Results 1 - 20 of 22
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Ron Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 66427 | ||
I have looked at the word "laleo" in every verse it is used in the New Testament. I see no where where the context requires the definition you gave from Strong's comments on "lego." It simply means to speak, talk, say etc... I don't know what led Strong to make the comment that he did on "laleo" but reading how the word is used in the New Tastament is evidently not his source. Vine defines this word like this: "laleo for which see laleo_under_SAY, is used several times in 1Cor. 14; the command prohibiting women from speaking in a church gathering, 1_Cor_14:34,35, is regarded by some as an injunction against chattering, a meaning which is absent from the use of the verb everywhere else in the NT; it is to be understood in the same sense as in 1_Cor_14:2,3-6,9,11,13,18,19,21,23,27-29,39." I would urge you to read the verses cited by Vine and substitute the definition that Strong used "AN EXTENDED OR RANDOM HARANGUE" for the word "speak" and see if it makes sense. [For example, the word is used three times in verse 2 of 1 Cor. 14 -- "For he that MAKES AN EXTENDED OR RANDOM HARANGUE in an unknown tongue MAKES AN EXTENDED OR RANDOM HARANGUE not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he MAKES AN EXTENDED OR RANDOM HARANGUE mysteries." Now, should it be "an extended or random harangue" or "speaks"?] There is absolutely nothing in the context of 1 Cor. 14:34 that would lead one to conclude that the word should be translated in any way other than the way it is translated in the other verses where it is used in 1 Cor. 14 and the rest of the New Testament. If this is the meaning in 1 Cor. 14:34, then it is the only place in the New Testament where it is thus used. There is absolutly no reason that I can see to give it any other meaning than that given in all the other verses where it is used in the New Testament. |
||||||
2 | Did this occur before Gen 1:1 or after? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59792 | ||
Okay Ray, thanks for your comments. I can only go with what the word says. I can't get into Jesus' mind and read it and tell what He was thinking of. Again, Jesus is simply showing that Satan's power had been hurt by the disciples abilility to cast out demons. I'm just saying the language is similiar because the same thought is in mind. The power is taken away form the king of Babylon (Isa. 14) and the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28) and in Luke Jesus uses the same type of language (figurative) to indicate that Satan's power had been lessened by the disciples' actions. Thanks Ray. | ||||||
3 | lucifer | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59081 | ||
I think the problem is not understanding that Isaiah is using figurative language in verses 12-14. The king's falling from "the heavens" (LITV) indicates his fall from power. His desire to "raise my throne above the stars of God etc..." (LITV) indicates his arrogance. The simliar language used in the case of the king of Tyre would apply the same way. The fact that Jesus uses similiar language in reference to Satan in Luke 18 and Rev. 12 certainly does not mean that Isaiah and Ezekiel were speaking of Satan. Now if Jesus had quoted from Isa and Ezek and said "this is that spoken by the prophet" you could dogmatically teach that they were speaking of Satan. But Jesus did not say that. In fact, He just used similar language (in fact, figurative language) indicating Satan's power being limited by the disciples casting out demons (Luke 18). In Revelation 12, figurative language is also used. If verses 7-12 is not figurative language then why would anything else in the chapter be figurative language? For example, is "a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet etc..." (LITV) figurative or literal language? Is the "red dragon" in verse 3 with the 7 heads and 10 horns figurative or literal language? I believe all of those verses in Rev. 12 are figurative. Was Satan cast out of Heaven? Maybe. But the passages you cited do not prove it. Especially those in Isa and Ezek which are not talking about Satan at all. Will we ever agree on this? I doubt it :-] |
||||||
4 | lucifer | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59080 | ||
I think the problem is not understanding that Isaiah is using figurative language in verses 12-14. The king's falling from "the heavens" (LITV) indicates his fall from power. His desire to "raise my throne above the stars of God etc..." (LITV) indicates his arrogance. The simliar language used in the case of the king of Tyre would apply the same way. The fact that Jesus uses similiar language in reference to Satan in Luke 18 and Rev. 12 certainly does not mean that Isaiah and Ezekiel were speaking of Satan. Now if Jesus had quoted from Isa and Ezek and said "this is that spoken by the prophet" you could dogmatically teach that they were speaking of Satan. But Jesus did not say that. In fact, He just used similar language (in fact, figurative language) indicating Satan's power being limited by the disciples casting out demons (Luke 18). In Revelation 12, figurative language is also used. If verses 7-12 is not figurative language then why would anything else in the chapter be figurative language? For example, is "a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet etc..." (LITV) figurative or literal language? Is the "red dragon" in verse 3 with the 7 heads and 10 horns figurative or literal language? I believe all of those verses in Rev. 12 are figurative. Was Satan cast out of Heaven? Maybe. But the passages you cited do not prove it. Especially those in Isa and Ezek which are not talking about Satan at all. Will we ever agree on this? I doubt it :-] |
||||||
5 | lucifer | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59075 | ||
If there is "much justification and support" can you cite it? Thanks. | ||||||
6 | Did this occur before Gen 1:1 or after? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59070 | ||
If He is speaking of the king of Babylon, why read something else into it? Why not just take it for what it says unless there is another passage in the Bible that applies this passage to what you are applying it to? If an inspired writer applied this passage to something else, I would accept that. But I don't know of any inspired writer of either the Old Testament or the New Testament that applies this passage to anything else other than the king of Babylon. The use of similar language by someone else (Jesus - Luke 18) does not mean that He quoted from this passage and applied it to Satan. | ||||||
7 | lucifer | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59068 | ||
Nolan, according to verse 4 of Isa. 14 it is speaking of the king of Babylon, not Satan. According to Ezek. 28:12 this passage is speaking of the king of Tyre, not Satan. | ||||||
8 | Did this occur before Gen 1:1 or after? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 59059 | ||
The expression "FALLEN FROM HEAVEN" in both cases simply indicates that their power was lost. The fact that Jesus used language like Isaiah was inspired to use does not indicate that Isaiah was talking about Satan. It is very clear from the context that Isaiah is speaking of the king of Babylon. | ||||||
9 | Luke 10:18 before or after Gen 1:1 ? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 58953 | ||
Well, it's in the context of the disciples casting out demons so I'm going to stick with what I stated before. | ||||||
10 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 58767 | ||
Not if it has to do with the truth. Again, I can't find any authority that defines the word laleo as you did. Can you cite the references? The fact is that if the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell us today that women are to keep silent in the assembly of the saints, then that's a matter of doing or not doing God's will. To agree to disagree over something like that is wrong. As I said in another post, women sure can't go wrong being silent in the assemblies, but what happens if they are supposed to follow the Holy Spirit's direction here but do not? Thanks. Ron |
||||||
11 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 58766 | ||
It seems to me that if this is so, Paul would not have told the women to ask their husbands at home. I looked up "laleo" 2980 in Strongs and it has all the things that you quoted with the exception of "means an extended or radom harangue." Where did this come from? I can't find anywhere where "laleo" means "an extended or random harangue." Theyer defines "laleo" as 1) to utter a voice or emit a sound 2) to speak 2a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech 2b) to utter articulate sounds 3) to talk 4) to utter, tell 5) to use words in order to declare one’s mind and disclose one’s thoughts 5a) to speak That's a long way from "an extended or random harangue." The women were evidently asking questions in the assembly (where did you get "house" churches?) They were to keep silent. The place where they did not have to keep silent was at home. |
||||||
12 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 58765 | ||
Can you site references as to where you got this information concerning the women yelling at the men etc...? Thanks. | ||||||
13 | God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 58756 | ||
Hello Steve, Yes, the more I study Greek and Hebrew the more I find that I don't know. However, I'm going to keep at it. Green's translation is very good, but it is also very literal and sometimes a very literal translation can give the wrong idea or not be very clear to the English reader. I ran in to that recently when I was working on 1 Cor. 16:2. English translations have the phrase "on the first day of the week." The Greek reads "one (or, first) on sabbaths." Unless one does some research on it and finds that "one on sabbaths" means "the day after the sabbath" (Vine's word studied) he can become confused. Anyway, thanks for the reply and keep studying. Ron |
||||||
14 | Is the Law abolished or not? | Eph 2:15 | Ron | 58754 | ||
Yes there is a contradiction in how the NASB and other translations render the two words but there is not a contradiction in the original Greek and not in some of the older versions of the Bible. In Matthew 5:17 the Greek reads, "think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Eph. 2:15 reads, "having brought to an end in his flesh, the alienation, the law of commandments in decrees, in order that he might create in himself the two into one new man, making peace..." Jesus did bring the Law to an end, however he did not destroy it, he fulfilled it. | ||||||
15 | Is the Law abolished or not? | Eph 2:15 | Ron | 58753 | ||
Yes there is a contradiction in how the NASB and other translations render the two words but there is not a contradiction in the original Greek and not in some of the older versions of the Bible. In Matthew 5:17 the Greek reads, "think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Eph. 2:15 reads, "having brought to an end in his flesh, the alienation, the law of commandments in decrees, in order that he might create in himself the two into one new man, making peace..." | ||||||
16 | Did this occur before Gen 1:1 or after? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 58747 | ||
I'm not sure what your point is unless it is because I capitalized the word king when referring to the king of Babylon. If that offened you I apologize. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to think I was comparing the king of Babylon with the King of kings. It is a fact that Isa. 14:4 makes clear that the "shining star, son of the morning" was not Satan but the king of Babylon. | ||||||
17 | God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 58605 | ||
There are so many helps available today for those who would like to study the Bible in the original languages that almost anyone can do a word study. You don't have to have years of study to be able to look up a word in Strongs, Youngs, or Vine's. All you need to know is the English word. And now with computers and the internet and the aids that are available, and the language courses that are available over the internet, there is no excuse. In my opinion, the problem with the different English versions of the Bible being produced today is that those producing them have tried to go so far to make it understandable in English that they have left the original meaning behind. A literal "word-for-word" translation can be understood if one will take the time to read it. A good example is the Literal Translation of the Bible by J.P. Green Sr. which I would recommend as a good study Bible. You may not agree with all the renderings but it is as close to reading the original languages as any translation I have found. | ||||||
18 | Who were the son's of God in Job? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 3838 | ||
Well, I might argue with you concerning the reliability of the NASB. But you really surprised me by giving Jesus' conception as an example of a spirit procreating with a human being. I suppose that you believe that since the Bible says that Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit that you think the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus by having sexual relations with Mary as you seem to think the angels had sexual relations with human beings in Genesis 6:4. If that's not what you mean I hope you will say so. If it is what you mean have you thought about the consequences of such a belief? If what you imply is so, then why does the Bible call Mary a virgin? If what you say is so, then Mary committed fornication with the Holy Spirit and Jesus was an illigetimate child. The fact is that Jesus' birth was a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was and is the only child who has ever been born of a virgin. MARY DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A SPIRIT!! To take such a view is SACRILEGIOUS and it is a PERVERSION of scripture to so state! In response to the last sentence of your note just let me say that a word does not always mean the same thing in every passage in the Bible. Sometimes the meaning of the word has to be determined by the context. Take the word "serpent" for example. At times the word serpent refers to Satan (Genesis 3:1) but at other times it just refers to the animal we know as a snake (Exodus 4:3). In Genesis 49:16 Dan is referred to as a "serpent." The word serpent does not always refer to Satan. The context must determine what it refers to. Thus, there are examples of the Bible using words that do not always mean the same thing in every passage. I hope you will study further and renounce your example of Jesus' conception being the result of Mary having sexual relations with a spirit. Such a belief not only questions the legitimate birth of Jesus but it questions the purity of Mary. |
||||||
19 | Who were the son's of God in Job? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 3252 | ||
The context of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7 show that the angels (along with those who came out of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the people in the days of Noah) are given as examples to assure that the "filthy dreamers" will also pay for their sins. Read the context in a reliable translation and you will find that these verses do not give support for you view. Are you understanding that the phrase "since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality... to refer to the angels? If you read the KJV or the ASV you will see that this phrase refers to the cities of the plain that were destroyed when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not to the angels. Remember that Jesus said that the "angels neither marry or are given in marriage." How could they procreate with human beings? Especially since they are spirits and human beings procreate physically. In reference to Job 38:15, we must understand that the context must be studied to determine the meaning of the words and that a word or phrase may be the same in two different verses but it may refer to different things. To me, the context in Job 1 requires the "sons of God" to refer to human beings. But if it did refer to angels, that does not necessarily mean that Gen. 6:4 refers to angels. |
||||||
20 | God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 3250 | ||
Where does the Bible teach that translators are inspired? The only people who have ever been inspired are the original writers of the Bible (John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:13 etc...) If the NIV translators were inspired why did they mistranslate the word "flesh" as "sinful nature" in so many passages? There are other examples that could be given. The same could be said of the KJV and every other translation. For example the KJV mistranslates the word Passover as Easter in Acts 12:4. If translators are inspired why the difference in the translations? I believe that God has protected His word down through the years (1 Peter 1:25) but I see nowhere in the Bible where it teaches that translators are inspired. It's my understanding that parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic but the New Testament was written in Greek. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |