Results 181 - 200 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | matt | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106307 | ||
Why would someone condemn others for celebrating Christmas? Because it's standard Watchtower doctrine? |
||||||
182 | Azusa Revival in 1904, any relative liv | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107606 | ||
Are you kidding? I'm doing well to remember what I had for lunch yesterday. Green grass? If the grass was green, then they weren't in Los Angeles. -kalos :-) |
||||||
183 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108071 | ||
'The misrepresentation of John being the church. 'It is said that the church is not present during the events of Revelation because in chapter 4:1, John is called to "come up here". John is said to be a picture of the church, and therefore it (the church) is in heaven during the days of the 70th week of Daniel. But is that a valid inference? Nowhere in all of the New Testament is there warrant to apply the understanding that John represents the church in Rev. 4:1. The context clearly implies that "John" refers to... John, and no one else. He is simply given a heavenly perspective of what is going on behind the visible world and what will take place during the last days. Nothing else. To say otherwise is to grasp at straws to try to support a hollow argument." - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Why is the church not mentioned in Revelation 4-22? 'By Rev. Charles Cooper 'It is assumed by pretribulationists that the church is not present on earth during the events spoken of in the majority of the book of Revelation. This thinking is based primarily on the absence of the word "church" from Revelation 3:22 to Revelation 20:16. If the "church" is not mentioned, it is concluded, she must have been raptured prior to the events written about. Further, it is assumed that the invitation to the apostle John in Revelation 4:1 to "come up here" is a picture of the rapture of the church preceding the events of the 70th week. 'It is important to examine these assumptions because they clearly attempt to place the rescue of the righteous (the rapture) before Daniel's 70th week and not after. If that is so, it should be clearly taught in Scripture. 'For several compelling reasons, it is a false conclusion to assume that the church will be raptured before the 70th week of Daniel (and for that reason is not mentioned between chapters 4 and 20): '1. The plain teaching of Scripture. Jesus, in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3-31), outlines the sequence of events in the last days relative to the church. Verses 3-14 parallel Revelation chapter 6 and depict those events from the beginning of the 70th week to the rapture. Then, in verses 15-28, He focuses on the middle time period of that future week (the final 7 years) and emphasizes two key events: (a) a time of great persecution, and (b) the "cut[ting] short" of "those days" of persecution for "the sake of the elect". Finally, in verses 29-31, He highlights what it is that will "cut short" that persecution, the rescue of the elect (the rapture). 'Paul echoes this same teaching in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians 2:1-12: (a) the apostasy comes first, (b) the revealing of the man of lawlessness, (c) the "challenge" to all who will not bow down to him and worship him "as being God", and (d) the coming of the Lord to "gather together" believers unto Himself. 'In Revelation 6-8, we have the same sequence repeated: (a) the 70th week begins, (b) the pressure builds [seals 1-3], (c) the midpoint [seals 4-5] and apex of the persecution (against the "saints") arrives, (d) the "cut[ting] short" of that persecution with the same cosmic announcement [seal 6] as Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:29-31 followed by the rapture of the saints (Revelation 7:9ff). There is absolutely no teaching either by hint or by direct instruction that the church will not be present during the 70th week of Daniel. (...) '5. The argument from silence. It is maintained that since the word "church" isn't used again from 3:22 until 22:6, she is absent from the events unfolding during that time period. That's an argument from silence. If we apply that same argument to the gospel of John, we have to conclude that the gospel of John isn't for the church because the word church isn't even mentioned in all of its chapters. Can that be true? 'The overwhelming evidence is that the church is indeed present during the 70th week of Daniel regardless of whether the word is used or not. What one believes must be squarely built on what the Bible clearly says, not on what we might like it to say for whatever reason. What we believe about the last days will have tremendous implications for our lives should we enter those days. Let us be Bereans, searching to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11)' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0027.html) |
||||||
184 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108115 | ||
RAPTURE, THE The Last Day "Christ's gathering together, the deliverance of, and rescue of the true living church (by His angelic "reapers") to Himself in the clouds at His second coming (parousia), an event that occurs on the last day when the day of the Lord commences, between the sixth seal (the sign of the end of the age ) and the seventh seal (the day of the Lord). The Rapture cannot occur until sometime during the second half of the seventieth week , when God cuts short the great tribulation by Antichrist . "But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows." PREWRATH RAPTURE, THE "The position that the true church will be raptured when the great tribulation by Antichrist, inspired by Satan, is cut short by God's day-of-the-Lord wrath, (Matt. 24:22) which will occur between the sixth and seventh seals of Revelation, sometime during the second half of the seventieth week. (cf. Rev. 7:9-17) The persecution associated with the great tribulation of Antichrist is viewed as the wrath of Satan, whereas the events that follow beginning with the seventh seal, are considered the wrath of God."(http://www.signministries.org/glossary.htm |
||||||
185 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108624 | ||
For your information, most of your assertions are not true. That Mark or Luke had never met Christ does not alter the fact that after the death of the last apostle there was no new revelation. The canon of the New Testament and of the entire Bible was complete. Paul didn't claim a vision. According to the Bible, he had a vision. Paul did not write his "views" to any churches. The churches he wrote to were churches he himself had established. They were not already established. If you're saying that the writings of Paul were in conflict with the writings of Peter, you couldn't be more mistaken. God's Word is never in conflict with itself. |
||||||
186 | Is marriage necessary? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 109655 | ||
I think, no, I'm sure the question was: "Is marriage necessary for a man and woman to be committed to their relationship?" | ||||||
187 | Is marriage necessary? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 109670 | ||
Hank: I'm used to seeing our serious and intent friend correcting the answers. But now he's correcting the questions as well. Whatever. --kalos |
||||||
188 | Does anyone believe in partial rapture? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 109968 | ||
Since YOU are the one asking the question, would YOU define for us what you mean by "partial rapture"? If not, then I'll have to define it for myself and answer the question accordingly. | ||||||
189 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110238 | ||
Could you give us an example of one or more "errors" in the NIV? | ||||||
190 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110265 | ||
"not a part of the original text of Acts." Ken John: Thank you for providing the information I requested. I have no wish to be argumentative. I merely ask that you consider the following information. The issue of why the NIV "edits out" this verse is, in fact, addressed in the NIV translators' note. NIV Footnote at Acts 8:36. 'Some manuscripts add verse 37: Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."' NASB Acts 8:37 [[1] And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (Footnote 1. Early mss do not contain this verse) The NET Bible, Note at Acts 8:36 '92tc A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in [Ì45,74 Í A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co]. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith.' (http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm) Peace, kalos |
||||||
191 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110275 | ||
The NET Bible Isaiah14:12 Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! [23] You’ve been cut down to the ground, O conqueror [24] of the nations! [25] 23tn The Hebrew text has rjv-/b llyh (“Helel son of Shachar”), which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. See HALOT 245. sn What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, BKCOT, 1061). 24tn Some understand the verb to from vlj, “to weaken,” but HALOT 324 proposes a homonym here, meaning “to defeat.” 25sn In this line the taunting kings hint at the literal identity of the king, after likening him to the god Helel and a tree. The verb udg, “cut down,” is used of chopping down trees in 9:10 and 10:33 (http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm) |
||||||
192 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110507 | ||
"THE GREATEST PROBLEM, however, is presented by the English words which are still in contant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version." ___________________ Hank: Thanks for providing information that is accurate and informative. To expand a bit on what you've said, I quote from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version. 'A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible -- the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeist, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. 'The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in contant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. 'Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.' (Preface to the Revised Standard Version, 1952, 1946, 1971) |
||||||
193 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110564 | ||
'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Riplinger's book 'goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence.' (...) 'Riplinger rejects [the] earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them... 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies...She hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. '...Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' ____________________ [This article has been edited to fit here. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] |
||||||
194 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110832 | ||
In a discussion, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes. What surprises me is that you have not directly responded to the points made by those who replied to you. Instead you keep repeating your creed, which is, "The King James Version is the Word of God. The Word of God is the King James Version." |
||||||
195 | Why did the KJV include these verses? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110834 | ||
Ken John: "1) Which version of the KJV is the 'very Word of God preserved to this day'? Was it the first? Were the misprints the very Word of God as well? "2) How was the text of the TR arrived at my friend? How many manuscripts was it based upon?" In a post from Morant61 he asks you the specific questions quoted above. You make no attempt to answer any of them. You write to Tim: "I am sure that you, as a student of Scripture, have the ability to find the answers you are looking for in 1) and 2)." He is asking YOU these questions so you can provide evidence to back up your assertion that the KJV is the only translation we should use. You write: "Many cannot seemingly walk by Faith. They want proof!" Why should Tim have faith in your assertions? Of course he wants proof. Anyone can assert anything, but that doesn't make it true. If you have proof, tell us what it is. Don't criticize the other person for asking you. You write: "I believe that we have ample proof that the Authorised Version is the very Word of God, preserved and given to us in the English language. God promised to preserve His Word! Read Psalm 12:6,7. Also 1Peter1:25 and Luke 21:33" You assert I BELIEVE that we have ample proof. Simply believing it doesn't make it so. What proof? If there is proof, tell us what it is. "I believe" is not an answer to anything. WHY do you believe what you do? How did you come to those conclusions? Then you make the assertion that the AV (KJV) is the very Word of God and cite Scripture in an attempt to prove it. What verse in the Bible SAYS that the King James Version and only the KJV is "the very Word of God?" Even the KJV translators themselves did not claim divine inspiration for their translation. They did not claim that the KJV is the one and only perfect translation. Inspiration extends only to the original manuscripts of the Bible -- not to any translation. No translation is inspired, infallible, inerrant or perfect. Again you say: " I believe it is the Bible,The Authorised Version, or the commonly termed King James Version." The phrase "I believe" does not make anything true. We believe something because it is the truth. It isn't the truth because we believe it. You imply that the KJV is the very Word of God without giving any reason for believing so. It's like saying: "I believe it because I believe it." You write: "I am a Fundamentalist and KNOW that God wrote a BOOK...If the KJV is not the book that God wrote, where is it today?" "I'm a Fundamentalist and KNOW" doesn't prove anything. Here you are appealing to authority to prove what you say is true. Such an appeal is not a valid argument to prove anything. "If the KJV is not the book that God wrote, where is it today?" A hypothetical question alone does not prove anything. I could just as easily ask "If the NIV is not the book that God wrote, where is it today?" God is not the Author of the KJV or any other translation. These questions remain unanswered: Which version of the KJV is the 'very Word of God preserved to this day' Was it the first? Were the misprints the very Word of God as well? How was the text of the TR arrived at? How many manuscripts was it based upon? --kalos |
||||||
196 | trials and tribulations | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110898 | ||
Recommend a concordance to the Apocrypha, please. Emmaus: I'm looking for a concise concordance to the Apocrypha. Could you recommend one? Or recommend an edition of the Bible that contains a concordance that includes references to the Apocrypha? Also, which edition(s) of the New American Bible would you recommend? I'm looking for an edition with the explanatory footnotes, especially one in a readable point size -- at least point size 8, but 10 or 11 would be even better. Please include title, publisher and ISBN number, if available. Thanking you in advance, kalos |
||||||
197 | trials and tribulations | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110913 | ||
Emmaus: Thanks! You have been a tremendous help. I recently purchased The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press. I'm reading through the Apocrypha for the first time ever and am enjoying it. --kalos |
||||||
198 | trials and tribulations | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110987 | ||
Colin: The following is available at www.christianbook.com. RSV Anniversary Edition - With Apocrypha Genuine Leather, Black Description: The first major translation of the Christian Scriptures from the original languages to be undertaken since the King James Version (1611), the Revised Standard Version debuted in 1952. Upon it's release, the Revised Standard Version was instantly acclaimed as the most readable rendering of Scripture for contemporary readers. The RSV dramatically shaped the course of English Bible translation in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and it remains the Bible of choice for many people. This Anniversary Edition features a clear new type setting that readers are certain to appreciate. Features: Clear new type Color Maps Presentation page Gift Boxed Size: 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 1536 Pages (with Apocrypha). Genuine Leather, Black Additional Product Information: Type: Genuine Leather Number of Pages: 1,536 Vendor: Oxford University Press Publication Date: 2002 ISBN: 0195288114 UPC: 9780195288117 Dimensions: 8.2 X 5.5 Just go to the website, www.christianbook.com At the upper left side of the page under EASYFIND, click on the arrow and select ISBN In the box below ISBN, enter the number, which is 0195288114 See also amazon.com for other editions of the RSV. --kalos |
||||||
199 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 111897 | ||
Ed: I agree with you. In fact, in the quote I posted no one claims that Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 when he quoted it. No one claims that Matthew took literary liberties with it. By the way, if I thought the translators of the NET Bible or any other version based their decisions on their subjective feelings, I wouldn't have anything to do with that translation. Bless you, kalos |
||||||
200 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 111900 | ||
Also, please note that neither the question nor my answer was primarily about Isaiah 7:14. My answer was about the principles of interpretation of the translators of the NET Bible. Isaiah 7:14 is merely an example. The note is not about which translation of that verse is the right one. What I quoted does not assert that the NET Bible translation philosophy (approach) is the One Right Way. It acknowledges that different translators have different goals and methods in their work. The NET translators are merely explaining their approach and the reason for it. This relates directly to the original question asked by Dalcent. Grace to you, my friend, kalos |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [212] >> |