Results 1 - 20 of 38
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Chris Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2152 | ||
Many believe the best translation for study is the NASB. It is the most literal english translation, which is important for study. Many other translations are good. The King James and New King James are literal translations as well, but they use the received text, rather than the critical text. Most consider the critical as the closest to the original manuscript. The NKJV footnotes all major variations between the RT and CT, and it also considers another group of manuscripts called the majority text. So, this may be a good translation to study with, if you like constantly checking the footnotes for textual variations. (Actually all known manuscripts of the Bible agree around 85 percent of the time!) However, for a study in Revelation the RT has quite a few variations; for this reason I am currently using the NASB for study pruposes. For reading there are a number of other translations: NIV, CEV, NET, NLT, etc. Hope I helped more than I hurt!? God bless!! |
||||||
2 | Can someone tell me about original greek | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2533 | ||
There are three major groups of manuscripts; the Received Text (RT), the Critical Text (CT), and the Majority Text (MT). The KJV, and NKJV are both from the RT, and both are LITERAL translations, or the translators attempted word for word accuracy. The RT was composed of 6 greek manuscripts and the sections that were not available at the time in greek were translated back from the Latin Vulgate. (These translated section are the biggest problem with the RT, much of Revelation was missing and because of that there are many differences in Rev between the RT and the MT, CT.) The NKJV give footnotes for all variation between the RT, CT, and MT, but you spend most of your time in the margins! (slight exaggeration ;-) The RT also has some obvious additions, see 1Jn 5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (All added; in neither the CT nor the MT!) Wescott and Hort prepared the most widely used version of the CT. Critics of the CT say that the majority of the text is based upon two very old manuscripts (4th Century?!) both found in Eygpt. The problem with this is that at the time there is substantial Church Father writing to suggest that there was great apostasy in Eygpt. The Pro-CT folks say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. The two manuscripts disagree on many renderings which suggests there was no collusion, and if the two manuscripts agree, that must have been the original writing! Many translations use the CT: NASB, NIV, NRSV, etc. The MT is the last group, it is similar to the RT, but much more reliable because of the vastness of the manuscripts(hence, majority). Critics say that the manuscripts in the MT "evolve" towards agreement; thereby, eliminating descrepancies and difficult readings. Pro-MT folks say all the original letters with the exception of perhaps one (drawing a blank??) were sent to western Europe, so they would have the originals to correct any incorrect manuscripts. So, if the originals were compared to the copies every decade or so, the manuscripts in Eygpt would be more likely to have errors, and the majority of manuscripts would agree because as mistakes were found in manuscripts those manuscripts would be destroyed! Hotly debated topic! I prefer the MT; because, the CT eliminates Jn 7:53 - 8:11, I love that passage!! For further study see: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html (MT site; gives thorough and well reasoned arguments.), and NET Bible: (Dallas Theological Seminary) - http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/theology.htm(CT site) go to Bibliology (The Written Word) and click on anything that mentions the MT or KJV. (Very thorough, they really go at the MT!) You'll have to make up your own mind RevC, but a very good question. Unfortunately there is no main stream version using the MT, so our options are limited!(Though it doesn't seem that way with the vast amount of english translations!!) Hope this helps, those websites are great! You may want to put the NET Bible site on you Fav's, great theological site!! GOD bless! Chris |
||||||
3 | Why not Jesus' words in Red? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2675 | ||
My personal reason (silly as it may be) is that in the Bibles I buy (even Zondervan) the red print is faded in some areas. This is distracting, espescially when the print is blood red on one page and you turn to the next and it is so faded you can't make out the words! For a more mature and reasoned answer, I believe the primary reason is that all Scripture is inspired, so it all comes from GOD. It is possible, and I have seen this happen, that those that don't know much about their faith, or what they think is their faith, believe that the words in red mean more than the rest of the NT. Especially for some of the controversial topics spoken of by Paul in his letters. I still use red-letter but I know some that don't. GOD bless! |
||||||
4 | Did you know? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2768 | ||
That is great!! the LORD truly is doing a wonderful work!! GOD bless!! chris | ||||||
5 | Use Info Update? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2770 | ||
I updated mine charis, but it Info was on the left side of the screen for me. Thanks, GOD bless!! chris | ||||||
6 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2874 | ||
I believe in a Pre-Trib rapture based upon I Thessalonians 5:2. As I read it, Jesus will not come as a, "theif in the night" at the second coming. He will come as the dominating ruling of the universe and everyone will see Him, and those who oppose Him will fear! The rapture doctrine is based upon a 'gap' in the Biblical information. Why do so many of the apostles and the Lord, himself, emphasize the idea of Jesus' immenint return as a theif in the night, if at the second coming all the world will see Him? (Mat. 24:30) What about the parable of the ten virgins? Notice, the bridegroom took in the PRUDENT virgins (believers) and left the foolish outside! (Mat. 25:1-10) And, lastly if we were to look for the anti-christ the apostles would tell us to look for him, not our Lord! | ||||||
7 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3112 | ||
But you avoid the problem. What about the scriptures that show that Paul 'thought' he would be alive at the Lord's return? I am not predicting anything, suggesting that I did is somewhat insulting. I am saying that NOTHING is holding our Lord back! He could come at ANY time, I never said a specific time! This, I believe is taught in scripture. Yes, at the end of their lives Paul and Peter knew they where going to die, and the fact that Peter had to include that section(2Pet. 3:4-8) in his second letter PROVES MY POINT!! Why would he have to say, "the Lord is not slack in His promise" if people where not saying that it should have already occured! Since it had not occurred, people were saying that it was not going to occur! You're correct! It is not for us to know times, but the Bible says clearly, BE ON THE LOOK OUT!! It says this because Jesus COULD come back at any minute! That is why, when the apostles were alive they thought that He would come during their own lifetimes. We should live everyday of our lives expecting the Lord to come, that day! In constant expectation! Do you see what I am saying and what I am not saying? There will be no predictions out of this mouth (or address, as it were!) Let me know what you think, do you have a profile? If not fill one out!! GOD bless!! |
||||||
8 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6855 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
9 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6856 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
10 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6858 | ||
The best Bible I own is the one I just received, The Key Word Study Bible, Editor Spiros Zodhiates. Unfortunately, it is the 1977 NASB, but if you want a STUDY Bible this is it! The size is managable, it includes the definition of many Greek and Hebrew terms and the complete Strong's Definitions. Key words in the text are labelled with the Strong's number the it corresponds to, this Bible is great! Go to the Catalog caption at the top of the Forum website and you can scroll through ALL NASB 95 and 77 Bibles. There are lots to choose from! |
||||||
11 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 7358 | ||
Hey rover, I previously responed to your question, but I would like to modify my answer! I am reviewing a Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible, and I must admit that it is the most thorough study Bible I own! Unfortunately, I have the NIV version which is why it is not my number 1, but this study Bible in the NASB would be lights out(it is available in NASB95)! I have a website for a great deal on these Bibles, if you haven't already purchased one. If you would like it, respond back to me and give me you e-mail address! Extras that this Bible includes: A Synopsis of Bible Doctine (quite even handed, but Ryrie is a famed Dispensationalist!) Articles on: Bible inspiration, understanding the Bible, how we got the Bible, meaning and blessings of Salvation, archaelolgy and the Bible. Brief Survey of Church History Topical Index of Scripture Concordance (35000 entries in my NIV, WOW!) |
||||||
12 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2678 | ||
The Bible plainly says, "'I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.' John testified saying, " I have seen the Spirit desending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ' He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' So, one reason, there may be more, was to let the forerunner know whom he was running for. (Is whom correct there?) |
||||||
13 | Chronological events of ressurection day | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2890 | ||
This is my personal piecework, with alot of help from the Scofield Study Bible. The women are walking to the tomb, and hear the earthquake (or feel it:-), and Mary Magdalene, one of the younger women, beats the rest of the women to the tomb. Mary M. sees the empty tomb and runs to Peter; meanwhile, the other women get to the tomb and see the angles, after this they get flustered and runaway. (They must not have know where the apostles were or they went a different way in fear, because otherwise they would have ran into Peter and John.)Peter and John get to the tomb and look in and leave; while, Mary M. stays weeping, and Jesus speaks to her, "Stop clinging to Me." Then she runs to the apostles. The women are a little lost in their excitement until they see Jesus, and He sets them on their way. Peter comes back to the tomb and Jesus appears to him. Then the fellas on the Demascus Road. After, or before Demascus the other 9 apostles get involved, excluding Thomas! Tell me if I missed anything! GOD bless!! | ||||||
14 | I need answers to several questions . | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 5718 | ||
1. Check I Tim 2:12-14, many in the Church question this verse, but the meaning in clear. In addition, the Nelson Study Bible has some good info conserning this verse, "Paul uses a Greek word that indicates the type of teaching that was found in the Jewish communities and synagogues from which he had come. Such teaching was more than giving information to students. It included the call by the rabbi, or teacher, to have his disciples listen, believe, and practice his words." In other words, a woman should not have doctirnal control or primary leadership over a Church. 2. Actually, I believe the way He speaks has changed. Start with Heb. 1:1-2, this suggest to me a change in the method of communication through the Son, exclusively. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you," (NASB) and if you compare this Scripture with Eph. 5:18-20, a very similar command, which tells us to be 'filled with the Spirit'. I believe Paul is talking about the same thing with two different titles. If you look through the book of Acts, the apostles are usually 'prompted', or a word similar to that, by the Holy Spirit. The HS dwells in all believers and its our job to get rid of the carnal baggage (deeds of the flesh) so we can hear Him clearly. The only clear OT style communication in Acts is the conversion of Paul, and that is not the rule but the exception. There are a couple of examples of 'visions' or dreams, but this is not the norm either.(Please correct me if I'm wrong about the communications in Acts, or if you interpret it differently!:-) 3. Music instruments are all over the Old Testament, and there is no reason not to have them in Church. I know one denomination does not allow intsruments of any kind, but this is based upon, in my opinion, a poor basis of interpretation. What I mean by that is that this denomination refuses to allow anything in Church that is not CLEARLY asked for in the New Testament. I disagree with this because the OT is still relevant in many ways to us today, and considering that the apostles and our Lord were poor, they could not buy instruments even if they wanted them. So, the shear amount of instruments in the OT, I believe, justifies them in the NT Church. 4. No Scriptural requirement, but I believe we as Christians with an individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, should consider His sacrifice as often as we eat; because, He is our source of life! But when discussing the ceremonial communion performed in Church I have no suggestion. Hope this helps! GOD bless!! |
||||||
15 | The Christian and the Law of God | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 7780 | ||
Lionstrong, I didn't take your last comments in a negative tone, but I wanted to ask, did you mean to suggest that dispensationalist are 'followers' of Scofield, or simply mean we follow the teaching he popularized? "In 1965, Dr. Charles Ryrie refocused dispensationalism. He suggested that what was essential to dispensationalism was not necessarily a specific prophetic timetable or belief in a certain number of dispensations. The essence of dispensationalism was a threefold sine qua non: 1. an understanding that the basic purpose of God's plan in history is manifesting His own glory, 2. a consistent employment of a normal or plain interpretation of the Scriptures,(This plain interpretation includes the correct identification and interpretation of figures of speech, symbols, and apocalyptic imagery. The problem is that the covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists identification of these figures is much broader than the dispensationalist interpretation and is inconsistently applied. (Robert Dean Jr.)) 3. and a distinction between God's plan for ethnic and national Israel and the New Testament Church." (Essentials of Dispensational Theology,Robert Dean, Jr.) Lastly, I'd like to research your comments about Moral and Civil vs Ceremonial law in the New Testament. Could you give me the Scriptures that teach us that we are still under the Moral Law and no longer under the Ceremonial and Civil Law? Thanks, GOD bless! |
||||||
16 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Chris | 2762 | ||
All in Genesis Ch. 1(Creation Story). I believed in both for a long time Hank. Evolution seems to mirror the story of Creation in a general fashion, but it only works at first glance or from a distance. The more specifically you study either, the more they cancel each other out and eventually become mutually exclusive (at least in my experience). Creation: if you study the hebrew words in the creation story and review the exact definitions (created, and notice where, when, and how often the word is used) there is simply no way these words can allow a slow gradual evolution form one form of existance to all the others, this would allow for only one 'created' being, a single cell! Evolution: evolution theory would reject water animals and BIRDS before land animals. Evolution says birds came after reptiles, which came after ?amphibians? (frogs!!), so not only were there water/land animals but also the most pimitive land/water animals (my terminology). The Bible discusses NO land animals until after birds. Evolution is also based upon random mutations in beings that, when the mutations are positive, continue on through the process of natural selection. This completely rejects the idea of design and/or purpose which is a primary force in the Creation story. This is a difficult area Hank, all I can tell you is that at some point all christians are forced to separate themselves from the world. For me, this question was a difficult time in my walk with Christ, I hope you're not having the trouble I was having. I am naturally an analytical person, and it seems like, when a was at this point I was asking Christ to prove Himself to me daily on an analytical basis. I can joyfully say He did, at least He did for me. If you are going through what I went through I will be praying for GOD speed and blessing to you, Hank! Let me know if you need these prayers, or just the general kind!:-) |
||||||
17 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | Chris | 6860 | ||
Hank, I am inclined to agree with you. As one of those who has been involved in arguing, I apologize. I do not, however, believe that this forum should simply be a Bible trivia game or a stage for us to compare notes in our study Bibles. I believe this forum should be an opportunity for true seekers of GOD to discuss their understandings and experiences as Christians. I believe we should be exhorting, encouraging, and challenging each other to be more devoted bond-slaves of Christ Jesus. I think one problem has been that many folks (including myself) have asked questions that they have already made a decision about and are simply hoping to defend what they believe! I believe that we have been too busy defending what we believe rather than revealing what we don't know. Perhaps we still have not realized our helpless states, for though we admit to Jesus that we are helpless, we are still unwilling to admit it to each other! If we want to create a limitless Study Bible we need more than verse searches and book interpretations! We need progress reports from genuine Christians with genuine motives and genuine humility. We need to use each other as resources and encouragement. Since I am the one with all the suggestions, I'll be the one with a new line of questions: I've been struggling for some time now with GOD's will for my life. I know all the Scriptures, and I know that GOD's will for me first is to be sanctified, my question is, how do I know when I should be hearing from GOD? There have been times in my walk when I truly believe I would've been willing to drop everything and leave for Africa, but I never heard the 'call'. How do I know GOD has a particular will for my life, if I don't hear His 'call'? For any who have heard His 'call' for service, how did it happen, how did you hear, how did you know? I know the Bible teaches that He has a plan for each one of us, but at times I question that because I don't know what I should be doing! Has GOD dealt with any of you on this matter? How has GOD spoken to you? Do we all get a 'call'? As one Christian to others, I ask, what do I do next? GOD bless! |
||||||
18 | What about human cloning? | Gen 2:7 | Chris | 2763 | ||
I believe it is a very dangerous area, because we are tampering with GOD's responsibility! One of my key passages of scripture is Psalm 131, and I believe that unless we are explicitly asked we should not get involved with GOD's stuff! Everything we humans mess with we screw up, at least we do for 30 years or so and then we say, Oh no! we've got to go fix it (see health research, environment, wild life, etc.; I am very guilty of generalization here, sorry!!). This one (cloning) may be to tough to fix!! However, I don't believe in getting too involved in the government (protest, etc.), again I reference my focus scripture of Ps 131, I don't see anyplace in scripture were GOD specifically asks me to try to rule over a world under the sway of the evil one. Just my opinion, and here in West Virginia, and other places, we have a saying, "Opinions are like rear ends, every bodies got'em and they usually stink!" And remember, you did say 'all'! GOD bless!! |
||||||
19 | How long did it take for Israel to move? | Exodus | Chris | 2766 | ||
Good question! It would take a long time, but I believe that the area they were travelling in is mostly desert and mostly flat; in other words, they had high visibility, so when the pillar moved everyone could see it at the same time, so there would be no need for Paul Revere! :-) Hope this helps! GOD bless!! | ||||||
20 | This is my point exactly! | Josh 19:40 | Chris | 2881 | ||
I've got in NKJV Nelson Study Bible, "Dan and Ephraim are omitted perhaps because of their gross idolatry during the period of the judges, demonstrated by the incident in Dan (see Judg. 18)." JFB Rev 7:5,"another akin for the omission of Dan, is, its having been the first to lapse into idolatry (#Jud 18:1-31); for which same reason the name Ephraim, also (compare #Jud 17:1-3 Ho 4:17), is omitted, and Joseph substituted. Also, it had been now for long almost extinct." Also, I take these verses literally to be Jewish people; they do not, in my interpretation, represent a sympol of "completeness" or a symbol of the church. I believe the Church (caps because we will be HOLY then) will have been raptured before this point, and this seal protects the 144000 Jews, who will save many other Jews from damnation. GOD bless! |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |