Results 101 - 120 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87849 | ||
Hi The Curtman, The answer to your question: Please remember that the pronoun "He" is Jesus. Also I removed the words "other" which were in brackets to show they were inserted to clearify the thought since some here have a problem with that. Notice Jesus is the image of God and not God, too. God used him to create the stars, earth, man, and angels. Col. 1:15 13 He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made to exist, To reinforce his point, Paul cited this universal truth." as found at Heb. 3:4 “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” No one should dispute that God is greater than anyone, for he is the Builder, or Creator, of all. Logically, then, since Jesus was God’s coworker, he must be greater than all other creation, including Moses but not greater that himself so inserting "other" would be appropriate. 1 Cor 11:2,3, 2 Now I commend YOU because in all things YOU have me in mind and YOU are holding fast the traditions just as I handed [them] on to YOU. 3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God For centuries Proverbs 8:30 has been used to clearify this thought. Proverbs 8:22-30, 22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men. Truthfinder |
||||||
102 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87758 | ||
Hi again JibbyJee, If you had read my profile you would have seen that I am no longer a "Jehovah's Witness". But for the most part the NWT by far is a superior translation than say the NASB or the NIV. These translations have chosen to change words from the oldest manuscripts to cause confusion as to the true identity of the Almighty. Thus I understand why you and others feel that Jesus is one and the same as Jehovah. Translations and more important, manuscripts have promulgated the trinity doctrine. For instance why would you personally use a translation that admits having changed from the oldest manuscripts and no doubt the original the translation of God's name? That in itself accounts for around 7,000 errors. Errors of utmost importance. Why would God have had it in the Bible if he didn't want it there? Something BIG is wrong here. I have seen so many people that even despise that name because of this. So now we have it. Today people think that Jesus is Jehovah. What can I say? If you want to try and make the trinity work, go ahead, but it simply is not truth, never was, never will be. If you want to try and make Jesus Almighty God, go ahead. He's not, he is God's "only-begotten son", "first born of all creation". That's what the Bible tells us and if you want to try make it mean otherwise, and what others have told you go right ahead but that doesn't make it true. As far as John 1:1 is concerned, again the translators such as the NIV and NASB and King James have tried to make the trinity appear as true. I have studied what Greek scholars say defending their translations for and against. Both translations are proved by these scholars as acceptable Greek grammar. But the context, and bias toward the understanding of Jesus' identity dictates how it's translated. This controversy has been debated for centuries. I have studied it for 40 years now and there is no doubt in my mind that the trinity doctrine is one of the greatest injusteses that could have been done to our heavenly Father. One last thought friend, “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Truthfinder |
||||||
103 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87709 | ||
If you want to read an interesting 'viewpoint' of the renown scientist Sir Isaac Newton, go to the yellow box for the Search entry and enter the word Tara as the User and words used enter Newton. I just came across it a few minutes ago. Truthfinder |
||||||
104 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87700 | ||
Hi again TheCurtman, The Old Testament Hebrew lexicon: Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon defines "Elo him" as: (plural) rulers, judges divine ones angels gods (plural intensive - singular meaning) god, goddess godlike one works or special possessions of God the (true) God God The Hebrew word ´elo·him´ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ´Elo·him´ is the plural of ´eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him´ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men. When applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him´ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him´] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him´] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208. Truthfinder |
||||||
105 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87693 | ||
You know "TheCurtman", Moslems insist, in the words of the Koran (5:76-79), that “there is no God but one God,” and we Christians heartily agree, for the Bible itself declares, at 1 Corinthians 8:6, that “there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.” In the Koran God is “Allah,” for in Arabic the word Allah means “the God.” The Bible gives us his name, saying “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”Mark 12:29.(Quote of Deut. 6:4) But when Christians use the expression “the Son of God,” Moslems vehemently protest, “God has no son.” They quote the Koran, which says, at Suras 4:169; 6:101; 19:36: “God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a son!” “How, when He hath no consort, should He have a son?” “It beseemeth not God to beget a son.” Of course, it would be foolish for anyone to limit the power of God by saying, ‘God cannot have a son.’ Truthfully, the Koran proclaims, “Verily, God is Almighty.” (2:19) He is the Creator of the universe, of heaven and earth and of the creatures in them. As God said to Abraham, that man of faith recognized by both Christians and Moslems, “Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah?” A person who really is in submission to the Omnipotent God must agree with the prophet who said, “With God all things are possible.”—Gen. 18:14; Matt. 19:26. No Moslem denies that it is God who created humans and endowed them with power to have sons. Yes, God created Adam with power to have sons. Now, was it a blind man who invented and made the first camera? Or was it a deaf man who first thought of and fashioned the telephone? No, reasons Sir Isaac Newton, the English mathematician, physicist and astronomer. He said, “Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, or the ear without knowledge of sounds?” In support of the obvious answer the Bible says: “Understand, you who are unreasoning among the people; and as for you stupid ones, when will you have any insight? The One planting the ear, can he not hear? Or the One forming the eye, can he not look?” (Ps. 94:8, 9) The One who gave man power to have sons, can He not have a son? “Verily, God is Almighty.” The logical answer is an indisputable Yes, and that is why Abraham believed when God told him that he would have a son. With just elementary insight a reasoning person must agree: God can have a son. Truthfinder |
||||||
106 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87676 | ||
Hi Tim, You keep ignoring that if one or two verses say there is only one God and then the other verses I have shown you, identify others such as angels and certain men as gods, then the only way to understand Is. 44:6 and 45:5 is the way I explained them. Otherwise you are ignoring those verses that identify these others as "elohim" gods or mighty ones. One example: At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him´, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh´ ha ´Elo·him´, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo him´ indeed is used not as false gods but "elo him" and is rendered “angels” in the(LXX)and “godlike ones” in the NWT. Truthfinder |
||||||
107 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87644 | ||
Hi Curtman Yes, you are exactly correct as far as I am concerned. Isa. 44:6 and 45:5 tells us there is only one God (mighty one) to us that should be viewed as the Supreme God, Almighty God, The Father. To view any other God in his place is wrong. It is interesting that you ask this question, because the making of more that one god as the sole GOD is exactly polytheistic. Remember what the words “elohim and “theos” mean. Anything venerated, a mighty one. Remember too that paying honor to such ones in a relative sense may be both proper and righteous. However polytheism is most certainly idolatry. Egypt’s religion was polytheistic, characterized by over 500 gods, and possibly twice that many. “Throughout Egypt generally the company of gods of a town or city were three in number,” says Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge. In time, a principal triad developed, a holy family composed of Osiris, the father; Isis, the mother; and Horus, the child. Polytheism resulted in several gods’ claiming to be ‘the sole god.’ But priests and theologians evidently saw no problem in believing in one god and at the same time viewing him as existing in a multitude of forms. Author B. Mertz comments that this “is only another example of that pleasant inconsistency which is so characteristic of Egyptian religion.” When the Son of God, Jesus is viewed as the sole God as the Father only should be viewed, is exactly polytheistic. Recognizing Jesus as a Mighty One (Elohim) is not polytheistic as long as he is not viewed as the Almighty One. Worshipping Jesus as the Son of God is relative and proper but worshipping him as the sole God in stead of as the Son of God is not. Jesus is the one that said, “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” Mat. 4:10 quoting Deut. 10:20 Actually the phrase “other gods” appears 84 times in the Bible and 5 times as “other god”. To error is to say all these are false gods (mighty ones. The Bible plainly says they are gods. Satan is a god, plain and simple. 2 Cor. 4:4. What kind of god is he? He is a "false" god. But just because he should not be worshipped as the Almighty God does not make him “no god”. To illustrate: John 8:12 tells us that Jesus is the “light” of the world. But what happens when we read Mat. 5:14? Are Jesus’ disciples “false lights” “not lights” of the world? Of course not. They were still “lights” but not in the same sense that Jesus was and still is the “light” of the world. 1 Tim 1:17 identifies Jesus’ Father as the “one true God”. Additionally to whom did Jesus say he was ascending to when he said, “to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”—Joh 20:11-18. Polytheism is idolatry, thus Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus’ Father is Almighty God. To say otherwise is an invention of man and contradicts scripture and takes away the due honor to our heavenly Father Jehovah. Truthfinder |
||||||
108 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87530 | ||
Hi Glenn, If Goodnewsminister is expounding on scriptures and I see that they don't contradict other verses I support him on those arguments. If Herbert W. Armstrong does the same I likewise support him on those arguments. If the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does the same I likewise support them on those arguments. If the contrary is true then I simply express my understanding using scriptural proof texts. If T. Morant uses a textural proof for an argument and I understand that other scriptural texts contradict them, I have presented some of them. I have yet to find any contradictions in the Bible for the way I believe but if one believes the trinity then there are many. By the way, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. Truthfinder |
||||||
109 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87522 | ||
Well, hi Tim, Since elohim/theos means a mighty one, anything that is venerated, anything that is honored, how can you say Jesus is not "a god" (an honored one, a venerated one). Certainly he is. Also, truth dictates that the true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. (1Ki 8:49; Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24) His throne is in heaven. (Isa 66:1) He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) “All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him,” and he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.—2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4 You wrote: "the Scriptures themselves are quite clear" then why the controversy? IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11. What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].” Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27. Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching? To me they are indeed clear and logical and the Son of God is not the Almighty Jehovah but his son. Truthfinder |
||||||
110 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Truthfinder | 87460 | ||
Hi Goodnewsminister, Have you left the forum or are you coming back to dialogue perhaps with a few of us that agree with almost everything you've said? I have patiently sat back and read the replies, rebutals, but wanted to join and support you but perhaps waited too long. I understand frustration when we find so few that cannot understand/accept even the basics of Biblical truths as you have presented. Come back, be patient, and let's continue expounding these basics and if even one individual listens it will be worth the time and effort. Truthfinder |
||||||
111 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Truthfinder | 83418 | ||
Very good, I for one agree with your thoughts. Might I add mine? John 5:18, Revised Standard Verson: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” I agree it was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28) John 10:36 says, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS. Philippians 2:5, 6 comes into play here. The KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” Not only the NWT but also the RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought. But which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) Compare Genesis 3:5 where Satan told Eve that she would be equal to God if she were to eat of the forbidden fruit. Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.” -John 14:28. I thus see no contridiction. Note what The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437. Truthfinder |
||||||
112 | 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 |
||||||
113 | 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 |
||||||
114 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81339 | ||
(Part 2) Yes, believing in Jesus is crucial to our salvation, but certainly more is needed. For instance, Jesus spoke of some who professed faith in him and even did “powerful works” in his name. But he did not recognize them. Why? Because they were “workers of lawlessness” and did not do the will of his Father. (Matthew 7:15-23) The disciple James reminds us of the need to “become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.” He also said: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. . . . Faith without works is dead.”—James 1:22; 2:19, 26. Some, though, argue that those who are genuinely saved do all these things anyway. But is that really the case in practice? The ‘saved’ people I have known feel no great need to examine the Scriptures because they think they already have all they need for salvation.” And when I observe the hypocrisy and unchristian acts of many who claim to be saved, this brings the whole subject of salvation into disrepute. But still, many insist that the Scriptures say: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36, King James Version) Therefore, they conclude that once you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you can never again be lost. “Once saved, always saved” is their watchword. But is that what the Scriptures really say? To answer this, we need to consider everything the Bible says on the subject and not hang on just one or two verses. No we would not want to ‘deceive ourselves with false reasoning’ by reading only selected parts of God’s Word. Just my two cents worth. Truthfinder |
||||||
115 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81338 | ||
Hi Tim, I have noticed an on-going exchange of thoughts on this matter and thought I might add an additional thought. :)(3 thoughts) Eph 2:8,9 says, “this undeserved kindness (grace), indeed, YOU have been saved through faith; and this not owing to YOU, it is God’s gift. 9 No, it is not owing to works, in order that no man should have ground for boasting. The Bible also says at Romans 3:28, “A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.” It also says: “A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.” Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? And notice James 2:24, “YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. To be in harmony with the Bible I would say that both Paul and James are correct. It might be noted that for centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements. But then such “works of law,” or simply “works,” were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice according to Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus’ superlative sacrifice did not mean that we can ignore the Bible’s instructions. It says: “How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?”--Hebrews 9:14. So then how do we “render sacred service to the living God”? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world’s immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: “Fight the fine fight of the faith,” put off “the sin that easily entangles us,” and “run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus.” And the Bible urges us not to ‘get tired and give out in our souls.’ As 1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21 all show us. But notice this fact. We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this magnificent gift, though, if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, because again of what James clearly states: “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.”--James 2:17 So, what is required for salvation? Well, the prime requirement is the one that the apostle Paul stated to the Philippian jailer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved.” (Acts 16:31) Heartfelt acceptance of the shed blood of Jesus is essential if we are going to be saved. And what will salvation mean for us? Jesus indicated the answer when he said: “I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed.” (John 10:28) For most, I believe that Bible teaches, salvation will mean everlasting life on an earth restored to paradisaic perfection. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Revelation 21:3, 4) In the case of a “little flock,” however, it will mean ruling with Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom, as Luke 12:32 and Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:4 shows me. Yes, some suggest that belief in Jesus is the end of the matter. “There is just one thing that any one needs to do to get to heaven,” says one religious tract I read a long time ago, “That is, to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour, surrender to Him as Lord and Master, and openly confess Him as such before the world.” Thus, many believe that a sudden, emotional conversion experience is all we need in order to guarantee everlasting life. However, to concentrate on only one essential requirement for salvation to the exclusion of the others is like reading one crucial clause in a contract and ignoring the rest. (continued) |
||||||
116 | 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 |
||||||
117 | 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 |
||||||
118 | 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 |
||||||
119 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80867 | ||
Hi Radioman2, Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
120 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80595 | ||
Tim, Actually, I feel the reasons for your argument irrelevant. Please don’t take that as ugly as it might sound, I know you know your Greek. On the other hand, I feel Jesus was speaking Hebrew and merely spoke a common Hebrew idiom such as at Zech. 9:12; Deut. 4:26, 39, and 40. Additionally, I have compiled pages of research on this verse which proves to me that the comma should be placed after “shmeron”. Just one more example since I have the room here is that one of the best Greek texts, namely Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, which is one of the few Greek texts that actually contains punctuation, has the comma following the Greek “shmeron”. I wonder who was behind this textual difference in translation? Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [11] >> |