Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 16069 | ||
Greeting Ray! If the book has the value of 1,224 assigned to the text of John, this is even a greater reason not to buy into their "theory". The actual text has "ichtuwn" not "ichtus". So, are they using the word as it appears in the text or are they simply using any form that fits their theory? What is the value of this "theory"? Name one thing that it can teach us that is not clear in Scripture? If it isn't clear in Scripture, then I would not believe it anyway! My brother, I have thought much more of you than this! I am not normally this forward, but this is pure bunk! God has given us everything we need in His Word. These so-called codes that are the latest fad, do not add anything to our understanding of Scripture. They are simply the Christian equivalent of tarot cards. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 16083 | ||
Hi Tim, You continue to cast doubt on the book but I wonder where you are getting your text . I checked Interlinear versions put out by Baker and Tyndale and find "fishes" just as the book "Theomatics" spells them. The only possible explanation for disparity is if you are not looking at Luke 9:13. | ||||||
3 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 16087 | ||
Greetings Ray! I was using the text of John 21:11, which is the text that the web site referred to. However, even using Luke 9:13, the word is "ichthues", not "ichthus". Either way, my point is that this theory is a sham. I looked at one of their other web sites. The discuss how Eden is supposed to be a type of the temple in Jerusalem. They multiply 124 by 8. They multiply 124 by 2.5. They multiply 124 by 2 by 5. If you work hard enough, you can pick any number, multiple it by enough products and come up with any result you want. I don't see the value! Can you explain one thing that this theory supposedly reveals that is not already in Scripture? If it isn't in Scripture, why believe it? It seems like a great way to make money selling books. "Come see the hidden codes that no one else knows!" Much more exciting than obey the text that is plainly there! :-) I would advise you to pray about this theory my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 16176 | ||
Hi Tim, I am disappointed that you still want to place doubt on the word "ichthues" even when that is what you were told that the book said. As far as Eden is concerned, I don't believe that that was in the book "Theomatics". I have been recommending the book and am not aware of all the websites that they might have by now. The book has a copyright of the year 1977 so this "fad" is not new by any means. You can be sure that anyone interested in theomatics will have to have the letters correct, wherever they are written. My interest in the book "Theomatics" came about when a friend at work suggested that I read it "because he was reminded of my bible study when he read it". (O.K., the red flags go up) I read it and was encouraged in my own studies in that the book was glorifying God for the possibilities that are in His word. Every letter was important and had to be counted in his system. (I was counting pronouns at the time). So I was grateful to my friend for his encouragement, and for his giving me the book. I haven't read it in probably 10-12 years until now. It came to mind at this thread when 'Koinekid' spoke of the dropping of pronouns and articles. Articles are important to "Theomatics" and pronouns are important to my study. That is why I brought it forward to the discussion. You can read the book or not, it will probably not be of interest to a non-believer, it will give glory to God, it will open up minds to the complexity of the word of God, it will instill the importance of every dotted letter and quotation mark, and should encourage us not to leave out or add to the word of God. As far as to this thread is concerned, if the NIV does indeed drop pronouns, I would not recommend it. I think that the pendulum will swing as it always does in life, and we will want fewer and fewer translations. I will work toward a translation that will not need to be changed, and an interpretation that is glorifying to God. I would hope that we all can do that. Perhaps, theomatics can help in that, perhaps not. I think that it is important for us not to tear into something without looking into it first. The theory's mathmatics automatically put me out of the class; but I will praise God with them. As a disciple, a mathetes (from which we get our word mathematics), a pupil of the Scriptures and a follower of Christ, I will have to be interested in numbers. |
||||||
5 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 16192 | ||
Greetings Ray! Two points if I may! 1) Concerning theomatics, I'm not sure which spelling the book uses. I am simply going by the form used in the Greek. Each noun has eight cases in each singular and plural. Of the eight cases in each sngular and plural, there are five possible forms. So, for every noun, there are 10 possible forms that the spelling can take. In Luke 9:13, the form is the masculine, nomitative, plural, which would be spelled (ichthues). The singular would be spelled (ichthus). My point was that it doesn't matter either way! :-) 2) Concerning the NIV: Every translation has it's flaws. I like the NIV for it's readability, but I do all of my study out of the Greek text. Unfortunately, my Hebrew is not sharp enough to study from the original text. I am sure that there are places where fault can be found in every translation. If you have specific examples of problems with the NIV, we could discuss them. I know there are places that I don't like their translation, but I still would recommend it for the average Christian. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 16252 | ||
Hi Tim, Thanks for answering. 1) The fact of the many different spellings are what adds to the "coincidences" that Del Washburn found in theomatics. In any case, it is his book and I don't have to defend it. 2) The NIV doesn't capitalize Deity pronouns. That's why I don't like it in this stage of my walk with Christ; I don't see it recognizing His Deity. Any bible would be good to read; but for interpretation you need one with capitalization. Thanks Tim. |
||||||
7 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16253 | ||
Ray, my dear brother in the Lord. We don't agree on everything, yet I still esteem you as better than myself. You are a precious brother. But, I must point out that we are very much not in agreement when you say the NIV does not recognize the Deity of Christ. This is absurd. I know there's no changing your mind. You have already heard all the arguments refuting your beliefs about capitalization. So it would do no good whatever for me to repeat them. But this is a pretty serious accusation to bring against any translation. Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has the right to be wrong in his facts. |
||||||
8 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 16304 | ||
Hi kalos, Most probably all the translators of the NIV believe in the Deity of Christ. My statement, "I don't see it recognizing His Diety" is indeed only an opinion. I don't "see it" because Deity isn't capitalized. I looked over Nolan's references for determining a good translation. I would be happy to share some thoughts about them and how some of those verses, even in the NIV, could "appear" to deny God's Deity when correct capitalization is not utilized. Those verses apply to all translations and so I would suggest a new thread. |
||||||