Results 121 - 140 of 208
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80562 | ||
Hi Tim, That's interesting. It is also interesting that Syc (fifth cent. C.E.)the Syriac Peshitta (Sy), S. Lee, 1826 edition, reprinted by United Bible Societies, 1979 renders this text: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden."-F. C. Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904. Also note how Professor Wilhelm Michaelis renders the verse: "Truly, already today I give you the assurance: (one day) you will be together with me in paradise." Food for thought. Truthfinder |
||||||
122 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80511 | ||
Hi CDBJ I am not interested in discussing the matter as of yet but did have a question. You quoted Lk 23:43, as "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Why would a comma be placed after "thee," instead of after "Today" ? You notice you would have two completely different meanings if it were placed after "today". Very interesting and I thank you for your time and effort. Truthfinder |
||||||
123 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80507 | ||
Hi Joe, I have not dialogued with you before, welcome. Alright, good, so who go to this "real place",where is it,why do they go there, and you mentioned Matt. 25:46, for how long? Thank you Truthfinder |
||||||
124 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80489 | ||
Hi Justme, Your approach and complimentary remarks are refreshing and add that pinch of salt for peaceful dialogue. I believe Jesus is the "Son of God". This is a most honorable position. As the One and Only Son "only begotten" Son or God (either/and), he is differentiated from all other sons since he (Jesus) was the one that made them(all other sons). I believe that for eons of time there was only the Father-Jehovah and His Son-Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Then, other sons (angels) were made by Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Sirit (all three). Then in time Gen. 1:1 came into play and again God is acredited the action of "creating" but Jesus and the Holy Spirit accomplished it. As Solomon built his timeple but he didn't really, but gets the credit. I am merely asserting my beliefs now but would be more that happy to argue them with scripture later. Lastly, I know the NWT and it does present matters this way. I feel it presents matters more accurately than any other translation, but has its flaws. Truthfinder |
||||||
125 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80476 | ||
Thank you EdB, Do you understand Jesus' "story" of Luke 16 as literal? If so, why can we not accept it as a parable? My second question might be: what do you understand a dead soul to be? Truthfinder |
||||||
126 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80454 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
127 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80453 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
128 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80452 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
129 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80451 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
130 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80447 | ||
Hi Justme, Before you read this let me warn you that what I say is “strong” language contrary to popular opinion. Allow me to explain how I feel as a result of reading and explaining posts on this forum. I observe that many propagate the idea that the JW translation committee initiated certain verse translation to fit a certain theology, saying bias played a role in its translation. Even some “experts” assert this same idea. Yet, it is shown again and again how grammatically it is just as acceptable to translate verses such as John 1:1 the way they are in the NWT and in the dozens or other translations. Hey, these were experts too and some were even “trinitarians”. Additionally, I have shown that other “experts” in the Greek language support the translation. In fact, I have quoted them from both sides of the argument and you can run a search on this forum and see that. I have also given numerous examples of prior translations that had translated verses such as John 1:1 different from the “mainstream” translations of today. I have also given numerous example of manuscript additions and changes with the sole purpose of supporting the “trinity doctrine”. If the trinity were true why would this atrocity be needed? My unequivocal conviction is theology played a definite role in these “mainstream” translations and thus have mislead many. You know as well as I do that each and every one of those “scholars” of the NABV or the NIV knew what they were doing by taking God’s personal name out of their translations. It remains my unequivocal conviction that the unseen wicked spirit influence of God’s chief adversary Satan has been behind this hoax from its beginning, during our Lord Jesus’ time here on earth. An accurate understanding of the first prophesy of the Bible Ge 3:15 tells us that there would be enmity between Satan and Jesus. The greatest indignity modern translations and schools of theology can possibly render to the author of the Bible is to remove or conceal the personal name and true identity of our God and Father Jehovah. It amazes me how so-called “learned” “Christians” have come to even despise the most holy name in the universe. Truthfinder |
||||||
131 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80414 | ||
Hi Justme, Thank you for your kindness. I don't mind at all, go ahead and ask. I ask questions too because I want to try and figure why a person has such strong convictions about a matter that I though have such strong convictions totally opposite. I have learned a lot here on the forum, and hope to continue to learn. Truthfinder |
||||||
132 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80379 | ||
Hi Tim, Tim argues that the “wine” spoken of in some Bible texts was ordinary grape juice. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, however, reminds us that “the Bible makes no distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines—never refers or alludes to such a distinction.” And seems to me that this is also consistent with the Bible. Notice: Genesis 9:21; Luke 1:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Proverbs 31:4, 6. If I had some texts of the eleventh example (aciyc) translated as wine, I would review it. The same with the tenth example (chemer), is it translated wine? The second Hebrew word (tiyrowsh) and (yayin) the first Hebrew word Tim gave are commented on as examples of non-fermented beverages. Again, Tim give me the specific verses and let me look at them. Interestingly, Jesus’ first miracle was to convert water into wine. The Bible account says: “When, now, the director of the feast tasted the . . . wine but did not know what its source was, . . . [he] called the bridegroom and said to him: ‘Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.’” (John 2:9, 10) Yes, “the fine wine” Jesus produced was real wine. Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Obviously, Jesus did not condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation. In his day the drinking of wine was a part of the celebration of the Passover. And real wine continued to be a part of the Lord’s Evening Meal, which replaced the Passover. Truthfinder |
||||||
133 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80333 | ||
Hi IHS, Yes, in ancient Israel dishonest merchants would add water to the wine to make it go farther, but Jehovah used this to illustrate moral and spiritual corruption saying: "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water." (Isa. 1:22) Tasty wine that gives joy of heart should not be adulterated with water. If you know of other instances please quote them. So again certainly wine was not merely grape juice but fermented to wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
134 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80329 | ||
Hi Justme, From my studies of both sides of arguments as to the most honest and the most accurate translations of what the original manuscripts must have been I have come to appreciate the NWT as my favorite. I likewise respect your and others' choice in both theology beliefs and convictions as to what Bible translations are preferred. My extensive dialogues in the months past show for the most part JW's beliefs but certainly mine. More clearly, I do not totally agree with 100 per cent of their teaching. I have my own mind, abilities, and experience. I am an old man now and have devoted a considerable part of it to Bible study and still love it. Truthfinder |
||||||
135 | Can you answer second part of question? | Dan 5:25 | Truthfinder | 80277 | ||
Hi Searcher, Have you thought that maybe “MENE” appearing twice in the inscription, perhaps because the message applied to both rulers in the kingdom of Babylon at that time, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. And then notice how Daniel, in giving the interpretation, used “MENE” only once, possibly because only Belshazzar was present on this occasion? The Bible does not tell us why none of Babylon’s wise men were able to read the writing. (Da 5:8) It may have been because of the cryptic nature of the message, or the writing itself may have been in a script or language unknown to them and this is only an assumption. The interpretation certainly did come from God to Daniel as Daniel understood God's direction from the Holy Spirit being a spiritual individual. 1 Cor. 2:14 Truthfinder |
||||||
136 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80173 | ||
Hi CDBJ Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have reigned for forty-three years. So these "seven times" of insanity in between must have been seven years at the most, in his personal case. In the Holy Bible a "time" is used in places to stand for a literal year. (Dan. 7:25; 12:7, AV; Rev. 12:6, 14; 11:2, 3) But here Nebuchadnezzar was acting out a prophetic drama, in which a year of time would stand for a much longer period. This must be so, for the trampling down of Jerusalem as representing Jehovah's kingdom did not end at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity; and six centuries later Jesus Christ said that Jerusalem would continue being trodden down or trampled on by the nations till the appointed times of the Gentile nations should be fulfilled. How long, then, are these "seven times"? Truthfinder |
||||||
137 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80141 | ||
Hi Daniel Chapter 4 is cross referenced with the signs of the last days and Jesus second coming of Luke 21, Matt. 24 and Mark 13 where you will discern that the "appointed times of the nations" and "7 times" are one and the same. Dan 4:16 16 "Let its heart be changed from that of mankind, and let the heart of a beast be given to it, and let seven times pass over it." also vss 23,25, Or, "appointed (definite) times"; or, "time periods." Aram., id·da·nin; Gr., e´te, "years"; LXXBagster(Gr.), kai·roi´, "appointed times"; Lat., tem´po·ra, "times." "Years," BDB, p. 1105; KB, p. 1106; Lexicon Linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, by E. Vogt, Rome, 1971, p. 124. Truthfinder |
||||||
138 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80097 | ||
Hi Searcher, I agree with you. In this case two fulfullments. I have a question for you, if you are up for some really deep study. If not don't bother. While giving his signs that you mention in Matthew 24,(and in Luke 21: (verse 24 and Dan 4:25) Jesus spoke of the "seven times," calling them "the appointed times of the nations." He said: "Jerusalem will (continue to) be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) A footnote in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible (1984) tells us that "the 'times of the Gentiles' (King James Version rendering of "appointed times of the nations") began with the captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar. . . . Since that time Jerusalem has been, as Christ said, 'trampled on by the Gentiles.'" How long were the "seven times," or "appointed times of the nations," to last? Truthfinder |
||||||
139 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Truthfinder | 79969 | ||
Hi Emmaus, Same difference said differently. Jewish custom for marriage was to have children. But let us assume differently. To determine whether Mary had perhaps decided to remain a virgin before the angel Gabriel visited her, we must look at matters from the standpoint of the time in which she was living. For a married woman to be childless in that time was viewed as a reproach. Hence, when Elizabeth became pregnant with her first and only child, John, she said: “In these days the Lord is acting on my behalf; he has seen fit to remove my reproach among men.”—Luke 1:25, New American Bible. So, for Mary to have gotten engaged to Joseph with the intent of remaining a virgin would have meant making herself an object of reproach. How could Joseph have consented to an arrangement whereby his wife would come under the reproach of barrenness? Why would he deliberately want to forfeit the opportunity to have an heir to carry on his name? The Hebrew Scriptures with which he and Mary were acquainted in no way recommended such a thing. They pointed to parenthood as something desirable. For example, at Psalm 127:3 we read: “Sons are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” (New American Bible) The only arrangement known to the Israelites whereby a man or a woman might remain a virgin was by continuing in the single state. Perplexed! Yes, the angel told her she was pregnant with a son and she knew she was a virgin. She understood Gabriel’s revelation as already pregnant. Truthfinder |
||||||
140 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Truthfinder | 79964 | ||
Hi I am going to jump in here and add that if Mary intended to remain a virgin forever, why did she get engaged? Well, “It may be presumed,” answers Pope John Paul II, “that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin.” However, the Bible presents the matter differently. Matthew’s account says that Joseph “had no relations with her until she bore a son.” (Matthew 1:25, Catholic New American Bible, italics ours.) Notice again the words "until she bore a son." After the birth of Jesus, the marital union of Joseph and Mary was by no means virginal. One proof of this is that later in the Gospel account, Jesus is shown to have brothers and sisters.—Matthew 13:55, 56. Were these merely cousins? Well these words were originally recorded in Greek. Hence, the question arises, How would Greek-speaking people have understood the original terms here rendered “brother” and “sisters”? The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 9, p. 337) admits: “The Greek words . . . that are used to designate the relationship between Jesus and these relatives have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense.” Thus, while the Bible states that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, there is no basis for claiming that she lived as a virgin for the rest of her life with Joseph. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |