Results 21 - 40 of 558
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4737 | ||
Thanks Koinekid, for you input. Jesus be with you, and give you some relief with that tooth. Amen I realize the few verses I mentioned are not required to prove the deity of Jesus. However, if the added italicized words are taking anything away from the words Jesus actually said, this is not a small thing. Compare John 8:24 as you mentioned, with verse 58 in the same chapter. Both verses say "I AM" ("ego eimi" right??). If "the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought", what happened to the noun to complete the thought in verse 58? If there actually does NOT have to be a noun added, which seems to be the case here, then verse 24 seems to be an interpretation decision, rather than a clarity decision. You seem to up on your Greek. I am not. The only Greek I know is "Greek salad" and "baklava", so don't think I know enough Greek to ask an intelligent question about it. If I knew Greek, I could probably appreciate a Greek to English bible translator more, so I realize there could be something I am missing here. I use the NKJV instead of the NASB (sorry, not a critical text fan). The NKJV (and KJV) also add an italicized “he” in the places I mentioned, so I am not trying to pick on any particular translation. The LITV and the MKJV are the only translations I know of that do not add “he”, so I suppose a Greek to English translation without adding “he” is possible, if not even correct. I can not help but think that these words were added to what Jesus said as a carry over from years past, not something to add clarity, as was the real intent of italicized words. Let me put it this way. If the KJV had translated these scriptures I AM, instead of I am (he), would the later translations have intentionally ADDED words to produce a WEAKER reading? I don’t think so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
22 | Need to find a scripture | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5635 | ||
How about Micah 5:15? (KJV) And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard. | ||||||
23 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5662 | ||
You should seek to be rebaptized if that is what the Holy Spirit is telling you to do. We can hear and know God's voice (John 10:27). Paul rebaptized the disciples in Corinth in Acts 19. They were NOT new believers, but were already believing (vs 2). If rebaptizing was wrong, Paul would not have done so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
24 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5671 | ||
You said "my views on justification will not allow me to support rebaptism." What are your views based on? Scripture please. Do you know something Paul did not (Acts 19)? Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
25 | homosexuality | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6204 | ||
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; |
||||||
26 | Judgment of Infants? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6205 | ||
Jesus said many times of children, "such is the kingdom of heaven." Since Jesus did not sin, we can also be sure Jesus never showed partiality (James 2:9) between children of believers and children of non-believers. As far as the "children of wrath" statement in Eph 2:3, that is speaking of our nature before salvation, not God's judgement on children. Eph 2:4 speaks of God's rich mercy. Please consider Mat 18:10; "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Heb 1:14 says angels are sent forth to minister to those who will inherit salvation. In light of Mat 18:2, I think Jesus was using the little child He called to Him as the example when He said, "one of these little ones". Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
27 | How can a Christian overcome a bad habit | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6244 | ||
I have used Mat 12:43-45 before to illustrate how, in order to stop a bad habit, it must be replace with a good habit that honors God. | ||||||
28 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6458 | ||
If we use Calvin's example of proper teatment of those we disagree with, we could not only use harsh language, we could also burn them at the stake! | ||||||
29 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6471 | ||
Is harsh language appropriate? According to Joe, YES! Two people that Calvin burned at the stake? I give up, who were they? | ||||||
30 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6624 | ||
Thank you Radioman for the kind words. Let me spell it out to you, pay attention. I said, we could burn "THEM" at the stake. "Them" would indicate more than one. That got a rise out of Joe. Joe very wittingly asked "name two" people Calvin burned at the stake. Can't get much past Joe! Notice the word "two" (2). Two means means more than one. Joe and I only know one person Calvin burned at the stake. That would be Michael Servetus, if you really need to know. I thought I was being a wise guy not a senseless babbler! Thanks Radioman for setting me straight! retxar (the babbler) |
||||||
31 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6750 | ||
??????????? Where did this come from? Are you talking to me bro? If so, what is your definition of omniscient? | ||||||
32 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6816 | ||
"We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions". Those are good words, Joe. Do you believe you are not using a few "unscriptural notions" here to try to defend something you took as an attack on your theology? There is nothing wrong with you defending your theology, but it was not under attack. Believe it are not, I believe the reformation of the Church was of God, and I believe Calvin was used by God to help bring it about. We can follow a mans theology, but we need not think all he does is anointed by God. They are flesh and blood as you and I. There is no way around the fact that the killing of Servetus was ugly. There is no way to dress it up as anything else. David’s murder of Uriah was ugly. Paul’s persecution of Christians was ugly. The Bible does not try to paint either as anything else. They both received forgiveness, and God used them in a mighty way. We don’t throw out there writings because of there actions. Did I paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty monster? I sure did not mean to. I say again, what I said, I said as a wisecrack. Not very thought out, I might add. I did not, at the time, think I was out of line. I realize now, I was. I hit a nerve on a subject that was much too touchy for a Calvinist to take as such. What I said was actually a prod. For that, I apologize. I accept your admonishment. I do not go along with ALL Calvin’s teachings, as you, but I would hope you would treat those who disagree with you a little better than Calvin did. retxar |
||||||
33 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6847 | ||
This is an issue I struggled with for years, because I knew God only wrote one Bible. Let me explain why I came to the conclusion that the received text is closest to God’s original inspired words than the critical text. We often pray to God to be greatly concerned about things we ourselves do not seem to care so much about. The received text addresses that in Mat 17:21, the critical text does not. John 7:8 would seem to indicate deception on the part of Jesus if the word “yet” is missing, as in the CT. John 8:1-11 in not included in the CT. Many sermons have been preached on John 8:1-11, with much good fruit brought forth. I don’t think that would have been possible unless it was God’s inspired Word. The last part of Mark is missing in the CT, but it is included with brackets in all CT Bibles. I think this is important, inspired, scripture because it contains direct commands from Jesus, and unless one misinterprets verse 18a, it causes no doctrinal differences among believers. The belief that baptism is meant for believers only is not dependant on one verse, but there is none stronger than Acts 8:37, which is missing in the CT. The longer ending of Romans 8:1, in the RT, would seem to be correct in context with Romans 8:2 and the rest of the chapter that speaks of walking according to the Spirit, not the flesh. The CT text puts much weight on the Alexandrian (Egypt) text. The RT is based on the Byzantine (Antioch) text. The Alexandrian text is closer, date wise, to the originals than the Byzantine text. However, Byzantine manuscript fragments and Byzantine quote’s of church fathers exist that are just as ancient as the Alexandrian text. The church and the Word spread quickly with Antioch as the hub. Consider the fact that the Alexandrian text was in control by only one group of people in Egypt, where Christianity fell quickly. This, to me, this would be a greater risk of corruption than scribble additions. Scribble deletions, to me, would seem more likely than additions anyway, because a deletion would probably be an unintentional mistake whereas an addition would almost have to be done intentionally. Knowing all the above, I was still not convinced until I saw Acts 6:7 (also 12:24, 13:49, 19:20) in the following light. All these verses describe the Word as spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. Heb 4:12 also describes the Word as living and active. This convinces me that the Byzantine text is closer to God’s original than the Alexandrian text. History tells us that the Byzantine seemed to have God’s blessing by spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. The Alexandrian text did not spread, grow, multiply, or prevail; it remained in Egypt. Consider it. As Nolan and Tim have already said, the doctrinal differences that exist among believers are never based on a CT/RT difference. (Unless one misinterprets Mar 16:18a!). God bless you both. retxar |
||||||
34 | World English Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6940 | ||
I personally think it is better than the NASB because it is based on the MT instead of the CT, which I FEEL is more accurate. The WEB Bible is also public domain as the KJV is. The WEB Bible is complete Gen-Rev in electronic form and is available as a free download for the excellent free Bible program called e-Sword @ e-sword.net. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
35 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6949 | ||
Good info Chris! The DTL web site you mentioned is the best place I know of to educate one’s self on this issue. The Received Text and the Majority Text are from the same Byzantine (Antioch) source. The Critical Text is from the Alexandrian (Egypt) source. The RT, in effect, is the same as the MT except for Revelation, as you pointed out. The 1 John 5:7 difference you mentioned is about the only difference you will find between the RT and the MT (except for Rev). The 1 John 5:7 variant is not really a manuscript difference, but came about as pressure from the Roman Clergy toward Erasmus (Texus Receptus originator) to make it agree with the longer Latin Vulgate ending. The small handful of manuscripts Erasmus had to work with speaks well of the MT consistencies. Almost any other small number of MT manuscripts could have been selected, at random, and the results would have been the same. The reason for the Revelation variants in the RT, is because Erasmus only had 1 or 2 manuscripts that contained Revelation at all. The Vulgate to Greek translating was very limited, however. It happened as a result of Erasmus rushing to get the TR published before he could get hold of reliable, complete Revelation manuscripts. The Revelation differences, that I saw, in my NKJV Bible, that demand a decision, are as follows: 1:5 (RT/MT-washed CT-freed), 5:10 (RT-us CT/MT-them), 8:13 (RT-angel CT/MT-eagle), 9:21 (RT-sorceries CT/MT-drugs), 10:11 (RT-he CT/MT-them), 11:8 (RT-our CT/MT-their), 11:12 (RT/CT-they MT-I), 12:8 (RT/CT-them MT-him), 13:1 (RT/MT-I CT-he), 15:3 (RT-saints CT/MT-nations), 16:16 (RT/CT-Armageddon MT-Megiddo), and 22:14 (RT/MT-do His commandments CT-wash their robes). Notice sometimes the RT agrees with the MT and sometimes the RT agrees with the CT, but most of the time the MT/CT agree with other, as you have pointed out. I will look further at the RT/MT differences to see if I want to scratch in the MT translation in my NKJV. I know there are many more Revelation variants than these, but these are the only ones I saw as effecting the meaning. Most are just word order. Thanks for motivating me to investigate! A good MT translation you might want to check into is the WEB (ebible.org). It is only available in the New Testament as hard copy at this time. It is available complete as a free download for the e-Sword bible program. E-sword is excellent and available free at e-sword.net. Check it out. In Christ Jesus! |
||||||
36 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6961 | ||
Thank you JVH0212 for the kind words. And thank all you guys (and gals) for allowing me to express a view that is probably not too popular here (being a NASB/CT forum). I really appreciate that! The amazing thing to me, is not the differences in all the Bible evidences, but the supernatural exactness and preservation. Everyone has played the game where several people get together with one person telling another a phrase and that person telling another and when the last person gets the story, it is nowhere near what started out. Not so with the Word! There have been literally thousands and thousands of men's dirty little hands on God's Word over the years, with each one having the chance to introduce corruption, either intentionally or unintentionally. God's Word has been under attack, more than any other book that ever existed. What other book does anyone know of that people were (and are) willing to die for? The way God preserved and documented His Word thru mere men goes beyond what anyone should expect, even for a person who might think the Bible is only man's words! There is more documented evidence that Jesus was God the Son than that George Washington was our first President! I like what Gamaliel the Pharisee said in Acts 5:38-39 "for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest you even be found to fight against God." We all know, almost 2000 years later that, how men are still trying to overthrow God and His Word, but God's plan and work are still going strong and that is made possible only thru and by THE WORD! God Bless! |
||||||
37 | One Source or Several? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6968 | ||
Hi Tim! Technically that is correct for the MT and the CT. I am not sure about the TR, as Erasmus used what he had, which I think was only late Byzantine manuscripts. I am sure the CT relies on more Byzantine manuscripts that the MT relies on the Alexandrian manuscripts because of the limited number of Alexandrian manuscripts available. Both the CT and the MT look at all available manuscripts, as you say, so my “source” statement was a little misleading. Here’s what I meant. The CT is always going to go with the oldest and the MT is always going to go with the majority. However the CT would always go with the Alexandrian if it disagreed with a Byzantine for the simple reason that the Alexandrian text would almost always be older. By the same token the MT would always go with the majority, which will almost always be the Byzantine text. I am far from an expert here, folks, so if someone has more, please share. God Bless! |
||||||
38 | Tithes and offerings designation | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 7516 | ||
Does the Bible address the issue of how our tithes and offerings are to be used once they are given? Do we have the right to designate how a particular offering should be used or do we release all rights to the spritual authorities in our church to designate as they see fit? | ||||||
39 | modern terms for biblical practice? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 10900 | ||
When one "pleads" their case in a court of law it means to present an answer to a charge. Rev 12:10 says satan accuses the brethren before our God day and night. I think when people use the term "I plead the blood" they are simply answering those charges. I don't see how that would make the term unscriptural. Hope this helps. God bless! |
||||||
40 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 12185 | ||
The JW's are the ones that have cast off Jesus. The JW's are the ones that cast off Jesus when they insist their "order's from headquarters" are their spiritual guide, instead of the Holy Spirit. The JW’s are the ones that cast off Jesus when they say their organization is the messiah , instead of Jesus. The JW’s believe in “A JESUS”. The JW’s preach “A GOSPEL”. They don’t believe Jesus is Lord. They don’t preach the Gospel in the Word. Gal_1:7-9 says to let them be accursed. That, does not have to be you, Elijah. From most of your post, you seem to be a little dazed and confused. You can never backup ANY of your wild claims and accusations with any scriptural support. How come? Could it be because they are basing them on perverted JW teaching and not the Word? Get out of that mess, man! Here is something for you to ponder. You can ask any of your JW friends if they can help you, if you like. The JW’s denounce the deity of Jesus by saying He is Michael the archangel, right? Heb_1:4 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying Jesus is “so much better than the angels.” Heb_1:4 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying “He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they”. Heb_1:5 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying “which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son”. Heb_1:6 refutes that Jesus is an angel by saying "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb_1:8 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Heb_1:9 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son “Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." Heb_1:10 refutes that Jesus is an angel when God the Father says to God the Son "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Heb_1:11-12 refutes that Jesus is an angel by speaking of Jesus as being self-existent, while angels are not. Heb_1:13 refutes that Jesus is an angel when it says Jesus is sitting on God’s throne. Angels can only stand before the throne. Heb_1:14 says angels can only “minister to those who will inherit salvation” but Rev_7:10 says “salvation belongs to our God.” Lets read Rev_7:9-11. Rev_7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, Rev_7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" Rev_7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, Where were ALL the angels? They were standing around the throne, then they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God! Where was God? Sitting on the throne! Where was Jesus? Sitting on the throne! Is Jesus an angel? NO! Is Jesus being worshiped? YES! Is Jesus God? YES! I don’t know what your NWT says in the verses I have referenced here, because I can’t get one! Could JW’s fear that enlightened believers would expose the works of darkness if the NWT was available to any and all? I would give my Bible to anyone who wants one. A true disciple of Christ is to spread the Word, not conceal it! I am sure the NWT tries to stifle the deity of Jesus here. However, I know God is smarter than man, and am willing to bet He snuck enough truth in there for you to see Him and believe. I will end with this. Please seriously examine all I and others have shown you. DON’T BRUSH IT OFF. Please give earnest heed to the things you have heard (Heb_2:1). How can you escape if you neglect so great a salvation (Heb_2:3). Jesus is Lord ! retxar |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [28] >> |