Results 101 - 120 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90769 | ||
Hi again Mommapbs, You asked me “Who do I say Jesus is”. I understand the Bible clearly teaches through and through that Jesus is the “Son of God”. I believe Bible translations today confuse millions by “changing the original” into thinking Jesus is himself Almighty God. Through the centuries scribes substituted the word Lord or God for what the original had in it. If this was not done then one can easily see that Jesus is the Son of God and not Almighty God himself. The apostle John in Revelation 22:18 warned of this. I have posted in the past well over 150 different Bible translations that have restored the name of Jehovah in the New Testament alone. My only question is how and why would anyone continue to use a Bible translation that admits to its own errors? Are you a truth finder or do you want to believe a non-truth. Popular tradition has it that the fall of an apple started Sir Isaac Newton on the way to discovering the universal law of gravitation. Whatever may be the truth of this tradition, there is no question about Newton’s remarkable powers of reason. Concerning his renowned scientific work the Principia, we are told: “The whole development of modern science begins with this great book. For more than 200 years it reigned supreme.” Celebrated as were Newton’s scientific discoveries, he himself humbly acknowledged his human limitations. He was modest. Shortly before his death in 1727 he said of himself: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”2 Newton appreciated that God is the Source of all truth, and in line with the deep reverence he had for his Creator, he appears to have spent even more time searching after the true God than he did in searching out scientific truths. An analysis of all that Newton wrote reveals that out of some 3,600,000 words only 1,000,000 were devoted to the sciences, whereas some 1,400,000 were on religious topics. Would you like to read what he discovered and see why he believed that same as I do about who Jesus is? Truthfinder |
||||||
102 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90764 | ||
(2nd part) What religious group today has earned for itself the reputation of faithfulness to Christian principles and separateness from this world, with its members being hated and persecuted? Well, what worldwide Christian organization of well over 6,000,000 corresponds in every respect to historical descriptions of the early Christians? Regarding these, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The primitive Christian community, although considered at first but another sect within the Jewish milieu, proved unique in its theological teaching, and more particularly in the zeal of its members, who served as witnesses to Christ ‘in all Judea and Samaria and even to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8).”—Volume 3, page 694. Notice the expressions “considered . . . but another sect,” “unique in its . . . teaching,” “zeal . . . as witnesses.” And now observe how that same encyclopedia describes Jehovah’s Witnesses: “A sect . . . Witnesses are deeply convinced that the end of the world will come within a very few years. This vivid belief appears to be the strongest driving force behind their indefatigable zeal. . . . The fundamental obligation of each member of the sect is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. . . . They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct . . . To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”—Volume 7, pages 864-5. 5 In what respects are the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses unique? The New Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a few: “They [Jehovah’s Witnesses] condemn the Trinity as pagan idolatry . . . They consider Jesus as the greatest of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ‘a god’ (so they translate John 1.1), inferior to no one but to Jehovah. . . . He died as a man and was raised as an immortal spirit Son. His Passion and death were the price he paid to regain for mankind the right to live eternally on earth. Indeed, the ‘great multitude’ (Ap 7.9) of true Witnesses hope in an earthly Paradise; only 144,000 faithful (Ap 7.4; 14.1, 4) may enjoy heavenly glory with Christ. The wicked will undergo complete destruction. . . . Baptism—which Witnesses practice by immersion . . . [is] the exterior symbol of their dedication to the service of Jehovah God. . . . Jehovah’s Witnesses have attracted publicity by refusing blood transfusions . . . Their conjugal and sexual morality is quite rigid.” Jehovah’s Witnesses may be unique in these respects, but their position on all these points is solidly based on the Bible Truthfinder |
||||||
103 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90763 | ||
Hi Mommapbs, well said. After reading and understanding what the word “cult” has come to mean in recent years, the JW cannot be accurately classified as one. Stop and think what the situation was like in Jesus’ day for a moment. Would you “accurately” classify the first century Christians as “cult members”. Something to think about it. I would have to answer in the affirmative. But to me today a cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual. And many cults follow a living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society. Remember in the recent past what happened in Waco Texas? For 50 days, hundreds of government agents laid siege to a compound with enough guns to wage a small war. The standoff ended in a showdown that left 86 dead, including at least 17 children. But who was the enemy? An army of drug-dealing mobsters? A guerrilla faction? No. As you may know, the “enemy” was a group of religious devotees, members of a cult. Their tragedy made an inconspicuous community the focus of international attention. The news media flooded the airwaves and the printed page with a barrage of reports, analyses, and comments on the dangers of fanatical cults. We were reminded of previous instances in which cult members were led to death by their leaders: the 1969 Manson murders in California; the 1978 mass suicide of cult members in Jonestown, Guyana; the 1987 murder-suicide pact engineered by cult leader Park Soon-ja of Korea, which resulted in the death of 32 members. The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God’s Word, and Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society. They live and work in the midst of other people. Jesus himself identified the true religion by saying, “by their fruits” you would recognize them. From God’s standpoint, a religion’s acceptability is not based on just one factor. For a religion to be acceptable to him, its teachings and activities must conform to his written Word of truth, the Bible. (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17) The fruitage of God-approved worship must conform to Jehovah God’s standards. He further identified them as ones that “have love among themselves”. John 13:34, 35 Do they put themselves out by going from door to door to help ones understand Bible truths? I would have to say that that is an expression of love of neighbor. Do they “kill”, in wars or abortions? No, again love would move a true Christian not to kill fellow humans. Truthfinder (continued) |
||||||
104 | What is a cult? | Not Specified | Truthfinder | 90710 | ||
What is a cult? Some here on this forum have tried to answer this question. The term “cult” is used loosely by many who may not be fully aware of its connotations. To prevent confusion, some theologians actually avoid using the term. The World Book Encyclopedia explains that “traditionally, the term cult referred to any form of worship or ritual observance.” By that criterion, all religious organizations could be classified as cults. However, in general usage today, the word “cult” has a different meaning. The same encyclopedia notes that “since the mid-1900’s, publicity about cults has altered the meaning of the term. Today, the term is applied to groups that follow a living leader who promotes new and unorthodox doctrines and practices.” Endorsing the popular usage of the term, Newsweek magazine explains that cults “are normally small, fringe groups whose members derive their identity and purpose from a single, charismatic individual.” Similarly, Asiaweek magazine notes that “the term [cult] itself is vague, but it usually denotes a new religious creed built around a charismatic leader, who often proclaims himself to be the personification of God.” The language used in a joint resolution of the 100th Congress of the State of Maryland, U.S.A., also conveys the derogatory connotation of the term cult. The resolution states that “a cult is a group or movement exhibiting excessive devotion to a person or idea and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to advance the goals of its leaders.” Clearly, cults are generally understood to be religious groups with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted today as normal social behavior. Usually they conduct their religious activities in secrecy. Many of these cultic groups actually isolate themselves in communes. Their devotion to a self-proclaimed human leader is likely to be unconditional and exclusive. Often these leaders boast of having been divinely chosen or even of being themselves divine in nature. Many here on this forum reference Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. A number of recent newspaper articles lump the Witnesses with religious groups known for their questionable practices. But would it be accurate to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a small fringe religious group? Cult members often isolate themselves from friends, family, and even society in general. Is that the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Are the Witnesses using deceptive and unethical techniques to recruit members? Cult leaders are known to use manipulative methods to control the minds of their followers. Is there any evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses do this? Is their worship cloaked in secrecy? Are they following and venerating a human leader? Truthfinder |
||||||
105 | What is a cult? | Matt 16:15 | Truthfinder | 90720 | ||
What is a cult? Some here on this forum have tried to answer this question. The term “cult” is used loosely by many who may not be fully aware of its connotations. To prevent confusion, some theologians actually avoid using the term. The World Book Encyclopedia explains that “traditionally, the term cult referred to any form of worship or ritual observance.” By that criterion, all religious organizations could be classified as cults. However, in general usage today, the word “cult” has a different meaning. The same encyclopedia notes that “since the mid-1900’s, publicity about cults has altered the meaning of the term. Today, the term is applied to groups that follow a living leader who promotes new and unorthodox doctrines and practices.” Endorsing the popular usage of the term, Newsweek magazine explains that cults “are normally small, fringe groups whose members derive their identity and purpose from a single, charismatic individual.” Similarly, Asiaweek magazine notes that “the term [cult] itself is vague, but it usually denotes a new religious creed built around a charismatic leader, who often proclaims himself to be the personification of God.” The language used in a joint resolution of the 100th Congress of the State of Maryland, U.S.A., also conveys the derogatory connotation of the term cult. The resolution states that “a cult is a group or movement exhibiting excessive devotion to a person or idea and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to advance the goals of its leaders.” Clearly, cults are generally understood to be religious groups with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted today as normal social behavior. Usually they conduct their religious activities in secrecy. Many of these cultic groups actually isolate themselves in communes. Their devotion to a self-proclaimed human leader is likely to be unconditional and exclusive. Often these leaders boast of having been divinely chosen or even of being themselves divine in nature. Many here on this forum reference Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. A number of recent newspaper articles lump the Witnesses with religious groups known for their questionable practices. But would it be accurate to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a small fringe religious group? Cult members often isolate themselves from friends, family, and even society in general. Is that the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Are the Witnesses using deceptive and unethical techniques to recruit members? Cult leaders are known to use manipulative methods to control the minds of their followers. Is there any evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses do this? Is their worship cloaked in secrecy? Are they following and venerating a human leader? Truthfinder |
||||||
106 | What is a cult? | Matt 18:6 | Truthfinder | 90717 | ||
What is a cult? Some here on this forum have tried to answer this question. The term “cult” is used loosely by many who may not be fully aware of its connotations. To prevent confusion, some theologians actually avoid using the term. The World Book Encyclopedia explains that “traditionally, the term cult referred to any form of worship or ritual observance.” By that criterion, all religious organizations could be classified as cults. However, in general usage today, the word “cult” has a different meaning. The same encyclopedia notes that “since the mid-1900’s, publicity about cults has altered the meaning of the term. Today, the term is applied to groups that follow a living leader who promotes new and unorthodox doctrines and practices.” Endorsing the popular usage of the term, Newsweek magazine explains that cults “are normally small, fringe groups whose members derive their identity and purpose from a single, charismatic individual.” Similarly, Asiaweek magazine notes that “the term [cult] itself is vague, but it usually denotes a new religious creed built around a charismatic leader, who often proclaims himself to be the personification of God.” The language used in a joint resolution of the 100th Congress of the State of Maryland, U.S.A., also conveys the derogatory connotation of the term cult. The resolution states that “a cult is a group or movement exhibiting excessive devotion to a person or idea and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to advance the goals of its leaders.” Clearly, cults are generally understood to be religious groups with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted today as normal social behavior. Usually they conduct their religious activities in secrecy. Many of these cultic groups actually isolate themselves in communes. Their devotion to a self-proclaimed human leader is likely to be unconditional and exclusive. Often these leaders boast of having been divinely chosen or even of being themselves divine in nature. Many here on this forum reference Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult. A number of recent newspaper articles lump the Witnesses with religious groups known for their questionable practices. But would it be accurate to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a small fringe religious group? Cult members often isolate themselves from friends, family, and even society in general. Is that the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Are the Witnesses using deceptive and unethical techniques to recruit members? Cult leaders are known to use manipulative methods to control the minds of their followers. Is there any evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses do this? Is their worship cloaked in secrecy? Are they following and venerating a human leader? Truthfinder |
||||||
107 | What is the difference between a | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90708 | ||
Hi Lady lkh, If I wanted to know, (really know) what a Baptist believed, how wise would it be for me to go and ask a Muslim? Hmmm, you're exactly right. A biased response, at least. Tell you what, if you believe all this hog wash that responded to your question, then the truth of the matter is, that is what you "wanted" to hear anyway. I read these comments that run other religions down (without legitimate reason) and just shake my head, concluding; "we must be living in the DARK AGES all over again." Sorry, but the truth is simple, logical, and straight from the Bible. I have a couple of questions for you: 1) In the first century, for the most part, what kind of people accepted Jesus' teaching? a) The highly educated people of the time, b) the proud religious leaders, or c) the unlettered, humble, ordinary people? Please read for yourself from your own Bible these short verses. . (Acts 4:13; Luke 10:21) The one thing that stands out in my mind after years of serious religious study is that through the centuries "higher education" has done nothing but corrupt, yes shipwrecked untold millions' faith into atheism by teaching evolution. Mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures by the "higher educated" likewise has mislead millions into taking the honor and glory due our heavenly Father and Creator and giving it to his "firstborn" Son. If you are serious in wanting to know what the "original" Bible said about a matter, read my posts of the past. The hard fact is that today's Bible translations have changed the "original" in thousands of places and many on this forum know it and try and make us believe totally, unforgivable "lies" as to what it truthfully said. I will tell you what Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible teaches and why. You can then decide for yourself if that is what the Bible really says. Truthfinder |
||||||
108 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88482 | ||
Hi again Pastor Glenn, ……….This is why it is better to set trinity discussion aside for now as we determine the question of Jesus being Jehovah. This is the key. Since it is your favorite version, I want to know what the NWT has to say in Psalm 102.……. ………Yes, it is wrong to change the scripture. But, this is a brick wall to say which side is changing it……. Well, I do not know of any Bible scholar that will honestly admit that the original texts did not contain the tetragramaton, do you? I can not come to any other conclusion that these changes by Jewish tradition were seriously wrong and worse yet has mislead untold millions to confusing which “Lord” the Bible is referring to when “Lord” is used. The NWT among many other translations makes this matter clear and simple, by restoring “Jehovah” where it was originally in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. "An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” " ……….I would like to know whether you see the NWT is consistant in translating to “God is your throne forever.” in both places: Psalm 45:6, as well as, Hebrew 1:8. What does it say? The same with Psalm 102:25-27 compared to Heb 1:10-12? …….. Well, let us see. In the NWT Psalm 45:6 reads, 6 God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You have loved righteousness and you hate wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Again this verse: That is why God (Jehovah), your (King of Israel, also Jesus) God (Jehovah), has anointed you (worshipper of God, King of Israel Solomon, also fulfilled in Jesus) with the oil of exultation more than your partners. Notes: for Ps. 45:6 of the NASB Study Bible says, “Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as “god.” (2 Sam. 19:21) … as a title because of his special relationship with God.” end quote. In this same footnote it says that other men are referred to as “gods” in the Bible. It concludes saying, “In Christ, the Son of David, it is fulfilled.” And Heb. 1:8-12 reads, NWT, ” 8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever And Psalm 102:25 reads, NWT, 25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands. Here the psalmist was talking about Jehovah God, but the apostle Paul applied these words to Jesus Christ as you say in Hebrews 1:10, 11 As it turns out, these words apply to Jesus, for he acted as Jehovah’s Agent in creating the universe just as Colossians 1:15, 16 tells us. So Jesus, too, could be said to have “laid the foundations of the earth.” Yes, all three were involved in creating the universe and man. (Let us..), God’s active force or holy, God’s Son and he himself. Truthfinder |
||||||
109 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88415 | ||
2nd part RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, the AT, Mo, TC convery the same idea as the New World Translation which reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. And yes, Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Concerning Hebrews 1:8, 9 quoting Psalm 45:6, 7, note what the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. You can believe me on this or ignore it and believe what you want but truth is truth and truth is found in this respect. Truthfinder |
||||||
110 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88414 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, I have several other Bible translations of which I am reading the verses you quote, in particular Hebrews 1:8. And you know what? Different thoughts are expressed, depending on the Bible version. And you are correct in all that you say in your post concerning Hebrews 1:8 being a quotation of Psalm 45:6 and I certainly see why you conclude that Jesus would be one and the same as Jehovah. Again, I say this because of the way the translations, versions render these passages. Due to the fact that there are at least two renderings and two ideas conveyed, one at least, is wrong. Both could be wrong but at least one is wrong. If you have a leaning toward accepting the trinity doctrine which rendering will you support? Likewise, if you feel the Bible does not teach the trinity then which rendering would you support? The answer is obvious. Perhaps you were not aware of this. This is the key that I mention again and again. In posts past, I have shown and explained many verses that had been mis-translated and some that have been changed, and some that have been added to support the trinity. This is all unacceptable. This is totally heretical. I am sure you are disagreeing with me now because you feel the trinity is "holy" and indeed taught by God through his Word the Bible. Besides the fact that God's personal name had been taken from the Holy Scriptures which in itself should make one question the trinity, I will give you one more example of many and then show that Hebrews 1:8 is yet another. Notice 1 John 5:8 according to the Authorized Version or King James and before it, Wycliffe (1380), and even Tyndale and Cranmer, and also the Geneva version of 1557. "For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness (in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one)." The final part in parenthesis was the added portion. Were you aware of these heretical actions? 1( Removing texts, changing texts,(the yhvh issue) 2) additions made to promote the trinity idea. I feel they are heretical because that do not teach the truth, but you have to agree that they are heretical because they are what Rev 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life. Again please answer for me this question; How do you feel about all this? Do you feel it wrong to remove say just one word from the Bible or to just change a word to something else? An in depth study of Hebrews 1:8, shows first that it is addressed to the Son of God, but can be rendered either, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” or, “God is thy throne for ever and ever,” since there is no verb “is” in either the Greek or in the Hebrew at Psalm 45:6, from which this is a quotation. In keeping with its principles to honor God and remain consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, the New World Translation here reads: “God is your throne forever.” (continued) |
||||||
111 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88306 | ||
2nd part. ........John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.......... This translation is with the English capitalization is misleading and bias toward trinitarian thinking. It is grammatically correct but not correct because of the context. Many many other translations have it differently and have it agreeing with the context and also the Greek grammar. The very first English translation (William Tyndale) accurately translated it. Have you read it? I have listed in other posts numerous older translations that translate it differently and in full agreement with both the context and the Bible as a whole. ........14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. " Certainly the Word Jesus was in heaven before coming to earth and reflected the his Father's glory for he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus perfectly reflected his Father's divine qualities through and through. ...........Jesus Christ is not just a "junior partner" to God. A junior partner could not be allowed to stand in for salvation of all men for all time......... .........Truthfinder, throw that NWT away and read Hebrews 11-12 again. Read John chapter 1 again and Hebrews chapter 1 again. A junior partner would have had to say "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto the father". But instead He said: Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me......... John 12:32, Titus 2:11, and 1 Timother 2:3,4 all refer to “the salvation of all men,” according to the rendering of RS, RS, KJ, NE, TEV, etc. The Greek expressions rendered “all” and “everyone” in these verses are inflected forms of the word pas. As shown in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962, Vol. I, p. 46), pas can also mean “every kind or variety.” So, in the above verses, instead of “all,” the expression “every kind of” could be used; or “all sorts of,” as is done in NW. Which is correct—“all” or the thought conveyed by “all sorts of”? Well, which rendering is also harmonious with the rest of the Bible? The latter one is. Consider Acts 10:34, 35; Revelation 7:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. (Note: Other translators also recognize this sense of the Greek word, as is shown by their renderings of it at Matthew 5:11—“all kinds of,” RS, TEV; “every kind of,” NE; “all manner of,” KJ.) No greater dishonor can be done to our heavenly Father than to take his beloved name out of his Holy Book as most "modern" translations have done so as to mislead its readers to believing that He and His Son are one and the same. Don't you get it? That was the reason Jehovah was originally in his Holy Word. If he didn't want it in there why did he put it there 7,000 times. No one on this forum has answered that question since I periodically ask it over the past 6 months. Why do so many people who call themselves "Christian" even dispise God's name Jehovah? Many even say that Jehovah isn't his name because we don't know how it was pronounced in Hebrew! What a copout. They readily use all the other names in their English for, including Jesus! So, you see Pastor Glenn, I believe the Word of God and I believe it when it says Jehovah is the Almighty God and his Son is not Almighty God but indeed his Son. Truthfinder |
||||||
112 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88305 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, You wrote: ...... ........ .......The scriptures that you give show the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ........ When you say "deity" of the Lord Jesus Christ do you mean Jesus is a mighty spirit being that has been given all authority in the universe and was maker of both the angels in heaven and material universe eons of time ago? Well certainly, I totally agree. But if you mean that our Lord Jesus is the God that Jesus told Satan at Mat. 4:10 you must render sacred service that I will have to agree with Jesus and not you. Yes, the deity of Christ must be relative, otherwise the ransome sacrifice is nulified, Jesus really is not God's "only-begotten son", and each time Jesus called his Father "God" was meaningless. Can you imagine the Father ever saying, "My God" in reference to his son? I can't and don't think any reasonable person would. Yet Jesus does numerous times. Thus Rev. 3:14 tells us that after His resurection the "Beginning of the creation of God", means Jesus was the beginning, the very first creation of his Father eons of time ago. ........Rev 3 14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[6] write, "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: We see this as referring to Jesus, after His ressurection, as the firstborn of a new spiritual order of beings. He is the second Adam in the sence that all that have faith in Him can become part of God's family......... ........Col 1 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Can't you see why He must be God? Not merely "a god"? All scripture pointed to Him to save all that accept Him throughout time......... Col. 1:15 simply says that "He (Jesus) is the image (not God himself) of the invisible God, the firstborn (first not second born son of God) (angels are sons on God but not his firstborn) and verst 16 For by Him (Jesus) all things were created (the Father created all the other sons in heaven and material universe by using Jesus, he was his "masterworker") and verse 17 tells us that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead (he was the first to be resurrected to heaven having died a human). Certainly Jesus being a human proved faithful and made the ransome sacrifice valid. If he had failed then God would have had to made other arrangements for mankind. But if he had been Almighty God himself then where is the love of offering himself on behalf of mankind. No he offered his beloved "son" as a ransom for "all". ........Abraham saw Him. Job saw Him. Jacob wrestled with Him. The mercy seat in the Ark of the covenant represented Him. No one can stand in for God like that. He must "be" God......... Pastor Glenn, please explain this verse then. John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." You say mere man as actually seen God Almighty? And who is the "only-begotten god" ? Truthfinder |
||||||
113 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88275 | ||
Hmmm, I don't know how I did that. At any rate,you quoted Titus 2:13 when you wrote, Note what Paul said about Jesus, and remember, this was not easy for him, as he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. He wrote of Jesus, "looking for the blessed hope ad the appearing of the golry of our great God AND Savior, Christ Jesus." I ask why was this not easy for him, as you say he "was" a Pharisee (past tense). Just curious. Anyway, you may or may not know that many Bible translators have rendered the last part of the verse you mentioned as you did as if it meant only one person, Jesus. For example, An American Translation says: “. . . the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” Such translators often claim that this sort of rendering conforms to a “rule” of Greek grammar. Yet you must come to the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine also inclines them toward such a translation. A literal translation of the Greek phrase is, “glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus.” (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Dr. Alfred Marshall) Observe that there is a single article (the) preceding two nouns (God, Savior) that are joined by the conjunction “and.” Over a century ago, Granville Sharp formulated what is supposed to be a “rule” applying in such constructions. It asserts that, since the article (the) is not repeated before the second noun (Savior), the two nouns refer to the same person or subject. This would mean that “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptive of Jesus, as if the meaning were ‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.’ Persons inclined to believe in the deity of Jesus sometimes give the impression that the above position is demanded by proper Greek grammar. But that is not so. In fact, the validity of the “rule” being applied in Titus has been much debated by scholars. For example, Dr. Henry Alford (The Greek Testament, Vol. III) says: “No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it” as meaning, but he adds that one needs rather to determine ‘what the words do mean.’ And that cannot be settled by grammatical rules. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” What, though, about ‘Sharp’s rule’? Dr. Nigel Turner admits: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . ”—A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: “The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before” ‘Savior’ in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like “God our Savior” he definitely does not mean Jesus, for “the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another.” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5) This agrees with the overall teaching of the Bible that Jesus is a created Son who is not equal to his Father.—John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3. Thus, Dr. White concludes: ‘On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ A number of modern translations agree. In the main text or in footnotes they render Titus 2:13 as speaking of two distinct persons, “the great God” who is Jehovah, and his Son, “our Savior, Christ Jesus,” both of whom have glory. (Luke 9:26; 2 Tim. 1:10) See The New American Bible, The Authentic New Testament, The Jerusalem Bible (footnote) and the translations by J. B. Phillips, James Moffatt and Charles K. Williams. Truthfinder |
||||||
114 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88274 | ||
Hi The Curtman, "Let us make man in our image". Jehovah is speaking to Jesus. (Col. 1:15)I already addressed this issue. Certainly the word elohim is in the plural. But as you know I wanted to know what Lexicon or Hebrew authority has defined "elohim" as you did, "plurality in unity". You quoted the editors of the NIV (known trinitarians)as saying the plural form denotes foregleams of the trinity. All I can say to that is absolute nonsense. You can not ignore as I said earlier that this word is used in the same way for individual pagan divinities, such as Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods. Commenting on this, Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes in his Synonyms of the Old Testament: “Many critics, however, of unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty.” Such Trinitarian theologians doubtless realized that if they took ‘Elo·him´ as a numerical plural (gods), they would become polytheists! Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject.” Truthfinder |
||||||
115 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88273 | ||
Hi The Curtman, "Let us make man in our image". Jehovah is speaking to Jesus. (Col. 1:15)I already addressed this issue. Certainly the word elohim is in the plural. But as you know I wanted to know what Lexicon or Hebrew authority has defined "elohim" as you did, "plurality in unity". You quoted the editors of the NIV (known trinitarians)as saying the plural form denotes foregleams of the trinity. All I can say to that is absolute nonsense. You can not ignore as I said earlier that this word is used in the same way for individual pagan divinities, such as Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods. Commenting on this, Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes in his Synonyms of the Old Testament: “Many critics, however, of unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty.” Such Trinitarian theologians doubtless realized that if they took ‘Elo·him´ as a numerical plural (gods), they would become polytheists! Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject.” Truthfinder |
||||||
116 | how/when was BC/AD initiated? | Is 61:2 | Truthfinder | 88219 | ||
Hi, When? If you notice, The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that Dionysius Exiguus, a Catholic monk, early in the "sixth" century, “was the first to date the Christian era by the birth of Christ, but he made a 4- to 7-year error.” Actually he made but a little over a year error. Truthfinder |
||||||
117 | how/when was BC/AD initiated? | Is 61:2 | Truthfinder | 88218 | ||
Hi Reilly, You are exactly right. Early in the sixth century C.E. ( or A.D.; Common Era), Pope John I commissioned a monk, who also was a scholarly Roman abbot of the 6th century, and too an accomplished mathematician, named Dionysius Exiguus to develop a system of computation that would allow the churches to set an official date for Easter. Dionysius set to work. He calculated back in time, past Jesus’ death, to what he thought (notice I said what he thought) was the year of Jesus’ birth; then he numbered each year forward from that point. Dionysius designated the period from Jesus’ birth “A.D.” (for Anno Domini—“in the year of our Lord.”) While intending only to devise a reliable way of calculating Easter each year, Dionysius inadvertently introduced the concept of numbering the years from the birth of Christ forward, but missed it by a little over a year. Most scholars agree with what I showed you earlier, that Jesus was not born in the year Dionysius used as a basis for his calculations. Truthfinder |
||||||
118 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88179 | ||
Hi Pastor Glenn, Sorry I don't understand your question. But since wisdom as always existed, then certainly knowledge along with understanding have always existed. Yet, it is quite conclusive that Revelation 3:14 and Col 3:15 along with Proverb 8:22 that this one was indeed the "son" of God, the only begotten son" John 1:14 created by God, the "only-begotten god" (John 1:18)who has explained the Almighty God,(his Father). Notice please, 1 Cor 8:5, "For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him." Truthfinder |
||||||
119 | how were years started? | Is 61:2 | Truthfinder | 88150 | ||
Hi Reilly, Well, the Julian calendar was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C.E., to give the Roman people a solar-year time arrangement in place of the lunar year. The Julian calendar consists of 365 days in a year, with the exception that on each fourth year (leap year), one day is added, to make it 366 days. However, in the course of time, it was found that the Julian calendar year is actually a little more than 11 minutes longer than the true solar year. By the 16th century C.E., a discrepancy of ten full days had accumulated. Thus, in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII introduced a slight revision, instituting what is now known as the Gregorian calendar. By papal bull ten days were omitted from the year 1582, so that the day after October 4 became October 15. The Gregorian calendar provides that centuries not divisible by 400 are not to be considered leap years. For example, unlike the year 2000, the year 1900 was not made a leap year because the number 1,900 is not divisible by 400. The Gregorian calendar is now the one in general use in most parts of the world. Truthfinder |
||||||
120 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88123 | ||
Hi The Curtman Here's one example to answer your question. You said in you post that elo-him means "plurality in unity". I want to know, "says who"? I want to know the authority that defines elo-him that way. You see, ordinarily the eem sufix or ending of Heb words indicate the masculine plural, as "os" indicated the masculine singular of most Spanish nouns. In Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh´ ´E·lim´]?” You notice here Jehovah is in the plural but refering only to one God. If it were intended to mean "plurality in unity" then the LXX (Greek translation would have used the word "theon" but it did not. It used the word "theos" (the singular form of the word for God) thus showing elo-him when refering to Jehovah is in the singular. Truthfinder That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim´ by the singular form The·os´ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate. Theon is the plural in Greek and Deum in Latin. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [15] >> |