Results 1 - 20 of 146
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is meant by "us", "we", etc.? | Not Specified | benjamite | 49388 | ||
My question deals with the use of words like "us", "we", "our" (or for you language scholars, the use of the 1st person, plural, forms of the personal pronoun as well as verbs). In the epistles (primarily), do these words always refer to the group as a collective? Do they sometimes focus more on individuals who share common experiences? (For an example of the latter, more than one person can say, "I got up this morning", therefore, together we can say, "We got up this morning.") What are the implications of this? |
||||||
2 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33336 | ||
As I recall, the TNIV is simply an updated NIV. Will it affect us more than the NIV? I doubt it. If anything, it will be about the same. People who like the NIV already use it. (I'm an NAS person, myself, and I just this year got the '95 update - my old Bible wore out.) To be fair, for anyone else who reads this, I've got the "old-new comparison" page open in front of me, and have gone through some of the bigger (or at least the most irritating) changes below. The more I look at it, the more I'm glad I have my NAS. They translate "huioi" (greek word translated "sons" in NAS, "old" NIV, ASV, NKJV) in Matt. 5:9 as "children" (Although the KJV says "children", the Greek word "tekna" is usu. translated as children. There is a difference. (Okay, slightly major beef with that one.) They often switch from "Christ" to "Messiah" (except where "Christ" is used as a name - Jesus Christ), since they mean the same thing. To me, it seems like a silly change (it would be much easier to switch the OT "Messiah"'s to "Christ"'s.) Grammar/Punctuation. They divide up the flow of thought and start sentences with "But". (English teachers beware!) They switch from specific to generic. "He who" to "whoever". Please, if you must change it, make it "the one who". It speaks of a specific (or specifics) one, rather than the generic "whoever". If you are asking if the controversy will cause people to steer clear of the TNIV towards something along the lines of NASB (or even NKJV). I don't know--Christendom certainly is not immune from fads. Well, there's my "2 cents worth". (Hey, considering what all you got, it's quite a bargain.) Benjamite |
||||||
3 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33436 | ||
Makarios, blessed one, Thanks for the link. I looked at the website and went through the "List of Translation Inaccuracies...". Also, there was quite an impressive list of opponents. (I'm not familiar with all of them, but I did recognize some Theologians and Greek scholars.) In the "List", there are many valid points. Will this list matter to the TNIV's target audience? Probably not. What are the hot items in Christian bookstores? Theology? No. Greek/Hebrew Studies? No. Commentaries? Maybe some. Max Lucado? Yes. LaHaye and Jenkins? Yes. Wilkinson? Yes. What does that say? Most of Christendom doesn't care about the deeper things. "What does verbo-plenary mean?" is not even asked, much less understood. I'm not saying that this is the way it ought to be - it isn't. It is sad, very sad. What's the problem? Is it marketing? Is it teaching? (Probably both, but it is much more convenient to market to the "uneducated masses" than it is to teach them how "huios" (son) differs from "teknon" (child).) May your blessings return upon you tenfold, Benjamite |
||||||
4 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33523 | ||
Hi Curt, Fancy meeting you here. I guess we can focus our discussion on 9:11-18. Obviously this passage is true. One view is that even though God's "choice" in v. 11,17 happened before Esau and Pharaoh, it was based on God's divine foreknowledge (he knew what they would do and therefore chose on that basis). This seems an attractive position, but it would make it hard to explain v. 15-16, and 18. So you know where I am coming from, I go with the 4-point Calvinist view, as defined below. Total Depravity - Man is dead in sin, with every aspect of his being affected by the fall, unable to save himself. (Romans 3:10ff) Unconditional Election - God's choice is not based on anything man has done, but on Himself, alone. (queue Romans 9:15-16,18) Unlimited Atonement - here's where I differ from the "true Calvinists" and I cite verses like 1 John 2:2, speaking of Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Irresistible Grace - Luke 14:23, John 6:44. "compel" them to come in. "nobody comes to me unless he is drawn by My Father" Perseverance of the Saints or Eternal Security - Philippians 1:6 - He who began a work will perfect it until the day of Christ. Romans 8:28-39 - As far as God is concerned, even our glorification is assured, and that hasn't happened yet. (I view "glorified" as being proleptic (basically defined above). This is probably more than you are looking for, but it gives any number of springboards. In Him, Ben |
||||||
5 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33565 | ||
Right. (Since I consider myself a "4-pointer", I switched the "L" in TULIP to "U" for "Unlimited atonement".) I got (or paraphrased) my definitions from James White's "The Potter's Freedom". (A response to Geisler's "Chosen But Free" - these would be the two books I mentioned I read since Christmas.) I also see Biblical support for White's "6th point" - God is Free (but that wasn't the question, this time around). Back to the issue at hand, "L" Limited atonement - quoting from PF p. 40, "The intention of Christ in His cross-work was to save His people specifically. Therefore Christ's sacrifice is perfect and complete, for it actually accomplishes perfect redemption." To be honest, it sounds great, except I see too many verses which I can't harmonize with this view. Universal Propitation - I mentioned 1 John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Universal Love - John 3:16 Universal Redemption - 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false prophets "denying the Master who bought them". The above verses are my own thoughts, before consulting other sources. Charles Ryrie rightly asks, "Did Christ purpose...to make provision for the salvation of all people?" (Basic Theology, 318) I say He did. 1 Timothy 2:4, "(God our Savior,) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.", v. 6, "ransom for all" Note: 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't fit this mold, because the "you" Peter is speaking to is the church. (cf. 1:1, 3:1, and 3:8) (i.e., Christ will return when His body/bride is complete - when the church is saved.) 1 Tim 4:10 "..living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." Yes, He saves believers, but He is the Savior of all men. "All men" is not limited to the elect in this case because it is in contrast to believers. Hebrews 2:9, "...by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." It is only after this verse that the author narrows the scope to "many sons". Acts 17:30-31, "...declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in rightousness..." the call goes out to everyone. These are just a few verses. Are they enough? For now, they are for me, but I'll have to do a little digging to find more. In Him, Ben |
||||||
6 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33583 | ||
Emmaus, I don't think this needs to be an "in house conversation" (meaning, as you say, "within the Reformed tradition"). Would you mind expanding on your TULIP? I mean, the words are different, but how would this "play out" differently from the TULIP of the "Reformed tradition"? Also, would you mind backing the points up? Benjamite |
||||||
7 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33591 | ||
Since you've only answered a couple of the verses I mentioned, let me think on Hebrews 2:9. As for 1 Timothy 2, do I understand you correctly as saying that God desires all "kings and all who are in authority to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"? I don't see how that helps the case for limited atonement (unless one happens to be a king or someone in authority). Wasn't Nero the emperor at the time Paul wrote these words? As for 1 Timothy 4:10, I agree that there are different degrees of salvation, "saved" and "unsaved". The point is that, in his death, Christ was able to save all men (the payment is actually offered to, and is good to save, all men), (why not call this "common grace") especially of believers ("effecacious grace") because they have accepted Christ's payment. |
||||||
8 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33593 | ||
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to at least give it a shot. From what you say, it sounds like there are a lot of interesting points. Thanks also for the link. I'll get back to you about it. Benjamite |
||||||
9 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33645 | ||
Dear WAK, For what it is worth, let's see if we can answer your questions. First, let me invite you to bring whatever verses you have with you to the table. We would be glad to discuss them if you would like. Now for your questions. "If you're elected, I will answer the door???" Only the elect come knocking. There is no desire to know God. Romans 3:10ff; John 6:44. The fact that God chose to save any (even one), when all deserving of Hell (meant to be taken literally), is not bad news. Please, in my neck of the woods, "Hell" has become a swear word when it is not used in proper context. I would appreciate if you would use it only as given in Scripture. I'm not sure that anybody has a problem with the fact that God is there for all who ask. The question is "who is asking?" Please, again, when you return, I invite you to bring your verses to the table. Perhaps they can shed some light on the subject. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
10 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33647 | ||
Hello Brother Tim, That is an interesting thought. However, there are some who would say that in John 12:32, the idea is that He will draw all "peoples", meaning not just Jews, to Himself. Perhaps He is actively drawing from all nations. ("Men", as I recall is not in the Greek, is not in the orignal. Can you verify that for me?) Would this fit the context of the passage? The word "draw" if I am not mistaken is active. Meaning that what is drawn actually comes, like a sword or a fishing net. Obviously, if it could be passive (i.e., the drawing only works if the object drawn wants to be drawn) then John 6:44 could possibly be interpreted that way. Your thoughts? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
11 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33691 | ||
To answer your question first, the Bible explicitly states, "elect" (Romans 8:33 and elsewhere). Why He did, doesn't matter. The fact is that He did. As the Lord, Himself, told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." He "loved the world" (no qualifications given) He "gave His only begotten Son" (from the immediate context, to the world, not just to the elect.) "that whoever believes in Him" (the offer is open for any whoever.) This verse doesn't address the issue of who will believe or how they will believe, and therefore doesn't qualify the offer. The offer is open to and is good for everybody. Just because some people don't (or "won't") believe doesn't mean that the offer isn't good for them. John 6:37, "all that the Father gives me will come". All who have been predestined for salvation will be saved. But unless I am missing something from this verse, the blood is still good for all. 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Despite the fact that whoever will come may have life, only those who are drawn by the Father will come and be saved. From 45, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." I'd have to do a little more research on this one, as I understand it now, "Everyone who is drawn comes." 6:65, "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Only the elect can come to Christ. That has nothing to do with the extent of the offer of redemption. Is the death of Christ only able to save the elect? These verses don't address that issue. Is it good enough to save everyone, if they would come (even though they don't.)? Yes, and I can honestly tell an unbeliever, "Christ died for your sin. Now, you must accept His payment to have eternal life." Romans 5:6, "Christ died for the ungodly." (All of them. Note, this verse does not just say "us" - it is a general truth, 5:8 personalizes it. 5:6 can stand alone.) If, by your comment, you mean that the Reformed understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 needs to be reconciled with the rest of Scripture, I agree with you. The way it stands, it isn't now, but needs to be. God wants "thelo" everybody to be saved. God intends "boulomai" all the church (we might say "elect") to come to repentance. Scripture does interpret scripture. I cannot reconcile particular redemption with the balance of the New Testament. Your turn, Ben |
||||||
12 | Thoughts on Romans 9 | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33707 | ||
Actually, I misspoke when I asked about the verb being "active" or "passive". I am familiar with the active, passive, as well as the middle voice. ("I'm doing something to myself.") I guess my question was more along the lines of, how persuasive is the drawing? Since, I see you have Reformer Joe to deal with, I'll leave the two of you alone. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
13 | TNIV: How Will It Affect Us? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33722 | ||
Hey Brother, I saw your note and meant to get back to you, but I got a little sidetracked. As for a REAL translation, some have tried. I do like the NASB '95. Another one that is worth mentioning is the New English Translation. (www.bible.org) To be honest, there's too many bibles as it is. Unless we take all the NIV, KJV, etc. and have a worldwide "book burning" (which I do not advocate), there will always be far too many different Bibles on the scene. However, because there is the ability to make more kinds of Bibles, right or wrong, it will happen. Realistically, we will never again have the perfect Bible, this side of Glory. We don't have the Autographs available, and even if we did, most don't have the ability to read them. Translations can only do so much. For example, why did you choose "Makarios" instead of "Eulogetos"? (Aside from the fact that it is hard to represent an eta in English.) They translate the same into English, for the most part, but are different Greek words. You didn't chose "Eulogetos" probably for the following reason - "Eulogetos" is used only of God. How do we translate that into English? It is automatically diluted by means of translation. In that sense, we are all somewhat uneducated. Is Zondervan right in what they are doing? I agree that they are not. (We still have "man" and "son" in our vocabulary, among other words.) There are those who prefer a "thought" translation like the NIV. Maybe it does better express the thought of the author, but it sure doesn't look like it. Well, I admit these are somewhat random thoughts on the issue, but I wanted to make sure that I followed up with you. Makarismoi! (Oops, the "blessings" in the Septuagint are all "eulogiai"). Ben Ben |
||||||
14 | How is the end really going to happen? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33901 | ||
That is the question, isn't it. What verses pertain to the tribulation. I can give you quite a few, but others will disagree with me. Does human error play a part in the translation? It always does. (We don't have the originals. At least my Greek is sorely lacking. We're still looking "forward" to the end times. (Meaning only that it hasn't happened yet - hindsight is 20-20.) With that said, here's the verses. Daniel 9:27 (Some see a break in between the 69th and 70th week. Even one of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus, saw this as "yet future" from his time.) Other verses, I Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, note the change from the first person "us" and "we" to third person "they" and "them". Matthew 24-25 are sometimes seen as referring to the Tribulation period, but others see it as after that time, when the Lord comes back to clean up (at his 2nd coming). Revelation 6:1 through 16:21 (or there abouts) Daniel 11:36 to the end of the book. I do hope these don't overwhelm you these are more than enough to get you started. In Him, and Maranatha, Benjamite |
||||||
15 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33917 | ||
Without spending hours trying to find exactly what I am looking for on the website, given 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; and Romans 5:9, does this site place the rapture before or after Revelation 6:16-17? | ||||||
16 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33918 | ||
Sorry, I meant, given 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; and Romans 5:9, does "that site" (www.signministries.org") place the rapture before or after Rev. 6:16-17? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
17 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33919 | ||
Wrong question to ask. Benjamite |
||||||
18 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33985 | ||
Legeis Hellenisti? Lego Hellenisti. First, if I can't ask a question, why have the forum in the first place? However, if you know the Greek, you can still go ahead and talk to me. Let's forget about other books for the moment, and let Scripture interpret Scripture. If the books don't fit with Scripture, the books are wrong. As for the last part of your first paragraph, I agree with you. All the verses must fit into my view, as well as yours. Again, each verse must fit into my view, or my view is wrong. I have done the legwork and the so called "pre-wrath view" doesn't fit with the sum of Scripture. The whole tribulation is God's Wrath, not just the last part of it. (Again, Rev 6:16-17) Am I wrong? Please, bear witness with Scripture. Regarding the one verse you mentioned, what it means is that all the verses, of all of Scripture, must be taken into consideration without compromising any other verse in all of Scripture. (2 Tim 3:16-17) I have given you five verses (on the subject). I have not pulled one verse out of context. If I have, please bear witness. If we were counting, that would mean you have to come up with 75 (fifteen for each). Thus far, you've only given one (well, granted, that wasn't really related to the pre-wrath view). If you have the Van Kempen book, this should be easy. In response to your other remark, I don't have scripture "twisted around". Happy Hunting, Benjamite |
||||||
19 | Does that site address Rev. 6:16-17? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 33994 | ||
First, let me say, "Thank you". Please understand, Scripture matters. Yes, Van Kempen, and even LaHaye and Jenkins, and others might be great reading, but compared with Scripture, God's Word, they don't matter, nothing matters - not books, not websites, nothing. I am working on a more detailed response, than this, but I felt this needed to go out first. In Him, Benjammite |
||||||
20 | How is the end really going to happen? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34005 | ||
Hello, I don't know if, or when, you'll check this site again. Much has been said here since you asked your question. (As of this writing, not even 24 hours ago.) Was it too much? I don't know. I know I have said quite a lot. If it was too much, I'm sorry. The subject matter itself can be a bit overwhelming, (much less all the posts here - I know I got carried away). I would encourage you to read your Bible. Evreybody has an opinion, and Van Kempen, Irenaeus, LaHaye and Jenkins, do have their place, (If you haven't seen some of these names yet, you'll see these names in the rest of the posts.) Compared with Scripture, they don't matter (for that matter, neither do these posts). I don't know if this was necessary, but since I haven't seen your name pop up again, I wanted to check back in with you. Maranatha - "Come Lord!", Ben |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |