Results 1 - 20 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Inability? | Bible general Archive 2 | Truthfinder | 93350 | ||
Nice response, New Creature. Just standing by and wathching. :). Truthfinder |
||||||
2 | What does sanctification mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Truthfinder | 93355 | ||
Hi Fritzygirl, After assessing various sources I come to the conclusion that the word "sanctification" means an act or process of making holy, separating, or setting apart for the service or use of the Almighty God. Or it can be the state of being holy, sanctified, or purified. “Sanctification” draws attention to the action whereby holiness is produced. You will find that words drawn from the Hebrew verb qadhash´ and words related to the Greek adjective ha´gios are rendered “holy,” “sanctified,” “made sacred,” and “set apart.” A better understanding of the subject can be gained by a consideration of the usage of the words in the original languages. They are applied in the Scriptures to (1) Jehovah God, (2) Jesus Christ, (3) angels, (4) men and animals, (5) things, (6) periods of time or occasions, and (7) land possessions. Sometimes the Hebrew word for “sanctify” was used in the sense of preparing or making oneself ready or in fit condition. Jehovah commanded Moses to say to the complaining Israelites: “Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, as you will certainly eat meat.” (Nu 11:18) Before Israel crossed the Jordan River, Joshua ordered: “Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow Jehovah will do wonderful things in your midst.” (Jos 3:5) In all cases the term has a religious, spiritual, and moral sense. It can denote the getting away from anything that displeases Jehovah or appears bad in his eyes, including physical uncleanness. God said to Moses: “Go to the people, and you must sanctify them today and tomorrow, and they must wash their mantles. . . . because on the third day Jehovah will come down before the eyes of all the people upon Mount Sinai.” (Ex 19:10, 11) The word is used to mean purifying or cleansing, as at 2 Samuel 11:4, which reads: “She was sanctifying herself from her uncleanness.” The first two of the seven, I will address. 1) Jehovah God is holy and absolutely clean. As the Creator and Universal Sovereign, he has the right to the exclusive worship of all of his creatures. Therefore he says that he will demonstrate his holiness, acting to sanctify himself and his name before the eyes of all creation: “I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.” (Eze 38:23) Those who desire his favor, and life, must “sanctify” him and his name, that is, they must hold that name in its proper place as separate from and higher than all others. (Le 22:32; Isa 8:13; 29:23) Jesus taught his followers to pray as the foremost thing: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or, “be held sacred; be treated as holy”].”—Mt 6:9 2) Also, Jesus Christ. Jehovah God selected his only-begotten Son and sent him to earth to do a special work in behalf of God’s name and to give his life as a ransom for humankind. But he was not received and respected by the Jewish nation as that sent one; rather, they denied his sonship and his position with his Father. He replied to them: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”—Joh 10:36. The apostle Peter writes to Christians, telling them to “sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts.” He shows that one who does this will stay away from what is bad and will do good. The people of the nations hold in their hearts an awe and a fear of men and of other things. But the Christian should set Christ in the right place in his affections and motivations. This would mean recognizing Christ’s position as God’s Chief Agent of life, the Messianic King, God’s High Priest, and the one who gave his life as a ransom. He should also keep Christ’s example of good conduct before him and hold a good conscience in connection with his own conduct as a Christian. If a person, even a ruler, should harshly demand a reason for his hope, the Christian who thus sanctifies Christ in his heart will make a good defense, yet with a mild temper and deep respect. 1Pe 3:10-16. Truthfinder |
||||||
3 | What does sanctification mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Truthfinder | 93357 | ||
Hi Tim, Sorry about sending this note to you! I meant to send it to Fritzygirl. Truthfinder |
||||||
4 | Inability? | Bible general Archive 2 | Truthfinder | 93369 | ||
Hi again New Creature, I try to remember one of the comments, I think it was Hank that said we were in a glass bowl. But even if our posts weren't, there certainly is one that observes what we write, right? Certainly God would not even ask us to do something we couldn't do much less require it of us. Even the Mosaic Law was "good" and was something the Israelites could do, but the unfaithful priests continually added to it, thus making it impossible to do those added portions. Truthfinder |
||||||
5 | The Problem with WoF in a nutshell | Bible general Archive 2 | Truthfinder | 95155 | ||
Hi Radioman2, I have not even read a single post of the pro Wof posts. But I have read yours, Hanks, Tim's, and justme's regarding them. Anyway, perhaps what he meant to write was interpretation instead of "translation". ??? Truthfinder |
||||||
6 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 78701 | ||
Hi Ray, Please explain what you mean that "Abba" was not in the Greek. The word itself was not in the Greek texts? The word "Abba" was not a Greek word? Truthfinder |
||||||
7 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 78749 | ||
Hi Ray, The reason is many Hebrew words include prefixes and suffixes, which at times combine with a base word to make up a complete phrase in translation. Where this is the case, the main part of the transliterated Hebrew word is presented in boldfaced italic type and corresponds with the boldfaced portion of the footnoted English phrase to highlight the base word. In a few instances there is no translation required for the lightfaced portion of the transliteration. This system of lightfaced and boldfaced type also applies to the phrases of Greek, Syriac and Latin words. However, since this contrast applies mainly to the Hebrew language, at times only the word or words under study are shown in the other languages. Examples: Genesis 23:8: Lit., "with your soul," used collectively. Heb., ´eth-naph·shekhem´; Gr., psy·khei´. Mark 10:30: Or, "order of things." Gr., ai·o´ni; J17,18(Heb.), u·va·oh·lam, "and in the order of things." But I am sure the bold face doesn't show up. O-well. Just as I can't write the Hebrew and Greek to facilite explination. Transliterations with no contrast as with 'Abba' correspond to the footnoted word or phrase. Further, transliterations indicate the words quoted but not those omitted by an ellipsis (a speaker's incompleteness of thought indicated by a dash in the text. Actually, 'Abba' in Aramaic corresponds to the emphatic or definite form of Heb. ´av, literally meaning "the father," or "O Father." It was the intimate name used by children for their fathers and combines some of the intimacy of the English word "papa" while retaining the dignity of the word "father," being both informal and yet respectful. It was, therefore, an endearing form of address rather than a title and was among the first words a child learned to speak. This Aramaic word appears three times in the Scriptures. It is always in transliterated form in the original Greek and usually is transliterated in English translations. This is one way I prove that Jesus spoke Aramaic, although I personally think he could speak any human language after his baptism. Truthfinder |
||||||
8 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79899 | ||
Hi Searcher, I believe it's common knowledge that when the temple and genealogical records were lost or destroyed in 70 C. E. by the Romans under General Titus, that all the Jewish claims of ancestory remain unproven. And too, over the millenniums, the ancient Jewish religion has developed and changed. Today Judaism is practiced by millions of Jews in the Republic of Israel and the Diaspora (dispersion around the world) Truthfinder |
||||||
9 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79960 | ||
Hi Searcher You asked: Were all genealogical records kept in the Temple? Didn't people keep their own? Didn't people memorize their own genealogical records? Nonetheless, there are prophecies unfulfilled by Israel ... Romans 9-11 is one example. Evidently, all the nations genealogical records were kept in the Temple. Regarding the destruction of the temple and the archives, the book History of the Jewish People by Max Margolis and Alexander Marx says on pages 202, 203: “Titus hastened to inspect the Temple. But soon the sacred edifice was the prey of the flames which the Romans kept alive. Titus had the quarter occupied by his soldiers burned down: the council house, the hall of archives, the whole of the lower city down to the Pool of Siloam.” The Bible Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before.” Concerning Romans 9:11, “for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls,” Jehovah’s selection of Jacob over Esau shows that God’s choosing does not depend on man’s dictates. The apostle Paul uses this incident as an illustration of the fact that the true children of Abraham are not necessarily those of fleshly descent, nor those who depend on their own works, but those of the faith of Abraham. Ro 9:6-12 says, “However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children, but: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For the word of promise was as follows: “At this time I will come and Sarah will have a son.” 10 Yet not that case alone, but also when Re·bek´ah conceived twins from the one [man], Isaac our forefather: 11 for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.” Esau is set forth as a warning example to Christians so that they will not be guilty, as was Esau the materialist, of lack of appreciation for sacred or spiritual things. Heb 12:16 helps us to appreciate this where it says, “16 that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E´sau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn”. Truthfinder |
||||||
10 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80329 | ||
Hi Justme, From my studies of both sides of arguments as to the most honest and the most accurate translations of what the original manuscripts must have been I have come to appreciate the NWT as my favorite. I likewise respect your and others' choice in both theology beliefs and convictions as to what Bible translations are preferred. My extensive dialogues in the months past show for the most part JW's beliefs but certainly mine. More clearly, I do not totally agree with 100 per cent of their teaching. I have my own mind, abilities, and experience. I am an old man now and have devoted a considerable part of it to Bible study and still love it. Truthfinder |
||||||
11 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80333 | ||
Hi IHS, Yes, in ancient Israel dishonest merchants would add water to the wine to make it go farther, but Jehovah used this to illustrate moral and spiritual corruption saying: "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water." (Isa. 1:22) Tasty wine that gives joy of heart should not be adulterated with water. If you know of other instances please quote them. So again certainly wine was not merely grape juice but fermented to wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
12 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80379 | ||
Hi Tim, Tim argues that the “wine” spoken of in some Bible texts was ordinary grape juice. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, however, reminds us that “the Bible makes no distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines—never refers or alludes to such a distinction.” And seems to me that this is also consistent with the Bible. Notice: Genesis 9:21; Luke 1:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Proverbs 31:4, 6. If I had some texts of the eleventh example (aciyc) translated as wine, I would review it. The same with the tenth example (chemer), is it translated wine? The second Hebrew word (tiyrowsh) and (yayin) the first Hebrew word Tim gave are commented on as examples of non-fermented beverages. Again, Tim give me the specific verses and let me look at them. Interestingly, Jesus’ first miracle was to convert water into wine. The Bible account says: “When, now, the director of the feast tasted the . . . wine but did not know what its source was, . . . [he] called the bridegroom and said to him: ‘Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.’” (John 2:9, 10) Yes, “the fine wine” Jesus produced was real wine. Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Obviously, Jesus did not condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation. In his day the drinking of wine was a part of the celebration of the Passover. And real wine continued to be a part of the Lord’s Evening Meal, which replaced the Passover. Truthfinder |
||||||
13 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80414 | ||
Hi Justme, Thank you for your kindness. I don't mind at all, go ahead and ask. I ask questions too because I want to try and figure why a person has such strong convictions about a matter that I though have such strong convictions totally opposite. I have learned a lot here on the forum, and hope to continue to learn. Truthfinder |
||||||
14 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80447 | ||
Hi Justme, Before you read this let me warn you that what I say is “strong” language contrary to popular opinion. Allow me to explain how I feel as a result of reading and explaining posts on this forum. I observe that many propagate the idea that the JW translation committee initiated certain verse translation to fit a certain theology, saying bias played a role in its translation. Even some “experts” assert this same idea. Yet, it is shown again and again how grammatically it is just as acceptable to translate verses such as John 1:1 the way they are in the NWT and in the dozens or other translations. Hey, these were experts too and some were even “trinitarians”. Additionally, I have shown that other “experts” in the Greek language support the translation. In fact, I have quoted them from both sides of the argument and you can run a search on this forum and see that. I have also given numerous examples of prior translations that had translated verses such as John 1:1 different from the “mainstream” translations of today. I have also given numerous example of manuscript additions and changes with the sole purpose of supporting the “trinity doctrine”. If the trinity were true why would this atrocity be needed? My unequivocal conviction is theology played a definite role in these “mainstream” translations and thus have mislead many. You know as well as I do that each and every one of those “scholars” of the NABV or the NIV knew what they were doing by taking God’s personal name out of their translations. It remains my unequivocal conviction that the unseen wicked spirit influence of God’s chief adversary Satan has been behind this hoax from its beginning, during our Lord Jesus’ time here on earth. An accurate understanding of the first prophesy of the Bible Ge 3:15 tells us that there would be enmity between Satan and Jesus. The greatest indignity modern translations and schools of theology can possibly render to the author of the Bible is to remove or conceal the personal name and true identity of our God and Father Jehovah. It amazes me how so-called “learned” “Christians” have come to even despise the most holy name in the universe. Truthfinder |
||||||
15 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80489 | ||
Hi Justme, Your approach and complimentary remarks are refreshing and add that pinch of salt for peaceful dialogue. I believe Jesus is the "Son of God". This is a most honorable position. As the One and Only Son "only begotten" Son or God (either/and), he is differentiated from all other sons since he (Jesus) was the one that made them(all other sons). I believe that for eons of time there was only the Father-Jehovah and His Son-Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Then, other sons (angels) were made by Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Sirit (all three). Then in time Gen. 1:1 came into play and again God is acredited the action of "creating" but Jesus and the Holy Spirit accomplished it. As Solomon built his timeple but he didn't really, but gets the credit. I am merely asserting my beliefs now but would be more that happy to argue them with scripture later. Lastly, I know the NWT and it does present matters this way. I feel it presents matters more accurately than any other translation, but has its flaws. Truthfinder |
||||||
16 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80929 | ||
Hi Justme, Both gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus' mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant through the operation of God's holy spirit.-Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35. So, I believe just that. "Fully divine and fully human." you ask? Certainly, as the words "fully divine" mean to me. Jesus is as John 1:1 states in some translations "divine", "god-like", "a god", "God". The last translation though intends to make the Logos the same person as his father and as the self-same verse already tells us that he was "with" God, so the "theos" must be understood "mighty one", as "theos" and "elohim" means in several other places in scripture. This is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures as I see them. Jesus likewise had to have been fully human to fulfull the role as an equal for Adam, a perfect human. What a loving, unselfish "sacrifice" this was on the Father's part to give his "Son", allow his "Son" to suffer on our behalf, for redemption. This to me would not have been the case if it were Almighy God himself who came to the earth and "proved" obedience to "himself". ??? I wonder Justme why you say that I do not meet your expected answers? Please comment. In regards to the NWT having its flaws, one might notice Mat 27:40 and then study the Greek word "stauros". If one were to study lexicons (such as the Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p256, Latin dictionaries, history books, (such as that of Livy on Roman punishishment), a better translation than the NWT might be merely "stake" as opposed to the NWT "torture stake". I believe it was more of an executional stake eventhough torture was endured, it was death that resulted. Sorry, but "cross" does not even come close to being an accurate translation. John 1:1 might even be better translated "divine" instead of "a god", except for the fact that there is a Greek word for divine, even if it is take from "theos". So, more than likely the Greek writer would have used "theios" if we were to understand it as his nature. Both mean the same to me and both translations are as far as I am concerned, acceptable. Have you Justme ever done an in-depth study of the Greek word "stauros"? Just wondering. Truthfinder |
||||||
17 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80956 | ||
Hi Justme, More about me. Fact is, I "enjoy reading", I enjoy "studying". I have no real hobbies other than reading. My work is that of building fine cabinetry for both the public and home builders. I have three sons that work with me. Basically, a JW is not a JW if he cannot believe and accept "all" the organizational understanding of congregational proceedure. Most JWs I know, do not study non JW publications, manuscript studies, Hebrew and Greek language, etc, as this is very time consuming. I am sometimes dogmatic in my comments but wished I wasn't. One can believe something for years and preach it as gospel, then suddenly come to a totally different understanding and prospective. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest Biblical concepts we humans are faced with according to my understanding. And by the way, I don't want to go there right now, thank you. I just think there are some things our finite minds just aren't capable of grasping. Most anything else suits me though. Gotta go, later. Truthfinder |
||||||
18 | Wescott and Hort? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81099 | ||
Hi Justme, For the longer version: Actually I started out short but as you can see it got longer and longer. Sorry. By a comparative study of hundreds of existing Bible manuscripts Joe, scholars have prepared what is called master texts. These printed editions of original-language texts suggest the best readings available while drawing attention to variations that may exist in certain manuscripts. Included among the master texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are those published by Westcott and Hort as well as by Nestle and Aland. The Christian Greek Scriptures for the NASV, NWT, and NIV is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, whereas the King James Version was based on what is referred to as a Textus Receptus or "Received Text." These Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, date to 1881. This text is also the foundation for the following translations into English: The Emphasised Bible, the American Standard Version, An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), and the Revised Standard Version. This last translation also used Nestle's text as did the NWT. Nestle's Greek text (the 18th edition, 1948) was also used by the New World Bible Translation Committee for the purpose of comparison. The committee also referred to those by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the footnotes of the 1984 Reference Edition. It’s interesting too that in addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are also available for study today many manuscripts of translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into other languages. There are about 30 fragments of Old Latin versions and thousands of manuscripts of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The New World Bible Translation Committee referred to these when their translation was made as well as to the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac versions. From at least the 14th century onward, translations of the Greek Scriptures into the Hebrew language have been produced. These are of interest to me because they as does the NWT restore God’s name to where it was originally. The site found at http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/ provides some interesting information concerning restoring the Divine name in the New Testament. From the site: The Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) of the New Testament is now in Distribution. Unlike previous Messianic translations the HRV is translated from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament manuscripts rather than the Greek. Not that you would find it interesting but it supports some of the reasons why the NWT and over a hundred and fifty other translations have resotred the Divine Name in the New Testament. Truthfinder |
||||||
19 | revelation 6:9-11 | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83069 | ||
Hmmmmmm Radioman2, Who told you that? The Bible didn't. That is totally scarry. That is so so archaic. What is the resurrections? Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29. On the other hand, if you mean, if we are resurrected to life, whether a spirit creature or to a future earthly resurrection, then certainly. But if we don't really die, but some part of us (the soul perhaps) continues on living, simply is not true according to the Bible. Expain Ezk. 18:4; Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 9:5-10; 1 Cor. 15:53; Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29 Truthfinder |
||||||
20 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83412 | ||
Well put Student7300, The context clearly shows that the Hebrew here is Not referencing Satan, but is a descriptive designation applied to the “king of Babylon.” (Isa 14:4, 12) The Hebrew expression is thus properly translated in the NWT, Ro, Yg) “shinning one” and comes from a root meaning “shine.” (Job 29:3) The rendering “Lucifer” (KJ, Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate and is in error. The “shining one” is represented as saying in his heart: “Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting.” (Isa 14:13) Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the “mountain of meeting.” So, since stars can refer to kings (Nu 24:17; Re 22:16), “the stars of God” must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion. The “king of Babylon” (the dynasty of Babylonian kings), reflecting the attitude of Satan the god of this system of things, indicated his ambition to lift up his throne “above the stars of God” by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally to dethrone them. Like stars that shed light, the “king of Babylon” shone brightly in the ancient world and could be termed “shining one.” Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |