Results 1 - 20 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Favorite Bible study tools? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 3418 | ||
The Thompson Chain Reference Bibles are available in KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. I prefer the NJKV because it is a modern, literal translation, just as the NASB, but is based on the Antioch manuscripts, where the NASB is based on the Alexandia manuscripts. I really don't want to get into a debate over this, but I base my belief on Acts 6:7, 12:24, 13:49, 19:20 which describes the Word of God as growing, spreading, and multipling, which seem to describe the Antioch manuscripts. The Alexandria manuscripts pretty much just stayed on the shelf and did not grow, spread, or multiply. I also know that whatever is not from faith is sin (Romans 14:23) and you have to go with what you have confidence in. Thank you for your comments and guidence. Don't get me wrong, I am not TROUBLED by study Bibles and commentaries, they are great tools, but they can be very opinionated, like me! God Bless, Jesus Lives!! |
||||||
2 | Will we see God's face? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 3434 | ||
I know of no other interpetation. | ||||||
3 | Will we see God's face? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 3467 | ||
Sorry for my short answer before. Let me explain. If 2Co 3:18 means we are now as the reflection of the Lord in a mirror, and are being transformed into the same image as the Lord, and if 1Co 13:12 means we now see in a mirror dimly, then "face to face" must mean our face and the Lord's face. |
||||||
4 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4377 | ||
Thanks Ray for the encouraging words, even tho I was a little off base. Maybe even on the wrong base! I see now, after looking at Gen 19, the two “men” who went to Sodom were definitely angels, and the one left talking to Abraham, was the Lord. The two angels, were not the “Angel of the Lord” as with Moses and the burning bush in Ex 3. With that, I see Gen 18 in a different light, but it still intrigues me. The Hebrew word for “Lord” in Gen 18:3 is “Adonay” (strongs 136). It occurs 434 times in the KJV and is translated Lord 431, God 1, and lord only 2 times, so this most likely would indicate deity. However, “lords”, as Lot addressed the two angels in Gen 19:2, is “adown” (strongs 113). It occurs 335 times and is translated lord 197, master 105, owner 1, sir 1, and Lord only 31 times, so this most likely would NOT indicate deity. In Gen 18:3 Abraham seems to be speaking to the three “men” indicated in verse 2 because of what in said in verses 4 and 5. In verse 5 Abraham repeats what he said in verse 3 by calling himself “your servant”, which I see as referring to the “men’s” servant. It is really hard for me to see Gen 18:1-5 any different than this. However, In light of the direction you pointed me in, I now believe the three “men” were God and 2 angels, rather than God manifested as three men, as I originally said. The only way the “Trinity manifested in the flesh” theory could be true is if two angels in Gen 19 were somehow not the same as the men in Gen 18. I cannot believe they are not the same. My only answer to Gen 18:1-5 is that the way Abraham perceived it was a manifestation of the Trinity, not that it actually was. The next time I think I have got a “revelation” at 3 am, I promise you I will wait until daylight to let the world know! Thank you for pointing out my error, and please forgive me Jesus. I do not wish to lead anyone astray. God bless you brother, and thank you again |
||||||
5 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4623 | ||
Hi Koinekid. Did you read the scripture reference? Did you understand the question? The capitalized words we were talking about were the ones that represent deity "(example Gen. 18:3 we talked about)". You answered, "Italicized words are words that do not exist in the Greek or Hebrew text, but were added to help the text make more sense in English." Thank you, that is correct. Now get out your bible, look up the scripture, and tell me what you think about the question I asked... "Do the italicized words clarify who Jesus is, or do they take away from the very words that Jesus spoke Himself, concerning who He is?" Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
6 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4737 | ||
Thanks Koinekid, for you input. Jesus be with you, and give you some relief with that tooth. Amen I realize the few verses I mentioned are not required to prove the deity of Jesus. However, if the added italicized words are taking anything away from the words Jesus actually said, this is not a small thing. Compare John 8:24 as you mentioned, with verse 58 in the same chapter. Both verses say "I AM" ("ego eimi" right??). If "the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought", what happened to the noun to complete the thought in verse 58? If there actually does NOT have to be a noun added, which seems to be the case here, then verse 24 seems to be an interpretation decision, rather than a clarity decision. You seem to up on your Greek. I am not. The only Greek I know is "Greek salad" and "baklava", so don't think I know enough Greek to ask an intelligent question about it. If I knew Greek, I could probably appreciate a Greek to English bible translator more, so I realize there could be something I am missing here. I use the NKJV instead of the NASB (sorry, not a critical text fan). The NKJV (and KJV) also add an italicized “he” in the places I mentioned, so I am not trying to pick on any particular translation. The LITV and the MKJV are the only translations I know of that do not add “he”, so I suppose a Greek to English translation without adding “he” is possible, if not even correct. I can not help but think that these words were added to what Jesus said as a carry over from years past, not something to add clarity, as was the real intent of italicized words. Let me put it this way. If the KJV had translated these scriptures I AM, instead of I am (he), would the later translations have intentionally ADDED words to produce a WEAKER reading? I don’t think so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
7 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5671 | ||
You said "my views on justification will not allow me to support rebaptism." What are your views based on? Scripture please. Do you know something Paul did not (Acts 19)? Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
8 | Judgment of Infants? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6205 | ||
Jesus said many times of children, "such is the kingdom of heaven." Since Jesus did not sin, we can also be sure Jesus never showed partiality (James 2:9) between children of believers and children of non-believers. As far as the "children of wrath" statement in Eph 2:3, that is speaking of our nature before salvation, not God's judgement on children. Eph 2:4 speaks of God's rich mercy. Please consider Mat 18:10; "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Heb 1:14 says angels are sent forth to minister to those who will inherit salvation. In light of Mat 18:2, I think Jesus was using the little child He called to Him as the example when He said, "one of these little ones". Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
9 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6471 | ||
Is harsh language appropriate? According to Joe, YES! Two people that Calvin burned at the stake? I give up, who were they? | ||||||
10 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6750 | ||
??????????? Where did this come from? Are you talking to me bro? If so, what is your definition of omniscient? | ||||||
11 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6816 | ||
"We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions". Those are good words, Joe. Do you believe you are not using a few "unscriptural notions" here to try to defend something you took as an attack on your theology? There is nothing wrong with you defending your theology, but it was not under attack. Believe it are not, I believe the reformation of the Church was of God, and I believe Calvin was used by God to help bring it about. We can follow a mans theology, but we need not think all he does is anointed by God. They are flesh and blood as you and I. There is no way around the fact that the killing of Servetus was ugly. There is no way to dress it up as anything else. David’s murder of Uriah was ugly. Paul’s persecution of Christians was ugly. The Bible does not try to paint either as anything else. They both received forgiveness, and God used them in a mighty way. We don’t throw out there writings because of there actions. Did I paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty monster? I sure did not mean to. I say again, what I said, I said as a wisecrack. Not very thought out, I might add. I did not, at the time, think I was out of line. I realize now, I was. I hit a nerve on a subject that was much too touchy for a Calvinist to take as such. What I said was actually a prod. For that, I apologize. I accept your admonishment. I do not go along with ALL Calvin’s teachings, as you, but I would hope you would treat those who disagree with you a little better than Calvin did. retxar |
||||||
12 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6949 | ||
Good info Chris! The DTL web site you mentioned is the best place I know of to educate one’s self on this issue. The Received Text and the Majority Text are from the same Byzantine (Antioch) source. The Critical Text is from the Alexandrian (Egypt) source. The RT, in effect, is the same as the MT except for Revelation, as you pointed out. The 1 John 5:7 difference you mentioned is about the only difference you will find between the RT and the MT (except for Rev). The 1 John 5:7 variant is not really a manuscript difference, but came about as pressure from the Roman Clergy toward Erasmus (Texus Receptus originator) to make it agree with the longer Latin Vulgate ending. The small handful of manuscripts Erasmus had to work with speaks well of the MT consistencies. Almost any other small number of MT manuscripts could have been selected, at random, and the results would have been the same. The reason for the Revelation variants in the RT, is because Erasmus only had 1 or 2 manuscripts that contained Revelation at all. The Vulgate to Greek translating was very limited, however. It happened as a result of Erasmus rushing to get the TR published before he could get hold of reliable, complete Revelation manuscripts. The Revelation differences, that I saw, in my NKJV Bible, that demand a decision, are as follows: 1:5 (RT/MT-washed CT-freed), 5:10 (RT-us CT/MT-them), 8:13 (RT-angel CT/MT-eagle), 9:21 (RT-sorceries CT/MT-drugs), 10:11 (RT-he CT/MT-them), 11:8 (RT-our CT/MT-their), 11:12 (RT/CT-they MT-I), 12:8 (RT/CT-them MT-him), 13:1 (RT/MT-I CT-he), 15:3 (RT-saints CT/MT-nations), 16:16 (RT/CT-Armageddon MT-Megiddo), and 22:14 (RT/MT-do His commandments CT-wash their robes). Notice sometimes the RT agrees with the MT and sometimes the RT agrees with the CT, but most of the time the MT/CT agree with other, as you have pointed out. I will look further at the RT/MT differences to see if I want to scratch in the MT translation in my NKJV. I know there are many more Revelation variants than these, but these are the only ones I saw as effecting the meaning. Most are just word order. Thanks for motivating me to investigate! A good MT translation you might want to check into is the WEB (ebible.org). It is only available in the New Testament as hard copy at this time. It is available complete as a free download for the e-Sword bible program. E-sword is excellent and available free at e-sword.net. Check it out. In Christ Jesus! |
||||||
13 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6961 | ||
Thank you JVH0212 for the kind words. And thank all you guys (and gals) for allowing me to express a view that is probably not too popular here (being a NASB/CT forum). I really appreciate that! The amazing thing to me, is not the differences in all the Bible evidences, but the supernatural exactness and preservation. Everyone has played the game where several people get together with one person telling another a phrase and that person telling another and when the last person gets the story, it is nowhere near what started out. Not so with the Word! There have been literally thousands and thousands of men's dirty little hands on God's Word over the years, with each one having the chance to introduce corruption, either intentionally or unintentionally. God's Word has been under attack, more than any other book that ever existed. What other book does anyone know of that people were (and are) willing to die for? The way God preserved and documented His Word thru mere men goes beyond what anyone should expect, even for a person who might think the Bible is only man's words! There is more documented evidence that Jesus was God the Son than that George Washington was our first President! I like what Gamaliel the Pharisee said in Acts 5:38-39 "for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest you even be found to fight against God." We all know, almost 2000 years later that, how men are still trying to overthrow God and His Word, but God's plan and work are still going strong and that is made possible only thru and by THE WORD! God Bless! |
||||||
14 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 12185 | ||
The JW's are the ones that have cast off Jesus. The JW's are the ones that cast off Jesus when they insist their "order's from headquarters" are their spiritual guide, instead of the Holy Spirit. The JW’s are the ones that cast off Jesus when they say their organization is the messiah , instead of Jesus. The JW’s believe in “A JESUS”. The JW’s preach “A GOSPEL”. They don’t believe Jesus is Lord. They don’t preach the Gospel in the Word. Gal_1:7-9 says to let them be accursed. That, does not have to be you, Elijah. From most of your post, you seem to be a little dazed and confused. You can never backup ANY of your wild claims and accusations with any scriptural support. How come? Could it be because they are basing them on perverted JW teaching and not the Word? Get out of that mess, man! Here is something for you to ponder. You can ask any of your JW friends if they can help you, if you like. The JW’s denounce the deity of Jesus by saying He is Michael the archangel, right? Heb_1:4 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying Jesus is “so much better than the angels.” Heb_1:4 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying “He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”. Heb_1:5 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying “which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son”. Heb_1:6 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb_1:8 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Heb_1:9 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son “Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." Heb_1:10 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Heb_1:11-12 refutes that Jesus is an angel by speaking of Jesus as being self-existent, while angels are not. Heb_1:13 refutes that Jesus is an angel when it says Jesus is sitting on God’s throne. Angels can only stand before the throne. Heb_1:14 says angels can only “minister to those who will inherit salvation” but Rev_7:10 says “salvation belongs to our God.” Lets read Rev_7:9-11. Rev_7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, Rev_7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" Rev_7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, Where were ALL the angels? They were standing around the throne, then they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God! Where was God? Sitting on the throne! Where was Jesus? Sitting on the throne! Is Jesus an angel? NO! Is Jesus being worshiped? YES! Is Jesus God? YES! I don’t know what your NWT says in the verses I have referenced here, because I can’t get one! Could JW’s fear that enlightened believers would expose the works of darkness if the NWT was available to any and all? I would give my Bible to anyone who wants one. A true disciple of Christ is to spread the Word, not conceal it! I am sure the NWT tries to stifle the deity of Jesus here. However, I know God is smarter than man, and am willing to bet He snuck enough truth in there for you to see Him and believe. I will end with this. Please seriously examine all I and others have shown you. DON’T BRUSH IT OFF. Please give earnest heed to the things you have heard (Heb_2:1). How can you escape if you neglect so great a salvation (Heb_2:3). Jesus is Lord ! retxar |
||||||
15 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 14214 | ||
I think what peaches Muslim "friends" are trying to push, is the GOSPEL of Barnabas, rather than the EPISTLE of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas is a Muslim forgery from the Middle ages, rather than the early Christian writing of the Epistle of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas denies the Deity of Jesus and has verses of Jesus prophesying the coming of Mohamad. It also has Abraham offering Ishmael on the alter instead of Isaac. The Epistle of Barnabas contains 21 chapters while the GOB has several hundred. God Bless, retxar |
||||||
16 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 14216 | ||
I think what your Muslim "friend" is trying to push is the GOSPEL of Barnabas, rather than the EPISTLE of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas is a Muslim forgery from the Middle ages, rather than the early Christian writing of the Epistle of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas denies the Deity of Jesus and has verses of Jesus prophesying the coming of Mohamad. It also has Abraham offering Ishmael on the alter instead of Isaac. The Epistle of Barnabas contains 21 chapters while the GOB has several hundred. God Bless, retxar |
||||||
17 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 14367 | ||
Try http://answering-islam.org.uk/Barnabas/ There are several links there. One artical with a lot of good info is "An overview of the Gospel of Barnabas by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb". All this is new to me also, as I only researched after being prompted by peaches question. God Bless. retxar |
||||||
18 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 15488 | ||
I agree with you 100 percent that God has preserved His Word for all people of all cultures. I think where we differ is our definition of inspired. I think what you are defining as inspiration, I call providence and preservation. To me, God only inspired one Bible, but thru His providence, He has preserved and continued His Word, not continually re-inspired it. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
19 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 15500 | ||
Well, my view of God's "providence" may be exactly as your view of God's "inspiration". My view of God’s providence would mean God’s Divine guidance in preserving His Word. That would not and could not mean every translation was a perfect and precise inspiration, whereby the Holy Spirit exerted Divine, out of their control, direction on the ears, minds, hearts, and hands of each and every translator, as God did on the holy men that He originally inspired His Word thru. Rather, it means His Word is preserved in such a way that each an every translation is subject to examination and comparison to the original, and we can be confident we know what the original is and we can be confident we are trusting in the work of God and not man. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
20 | Unbaptized children | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 15991 | ||
This is referring to being baptized into the body of Christ when one accepts Jesus (1Co 12:13). It is not reffering to water baptism at all. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |