Results 101 - 120 of 270
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: djconklin Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28369 | ||
"I was merely trying to show what you said was not accepted by the Christian majority and therefore should be taken with a large measure of salt." Let me get this straight: if you study something in any sort of deprth and find that the majority who have not disagree with you then you're supposed to chuck it? Good thing Martin Luther didn't think like that. "I also was trying to show your scholarship was lacking and was in need of correction." I didn't write the article on doulos for the TDNT. If you wish to quibble with them then go right ahead and prove them wrong--just get off my back!!!!! "I just really wish you would get off the seventh day soap box." Ah, Ed this verse doesn't talk about the seventh-day at all. So, why are you on the soapbox? |
||||||
102 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28363 | ||
"Of course I know you think MacArthur is a cheap hack that copied this from some other writer." Well, if you think that then you don't know me nor do you know how to think. I have never said that MacArthur was cheap or a hack or that he copied from some other writer. Still haven't read point #2 for posting on this forum? Please apologize for you lies about me. |
||||||
103 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28360 | ||
Ah, so now I'm a liar? You claim I inferred it; in fact, it was you who inferred it falsely from what I did in fact say. I don't have an agenda; what's yours? |
||||||
104 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28359 | ||
Unfortunately, for some it will be too late and others will refuse to admit that they could possibly be wronmg all because of the strong stands they have taken previously. | ||||||
105 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28357 | ||
Well, if their opinions were based on sound exegesis then you shouldn't have any trouble dealing with the few points that I showed. Paul is saying in Galatians that keeping the law cannot save you. There is no argument on that point. What the antinomians do is leap beyond that (eisegesis) and say that therefore we don't have to keep the law at all--which point Paul rebutted in Romans. Why should I disagree with truth? Why the lame attempt at a personal attack? See point #2 when you got to post. |
||||||
106 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28353 | ||
"The dictionary says, "bond-servant n. 1 a person bound to service without pay 2 a slave"" Thanks Ray. Which dictionary? I was using TDNT. |
||||||
107 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28351 | ||
I don't know the full answer other than those points that which I pointed out. Do you have anything constructive to share? | ||||||
108 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28345 | ||
Well Ed, let's see how well you analyze things: "I have learned from you: You have a web site!" Yeah, one right! "You rather proud of your education." I have never said such a thing; see Hosea 4:6. "You are rather impressed with you scholarship." Nope, two wrong! "The leading and foremost Bible translators are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception as to the day of worship." Never said such a thing; three wrong. "Most if not all commentators either do a half baked job or simply use what was previously written on the subject." The amateur commentators do it in part. Note the number of lexical sources I use that contradict some of the commentators I do cite. Where the writers of the lexicons wrong? Am I wrong in noting what they say? Am I wrong in simply pointing out that some commentators are wrong? "Most Bible scholars of today are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception about which day we as Christians should worship." Never said that either, four wrong. Try reading the full study; perhaps you are trying to read too much into the litle posts here. "Most Christian denominations are wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception on what day to worship." Since we never even talked about various denominations this is really a totally mis-read. "Most “scholars” question the veracity of date the Bible implies as to when Daniel was written." See the study on the date of the book of Daniel; there are very many well-known scholars who say that the book was written in about 164 B.C.. "However my own experience shows most genuine theologians now agree Daniel was written at the time of Daniel’s experiences." "genuine"? How do you determine who is and who isn't? "Most theologians do not understand Greek as well as you." Never said that--five wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of the your 195 references." Nope, never said that either--six wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of you two years of your studying the meaning of Col. 2:16." Nope, never said that either--seven wrong. "That you can not or will not verbalize what it is you believe." I did, repeatedly: Col. 2:16-17 isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath. Anything about that is irrelevant as in I do not believe in child baptism, I do believe in the Trinty--now are you happy? "Nor will you reveal your religious affiliation." Who cares? How about: Reformed Druid? "You have a Web site." Repeat from above. Now, since we now know that you read way too much into stuff why don't you actually try reading the full study? |
||||||
109 | turtle / turtle-dove | Song 2:12 | djconklin | 28342 | ||
In the KJV it has "voice of the turtle" and some Bible critics have used it against the Bible. Both of the above have it correct. So, why did the KJV use the word "tutle"? Well, if look up the word "turtle" in the Oxford English Dictionary (the multi-volume work) you'll find that many English writers used the word "turtle" as a metaphor for "turtle-dove". If you look at Shakespeare you'll find that he wrote a play in 1611 in which he did the same thing! | ||||||
110 | 1Ki 7:23 apparent error measuring sea | 1 Kin 7:23 | djconklin | 28341 | ||
It is possible that the circumference was measured internally--it helps to know how it was built. What they did was to create a huge clay "mound" of the internal shape of the bowl. They then covered the outside with wax. Then they put a coat of clay on the outside with some holes left at the bottom. Then they poured molten brass in the top and this melted the wax that then ran out the holes at the bottom. Once the brass hardens they take off the outside layer of clay, flip the bowl over and haul it to the Temple. The only problem I see with Missler's (what was the source?) approach is that 111/106 doesn't come up to 1.415, it is 1.04717 (which is still awfully close considering the level of technology of the day). But, I don't know where he is getting the 105 figure from in the first place, either. That there could be a missing jot over time would not be surprising (and is frequently used to solve other little numerical problems) and doesn't have to be completely missing from some mss either--the little jots and titles are very small (it is no wonder some people ruined their eyesight trying to read Hebrew!), it could have been very faded when the mss was copied. The approach I took was that the critics had to make a number of assumptions in order to sustain their claim. The full picture can be seen at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com |
||||||
111 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28338 | ||
It is interesting to note how many people use thise verse as a condemnation of keeping holy days without a trace of it appearing in the verse itself! This is called eisegesis. The word translated here as "month" is never used for the new moon which suggests to me that Paul isn't talking about it. Another fact is that this sequence of terms never appears elsewhere in the Bible. Also, there is a "formula" in the OT that does list the ceremonial days (see Col. 2:16 in the NT for example) and it is nowhere near like this list. Perhaps Paul isn't even talking about the ceremonial days here? But, then what is he talking about? |
||||||
112 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28337 | ||
The Greek word that is here mis-translated as "bond-servant" in both translations is "doulos" and means "slave". The NASB has Christ Jesus just as Paul wrote it--why did he do that? |
||||||
113 | Why was Jesus named “Jesus”? | Is 7:14 | djconklin | 28336 | ||
Then why did you even suggest it? | ||||||
114 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28335 | ||
It's the other way around. Try reading very carefully and learn. | ||||||
115 | what was the origine of sunday worship? | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28306 | ||
The latter is correct. Historical evidence indicates that most of the early church kept the Sabbath till at least the 5th century. If the day of worship was changed by fiat of either the apostles or the church then this is not understandable. If, on the other hand, the change was a reaction to external events and that latter the whole church changed over then it is understandable but still unbiblical. Neither the church nor the apostles had the right to change any of God's holy laws. |
||||||
116 | WHO WROTE THE GOSPLES? THE APOSLES? | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28303 | ||
You are quite right. Isn't it amazing how professional scholars can be lead to believe a theory instead of looking at all of the available facts? And then people on the side-lines, so to speak, accuse you of being a "lone ranger" if you dare question what the pro's have said! | ||||||
117 | Day of Purification? | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28296 | ||
"I do not know they came on Persian steeds, camels or even walked." The last option is even more likely; one of the tidbits that helps one to understand the story of the Good Samartian is that he put the wounded Jew on his donkey. This means that either the Good Samaritan was riding it (a fact that would then mean he was relatively well off). Or, if he was a merchant he had to take his cargo of goods off the donkey to put the Jew on it. |
||||||
118 | Why did it take the wise men so long... | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28295 | ||
"-the magi probably rode Persian steeds and had troop support" More likely they rode camels (slow and plodding); horses were used for attack. |
||||||
119 | what was the origine of sunday worship? | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28294 | ||
My point is that the Bible is being made to say things that it does not say and that the church cannot do anything that is contrary to the Word of God--something 1 Tim. 3:15 confirms. We should not be in disagreement on a matter of theology. | ||||||
120 | WHO WROTE THE GOSPLES? THE APOSLES? | NT general Archive 1 | djconklin | 28292 | ||
One of the things that I found particularly interesting in doing that study was the wealth of detailed information that we have available that shows that our traditions on this are quite reliable. The second thing that was tantalizing for me was the information that points to a very early date for Matthew. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [14] >> |