Results 141 - 160 of 4934
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Translation/Study of Jude | Jude | Morant61 | 218614 | ||
Greetings Fallen4shell! I am glad you clarified your method of translation, it helps me understand where you are coming from my friend! The reason I asked about the 'te' is that it is what is called a postpositive, which means that it always comes second(rarely third or fourth if a cluster of particles is used) in a clause or sentence. Thus, the 'and' must go before 'messengers'. This is why, as you noted, "If you notice in the greek the conjunction comes AFTER the word "messengers" but in many english translations it has been moved to the beginning of verse 6." In an English translation, it should be placed before 'messengers'. If I punctuated v.6 in the traditional manner (as a new sentence), I would probably just leave the 'te' out of the English. But, if I included it, it would have to go first in the English. Therefore, it cannot be punctuated (or translated) as: "them that believed not the messengers, and which..." The nature of the 'te' means that it would have to be punctuated as either: "them that believed not, and the messengers..." or "them that believed not. And the messengers..." As far as the Hebrew theory, one of the problems with this view is that there isn't any manuscript evidence to support it. But, even if it were true, when one is dealing with a Greek manuscript, one must treat it as a Greek manuscript and translate it accordingly. :-) Well, have a great evening my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
142 | Translation/Study of Jude | Jude | Morant61 | 218609 | ||
Greetings Fallen4shell! Welcome to the forum! I haven't had a chance to analysis all of your translation yet, but I did notice one point that jumped out at me. You have the 'messenger' of v. 6 as the end of the sentence in v. 5. However, 'messenger' is followed by the conjunction 'te', which would indicate that 'messengers' is part of the next clause, not the end of a sentence. Have you considered that point? I look forward to hearing from you. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
143 | Who should baptize? | Acts 2:41 | Morant61 | 218219 | ||
Greetings Searcher! I believe you are absolutely correct my friend! Scripture only gives one requirement for baptism - repentance. Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, ‘‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:41 - "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." Acts 8:35 - "Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." Acts 18:7 - "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." Baptism should be as soon after conversion as is possible. But, a delay doesn't nullify it either. :-) Further, Scripture puts absolutely no restrictions on who can baptism. In fact, the command to baptize is part of the Great Commission, which is generally regarded as a universal command. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
144 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | Morant61 | 218105 | ||
Greetings YenlsaRap! You raise a good point. Here is a break down of how the verb, 'hagiazw' is used in the New Testament. The gospels use the verb 8 times in 7 verses, but there it is either used as a reference to an object or as a future event for people. The rest of the New Testament uses the verb 20 times in 18 verses. The following verses all refer to a completed or past action: Acts 20:32, 26:18, Rom. 15:16 (this verse has a slightly different structure that focuses on the completed aspect rather than the time, which is still future to Paul's actions), 1 Cor. 1:12, 6:11, 7:14 (2x), Eph. 5:26, 2 Tim. 2:21, Heb. 10:10, 10:29, 13:12, 1 Pet. 3:15, and Rev. 22:11. There are only a few examples of the present tense of this verb: 1 Tim. 4:5 (referring to objects), Heb. 2:11 (2x), 9:13, 10:14. There is one optative verb used in a prayer for sanctification: 1 Thess. 5:23. So, the evidence is strong that there are two aspects to sanctification, completed action and progressive action. The church in general today acknowledges the progressive action, but almost completely ignores the complete action. Good post my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
145 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | Morant61 | 218104 | ||
Greetings David! Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been extremely busy. God is really blessing our local congregation. :-) I don't want to get into too much detail on the forum. We had a long discussion about this topic a short time ago, so I don't want to re-open that discussion. I will try to provide some brief answers to your questions, but if you would like to discuss this in more detail, please contact me at Morant61@insightbb.com. 1. Both history and Scripture are clear that those of the Jewish faith love God's love and want to obey it, but find themselves unable to do so because of the 'sarx'. I see this description, not as a description of every unbeliever, but of Paul as a Christian now, looking back to when he was not. 2) For a short answer, go back to Romans 2. 3) The entire passage is written in the present tense. If the passage is taken as a dramatic present, then v. 17 simply indicates action congruent with the time of the rest of the passage. 4) I would see v. 23 as reference, not to the converted Paul, but the frustrated Pharisee. V. 23 is simply restating what Paul has been saying. He wants to obey the Law, but cannot because of the flesh. 5) The 'always' and 'never' come from the present tense of the verbs for 'do'. They do not indicate occasional actions, but continuous actions. Thus, the person described in Rom. 7, never does what is right, and always does what is wrong. This is one of the main reasons why so many believe that this passage is not describing the Christian experience. Certainly, we all could testify that at times we have done what we did not 'want' to do. But, is this true of Christians 'all' the time? As I said though, I don't want to open up another long debate. If you would like to discuss this further, please e-mail me. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
146 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | Morant61 | 218072 | ||
Greetings David! I am very short on time, so may I point you to a couple of my posts that may answer your questions. Simply enter these numbers in the box on the top right that reads: Search Words or Id Number. 209355, 209535, 209559, 209297. The first three posts contain my exegesis of Romans 6-8. They should clarify what I mean about being free from the power of sin. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
147 | Using the word Lucifer | Is 14:12 | Morant61 | 217831 | ||
Greetings Doc! Thanks for the good quote. :-) There are two separate issues with Is. 14:12. One involves translation, while the other involves interpretation. There appears to be absolutely no justification for translating the Hebrew word in Is. 14:12 as 'Lucifer'. There also appears to be no justifiction for interpreting the passage as a reference to Satan. So, I think Calvin was right on! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
148 | Using the word Lucifer | Is 14:12 | Morant61 | 217810 | ||
Greetings Makarios! Interesting question my friend! I did a little checking, and I could not find any evidence that there is a manuscript question involved. It appears that some just simply mistranslated the word entirely - for some reason. Here are some sample comments about Is. 14:12: Clarke writes: "But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends:" Barnes indicates that 'lucifer' comes from the Vulgate. Keil and Delitzsch comment: "Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character." Let me know if you find any more info about the manuscripts. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
149 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | Morant61 | 217685 | ||
Greetings David! Thanks for the response my Irish friend! :-) As you correctly noted, there are some textual variants concerning Matt. 24:36. However, there are no such variants in the parallel passage in Mark. So, we can press the full force of the text. :-) In your analysis, the main problem I would have is that the text includes no such qualifiers. It simply says, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." So, how would we be doing justice to the text if we say that He really does know it, but it just isn't His place to know it? ;-) The text is very clear, which by the way, is probably why it is missing in some of the Matthew manuscripts, as some of the scribes felt that it was too difficult of a statement about Christ. Just for the record though, by the 'kenosis', I don't in any way mean that Christ ceased to be God. He always has been and always will be God. I like to think of it in relation to Mike Tyson. If I were to fight Mike Tyson, I would lose! But, if Mike Tyson were to tie both of his hand behind his back for the entire fight, I would probably still lose. :-) In the above scenario though, Mike Tyson never ceases to be Mike Tyson. He simply places voluntary limits upon his capabilities. In the same way, Jesus never ceased to be God, but He was also fully human. God never hungers, but Christ did. God never feels pain, but Christ did. God never dies, but Christ did. God never lacks information about anything, but Jesus did. I don't see any way that we can be true to the incarnation and not accept that Jesus was not boxing to His full potential while here on earth. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
150 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | Morant61 | 217679 | ||
Greetings David! Concerning the limitations of Christ during His incarnation, Matthew 24:36 is quite clear: "‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'" So, Christ clearly was not omniscient during His incarnation. In a similar vein, Luke 2:52 says of Christ: "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." If Christ were omniscient during His incarnation, He could not grow in wisdom. Just a few thoughts for consideration! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
151 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | Morant61 | 217672 | ||
Greetings BradK! I agree with you that the greater works mostly likely includes salvation. However, note that John 14:12 also says that he who believes in Him will do the works that He did in addition to the greater works! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
152 | Un-repented Sin | Heb 6:6 | Morant61 | 217560 | ||
Greetings David! Welcome to the forum! Though I have never been to Ireland, I have Irish blood running through my veins. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
153 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217285 | ||
Greetings MJH! I have been doing some research on Col. 2:14, but I am by no means finished. :-) In regards to your analysis of the passage, a couple of points come to mind. 1) Clearly, when the phrase 'traditions of men' is used in Scripture, it indicates the perversions of God's Law (see v. 8). But, is that what Paul is discussing in v. 14? I have doubts for several reasons. a) In what way would these false teachings need to be nailed to the cross? What hold did they have on us? How did the cross do anything to them? It would seem to me that the only debt that could legitimately be nailed to the cross is the debt we owed God. b) Secondly, v. 17 speaks of these 'things' as being shadows of what was to come in Christ. This is the same language used of the Law in Hebrews 8 and 10. In what way would a false teaching be fulfilled in Christ? c) Finally, while Col. 2:14 uses a phrase that may or may not refer to the law, the parallel passage in Eph. 2:15 specifically speaks of the law being abolished in His flesh. Though the word 'law' is modified with several words in this text. I plan on doing some research in the LXX concerning Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 to see if these particular words were ever used there in reference to the Mosaic Law. I have enjoyed digging into these passages my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
154 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217123 | ||
Greetings MJH! I pray that all on the forum will follow your example of grace my friend! We can disagree without being disagreeable. :-) I've been up all night and day, so I'll try to make my response brief. 1) I agree that Paul was not against the law. But, he argues that the law has now (after Christ) served it's purpose. That is how I understand his various comments, such as we are dead to the Law, and we are no longer under it's supervision. As you noted, many did not understand Paul. They thought he was arguing for lawlessness. We are not free to sin. In fact, we now have a much higher standard than the moral law in that we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit. His law is now written in our hearts. So, I hope everyone understands that I am not advocating lawlessness. :-) But, I believe that Paul is saying that the Law has run it's course and we are no longer under it in any way. Rituals, feasts, ect..., have all been fulfilled in Christ - and were never meant to save us anyway. 2) Hagar and Sara: You break the illustration down pretty well, but I don't think you give enough credit to Gal. 4:24: "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." Paul isn't just contrasting grace and works, but two entirely different covenants - Abraham and Sinai (Promise and Law). In v. 30, he tells us to 'get rid of the slave woman', not just understand her better or apply her in the proper manner. :-) This is one of the reasons why I don't think the justification by law argument goes far enough. Paul calls for a clean break from the entire covenant of Sinai and compares it to slavery. Well, I'd better get some sleep my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
155 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217092 | ||
Greetings MJH! As always, I enjoy your contributions my friend! Certainly, justification and circumcision were the primary focus of Galatians. There were those who argued that a Gentile had to be circumcised in order to be saved. However, I don't think that simply saying we are not justified by the Law goes as far as what Paul was saying. Paul talks about the way of the son and the way of the slave. The way of the slave is the Mosaic law. Paul talks about being dead to the law. Paul talks about no longer being under the supervision of the law. While circumcision is discussed, Paul also makes the point that obedience to any point of the law makes one obligated to it all. So, in light of all that Paul says, I have a hard time agreeing that Paul is saying that we are not saved by obeying the Law, but we are still subject to the Law. I just don't think that this does justice to what Paul is saying. Thanks for your input my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
156 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217084 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! They are certainly both Apostles and inspired author's of Scripture. Concerning, 1 Corinthians, where exactly does Paul advocate the keeping of feast days for Christians? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
157 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217078 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! Where did Paul advocate the keeping of feast days for Christians? As for Paul, he did not follow Jesus while Jesus was alive, but Scripture does say: Gal 1:12 - I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
158 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217075 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! The Greeks used the Greek form of Jesus' Hebrew name. I use the English form of the Greek word, since I speak English. :-) If I wanted to use the English form of His Hebrew name, I would call Him Joshua. My whole point in this discussion is simply that there is no special merit to calling Him by His Hebrew name, when even the New Testament doesn't do it. Years ago, I remember a series of posts where someone claimed that Scripture had removed the name of God from Scripture since they translated 'YHWH' as God. In that series, I noted that when Jesus quoted a passage where the word 'YHWH' appeared in the OT passage, He translated it as 'Lord' instead. My point in that series of posts was that apparently God doesn't have the same hangups about the original 'name' that so many of us seem to have. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
159 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217074 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! Certainly, you are allowed to us it. :-) My point simply was that many people act as though they are somehow being more 'true' to Scripture by using an archaic forum of God's name, when even Scripture doesn't follow that practice. Note, I'm not saying that you said that, but there are many who follow this practice that think this way. I am looking forward to your response to my post about Galatians my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
160 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217065 | ||
Greetings Grafted in! You wrote: "Every time a person read the Hebrew scriptures and came to the word spelled yod shin vav ayin, they were calling on their Savior's name (which means salvation). It's the name God gave Him. I'm going to change it? Not me!" Yet, God Himself does not follow this practice in the New Testament. :-) Jesus is not called 'yod shin vav ayin' in the NT. He is called 'iesous'. God is not called 'YHWH', but 'theos'. Simply put, God uses a variety of languages to refer to Himself. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [247] >> |