his] spirit may [yet] be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." |
||||||
4045 | What is the sin unto death (1 John 5:16) | 1 John 5:16 | kalos | 178553 | ||
What is the sin unto death (1 John 5:16) ‘1 John 5:16 is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament. Of all the interpretations out there, I have not found one that seems to answer all the questions concerning this verse. The best interpretation I have found is comparing this verse to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10 (see also 1 Corinthians 11:30). The “sin unto death” is deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin. God, in His grace, allows His children to sin without immediately punishing them. However, there comes a point when God will no longer allow a believer to continue in unrepentant sin. When this point is reached, God sometimes decides to punish a Christian, even to the point of taking his or her life. ‘That is what He did in Acts 5:1-10, and 1 Corinthians 11:28-32. This is perhaps what Paul described to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. We are to pray for Christians who are sinning. However, there may come a time when God will no longer hear prayers for a sinning believer for whom He has determined that judgment is due. It is difficult to realize that there are times when it is just too late to pray for a person. God is good and just, we will just have to let Him decide when it is too late and trust His judgment.’ Recommended Resource: Bible Answers for Almost all Your Questions by Elmer Towns. Related Topics: How can I know if something is a sin? What is the unpardonable sin / unforgivable sin? Did we all inherit sin from Adam and Eve? What is original sin? What are the seven deadly sins? ____________________ Source: www.gotquestions.org/sin-unto-death.html |
||||||
4046 | What is the sin unto death (1 John 5:16) | 1 John 5:16 | kalos | 178589 | ||
Everything you wrote in your post (ID# 178572) is correct except for the following: "Mark 3:29 is the scripture you are looking for." Had you read my post before you replied to it you would know that Mark 3:29 is not the Scripture I am looking for. Mark 3:29 has nothing whatever to do with either the question or the answer. And where in my post does it say I am looking for a verse? |
||||||
4047 | Sin Not Leading To Death | 1 John 5:16 | kalos | 178590 | ||
The "sin unto death" and the unpardonable sin are not one and the same thing. They are two very different things. The sin unto death has to do with believers. The unpardonable sin has to do with people who are not, were not, and never will be believers. | ||||||
4048 | Sin Not Leading To Death | 1 John 5:16 | kalos | 178616 | ||
Losing the respect of the one with whom you are debating 'Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages. It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. If anyone proves you wrong in something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes mistakes. There is nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the respect of the one with whom you are debating.' Source: www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm |
||||||
4049 | exodus 20:4 should v keep idols | 1 John 5:21 | kalos | 44479 | ||
JdthCstl: You write: "I think what God meant was that we should not worship the flesh." Why must you always tamper with the Bible and make a riddle of it? You think? Listen! What God meant is exactly what He said. You don't need to spiritualize it or turn everything into a symbol for something else. When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it be nonsense. Here is what God SAYS and MEANS in plain language: Amplified Ex 20:3 You shall have no other gods before or besides Me. Ex 20:4 You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Ex 20:5 You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; New Living Translation Ex 20:3 "Do not worship any other gods besides me. 20:4 "Do not make idols of any kind, whether in the shape of birds or animals or fish. 20:5 You must never worship or bow down to them, |
||||||
4050 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 10866 | ||
To Whom It May Concern: Perhaps we ought not consult the "experts" anymore. The fact that some have spent as much as 30 hours a week for THIRTY YEARS studying the Bible IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES apparently means nothing. A far better approach might be to read a Bible verse and whatever comes to mind first *must* be the right interpretation. In short, maybe those who devote months, years and decades studying the Bible are just wasting their time. Instead of consulting the so-called "experts", perhaps we should ask: 1) The guy at the next desk at work; 2) The next guy on the assembly line; 3) A muslim preacher; 4) The neighborhood atheist; 5) The neighborhood agnostic; 6) The person who just got saved yesterday; 7) The subliterate; 8) The illiterate; 9) Jack T. Chick 10) Your local Lone Ranger self-appointed Internet Bible expert. (Note: I know and have stated many, many times that: No man is infallible. Only the Bible is infallible (inerrant) and only in the original writings.) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
4051 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 10885 | ||
Nolan: When I wrote "To Whom It May Concern," I never for a second had you in mind. I know that you respect and quote recognized Bible scholars. Your apology is accepted, although it is entirely unnecessary. And I agree with you that the experts don't always agree with each other. This in itself ought to prove there is no "conspiracy" among the scholars to defraud or deceive the reading public. You indeed gave no personal offense or any other kind of offense. I was never offended at what you said, Nolan. :-) I also will continue to keep quoting Bible scholars on the Forum. I never intended to stop doing so. Hope this clears everything up. If not, write or chat me and I'll clarify, if need be. Blessings upon you. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
4052 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 10889 | ||
EdB: No, your posting will not make me go ballistic. :-) Why? Because I have too much genuine respect for you and I know that you are an honest-hearted Christian man. Agreeing with me has never been a requirement for friendship. :-) Grace to you, my brother in the Lord! --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
4053 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 10954 | ||
I give up. I'll just drop the subject. By the way, the next time you are sick or in trouble, stay away from a licensed physician or a lawyer who is a member of the bar. Just read a book on surgery, contract law, or whatever. What need do we have of experts in any field? And don't forget to send your kids to a school where all the teachers are unlicensed college drop-outs. Let's be consistent. Maybe an angel will appear to you in a vision and show you how to remove an appendix. Maybe he will lay hands on you and impart the training and experience you would need to argue a case in court. Maybe if your kids or grandkids stayed at home, alone in their rooms with nothing but their textbooks, they would figure out everything for themselves. Whatever. |
||||||
4054 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 11006 | ||
Hank: Do you mean to tell me that the best way is not to read a verse and assume that the first interpretation of it that comes to mind must be THE RIGHT ONE? :-) Thank you for a fine posting, one that is intelligent, reasonable and filled with common sense. To expand on the subject a bit, it seems to me that to belittle and ignore teachers such as you and I have named is to deny the truth of Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit gives gifts to men and then Christ gives those gifted men to the church for its edification. One category of gifted men that Christ Himself gives to the church is teachers. Many of these teachers have written books. Again, to whom it may concern, this is NOT rocket science. A little common sense, please. Also it is interesting to note: There is a consensus among prominent evangelical teachers and authors regarding the essentials of the faith. The fact of their consensus demonstrates that each teacher is not off on another planet of their own making. The fact that they don't agree on every last verse in the Bible ought to be sufficient to show that there is no "conspiracy" among them to defraud and deceive. The argument that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the 15th Century were the experts of the day and were wrong is the poorest argument I've ever heard to ignore all Christian teachers. One might as well say that since the Pharisees had strayed from the truth of the Bible (2,000 years ago), then to be on the safe side we ought never again trust any Bible teacher. Or as you yourself (I think it was) once said, if we don't need men to interpet the Scriptures (which happens every time someone delivers a sermon), then why did Jesus commission the disciples to "go" into all the world? Wouldn't it have been equally effective and more efficient to just mail out copies of the Bible all over the world and let the unevangelized figure out the plan of salvation on their own? Alas, you and I waste our time presenting these truths. If one has some kind of psychological hang-up or childhood trauma in regard to "experts", then they will never change their mind though the apostles or an angel from heaven tries to explain it to them. (Of course, the apostles and angels are just so many "experts," so what do they know? After all, they're all in cahoots with each other?) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
4055 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 11111 | ||
In this post I wish to clarify and expand upon my earlier comments. I want to go on record as being in agreement with our respected fellow Forum member, Steve Butler. I agree with Steve Butler when he says the experts should not be our source as soon as we read a passage. One of my favorite Bible scholars and teachers on the radio always encourages people to equip themselves with the necessary methods and principles of rightly interpreting the Word of God for themselves. He urges people to read and study the Bible first to determine what it means on their own. This teacher especially recommends about a dozen books that are basic Bible study tools. But he never encourages people to read the books first or as a substitute for reading the Word of God itself. I agree with him and with Steve. It is healthy and appropriate for us as believers to search the Scriptures for ourselves. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
4056 | Did God create evil? | 3 John 1:11 | kalos | 5341 | ||
Morant61: You are to be commended. You hit the nail on the head and got right to the heart of this question when you wrote: Evil is not a thing that can be created. "Evil originates not from God but from the fallen creature. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote, "'It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created.'" For further study see: Jay Adams, The Grand Demonstration (Santa Barbara CA: Eastgate,1991). Copyright 2000 Grace to You |
||||||
4057 | The cannonization of Jude | Jude | kalos | 9617 | ||
Can you cite any source(s) to prove your assertion that 5 books of the New Testament were not accepted into the cannon of scripture? Apparently they were accepted, because they are now included and have been for centuries. I am not saying your information is incorrect. I merely ask can you cite references to books or journal articles to back up your assertion? If so, please give us the references here on the forum. Anyone with a keyboard can make generalizations, assumptions and assertions, but where is the scholarly support for the idea that these 5 books were not included in the cannon of scripture? |
||||||
4058 | "Preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." | Jude 1:1 | kalos | 5086 | ||
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: "preserved "Assurance is the believer's full conviction that, through the work of Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture promises to him who believes." Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Jude 1". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ 1917. |
||||||
4059 | What do we believe? | Jude 1:3 | kalos | 117124 | ||
You write: "I counted 44 items and could only question two. One seems unnecessary (except perhaps for reasons of political correctness)..." You are not seriously suggesting that in 325 A.D. those who wrote the Nicean Creed were concerned about political correctness, are you? ____________________ anachronism '1 : an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other 2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place;' (www.m-w.com) |
||||||
4060 | How then should we live? | Jude 1:21 | kalos | 6060 | ||
Gospel of Christ central theme of prophecy. Ray: As always, it's good to hear from you. I welcome your question, as it give me the opportunity to expand a bit on my previous answer. Rev 19:10 (NKJV) *the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.* "The central theme of both OT prophecy and NT preaching is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ" (p.2019, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997). My point in quoting Rev 19:10 is simply this: The Gospel of Christ is the central theme of prophecy. It is the main purpose of prophecy. I believe that prophecy was not given so we could spend 90 percent of our Bible study time majoring on prophecy. It means emphasizing the Gospel of Christ, as opposed to splitting hairs over prophecy, trying to predict every detail of every prophecy's fulfillment, endless debates over the meaning of the third toe on the left foot of the beast that Daniel saw in his vision, and, most unprofitable of all, trying to guess the identity of Antichrist. I don't need to know his identity. All I need to know is that the prophecy WILL come to pass, regardless of the name on Antichrist's birth certificate. Who gets to play the role of Antichrist in this end-time drama is of no more interest to me than identifying the two baseball teams that will play in the world series in the year 2045 A.D. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 ] Next > Last [212] >> |