Results 221 - 240 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 109940 | ||
Kas - Look at Post No. 109937 entered by Compudex. This should give you an idea of why Kalos and I both advised you to seek local guidance and not mess around with Internet advice. --Hank | ||||||
222 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 109945 | ||
OK, Compudex. Prove to me that the author of the post to which you responded is also a female. Aren't you doing a lot of assuming and not much knowing? --Hank | ||||||
223 | Girlfriends racist parents. HELP ME! | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 109951 | ||
Hello again, Kaz. As a long-time member of this Forum, I am grieved by the knowledge that another Forum member jumped to the erroneous and hurtful conclusion that your situation involved a lesbian relationship. I'm certain that other mature and seasoned users of this Forum share my consternation, and on behalf of the Lockman Forum I offer my sincere apology and regrets that you were so falsely accused. ..... Still and all, I stand by my original suggestion to you, brother in Christ, that you work out your problems in the presence of and with the guidance of a well-grounded and experienced Christian counselor. I have two cogent reasons for making this suggestion. First, the participants on this Forum are not, with a possible exception or two, qualified counselors in matters of this nature. Second, even if we were, a cyber-space analysis of your situation is not the same thing, nor is it likely to achieve the desired result, as having a face-to-face interview with a qualified counselor in your own community. As a parting comment in answer to your concerns about Scripture's teaching about inter-racial dating and marriage, I know of no Scripture that forbids it. Old Testament law forbade inter-marrying among Jews and members of other nations, but this prohibition was based on religious, not racial, grounds. You state that you and your lady friend are both Christians. This, in my view, trumps by far the fact that you are a black man and she an Hispanic woman. Again, I do wish the best for both of you, and will pray that God will lead the two of you in accordance with His perfect will. --Hank | ||||||
224 | How to "win the world" ? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110021 | ||
D Blesser: Your words from Post 110003: "All He (God) wants you to do is love one another...No man has the right to put down another for his beliefs." .... Baloney! Pure poppycock! The greatest commandment is not to love one another. It is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." [Matthew 22:37] And Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." [John 14:15]. .... Which brings us to your second statement, i.e., that "no man has the right to put down another for his beliefs." Oh yes he does! Not only does the Christian have the right but he has the duty to put down (reprove) others for their unbiblical beliefs. Listen to what Paul said to Timothy: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, .... Preach the word: be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine..." [see 2 Timothy 4:1-4]. When it is thought and being taught that false teaching in a church should be condoned and that fellow Christians should not reprove and condemn it in no uncertain terms, the time when men will not endure sound doctrine has surely come for that church. --Hank | ||||||
225 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110498 | ||
Taleb, a thoughtful post and your illustrations were superb. .... To be sure, the Authorized or King James Version is a noble translation and ably has stood the test of time, but time itself has become rather a formidable enemy of this distinguished opus. In but seven years hence the KJV will observe its fourth centennial, and during those four centuries the English language has undergone enormous changes as have all other living languages. Many words and phrases that were in common usage in 1611 no longer are; in fact, a large number of them are either foreign to current usage or they have changed dramatically in meaning, so much so that certain words of 1611 meant the very opposite of what they mean today. I have long admired the King James Bible and its merits are commendable, but it is rapidly becoming virtually unintelligible to speakers of modern English unless they grew up with it or are able and willing to devote considerable time and effort to learn the Elizabethan English of the KJV. I suspect that many die hards who doggedly refuse to let go of the King James, at least to a certain degree, and avail themselves of some of the newer and clearer translations do themselves undue harm, for I'm convinced that there are many who adhere rigidly (and perhaps foolishly) to the 1611 version and who are not really equipped with the necessary reading skills to unlock the riches of this older version. Such are they who would profit greatly by reading a more modern version. There is an immense span between the 1611 KJV and, say, the English Standard Version or the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Scripture presents the reader with portions that are of great complexity in any version, even in the "simplified" language of the paraphrases. It becomes enormously more difficult for the reader who is unskilled in 16ll English, because he has the formidable task of wrestlling both with archaic language and complex subject matter. --Hank | ||||||
226 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110508 | ||
Taleb, I think your example from real life (in this case, your own life experience) is powerful evidence that today's heralds of God's truth need to take heed that they present that truth in the vernacular of the man in skid row, the soccer mom, the clerk at the check-out counter -- not just to the learned, the scholarly, the elite. I think preachers and teachers of the Word who insist on using a "literary" translation exclusively, be it the King James or another, are exhibiting a foolish consistency which Emerson called the hobgoblin of small minds. --Hank | ||||||
227 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110582 | ||
Good evening, Taleb. I'm familiar enough with Riplinger's half-baked ideas to recognize that she fails miserably to make a solid case for her cock-eyed claims against the modern versions. The assertions that she and others of her stripe make in regard to the "New Age conspiracy" being waged by modern biblical translators is unvarnished hog wash and it is nothing short of amazing how writers of this brand of sophistry can find publishers for their trumpery. The King James Onlyists are an odd bunch and they have founded what is essentially a cult which, like all cults, SEEMS to follow flawless reasoning that leads to a perfectly logical conclusion, but its premise is wrong. Sadly, the uninitiated continue in wholesale fashion to be caught in the web of the false teachers. The only antidote I know of is the Berean principle -- to search the Scriptures daily. In the context of translations, search and compare all the available translations. And I'm prepared to go on record as saying that among all the leading translations of the Bible into English (the obviously cultic farces excepted), there exist no really crucial or substantive differences of meaning and not the slightest evidence in any of them of any sinister conspiratorial motives whatever. One would hope that Riplinger finds better ways to use her time and talents, such as they are, in the future. --Hank | ||||||
228 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110840 | ||
Ken John - I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed in you for having not responded to the points I tried to make in my post, but instead to quote a portion of it to which you say, without saying why, you take exception. One can only conclude that you missed the points of the post, or ignored them, or simply that you don't understand them. Surely you must not think me ignorant of the merits of the King James Bible or of its vast influence on Western thought. Its influence on both the clergy and laity has been enormous, and this influence has spread far beyond the doors of the church and woven its way into the political, literary and cultural fabric for nearly four centuries. Ken John, I do not view lightly the worth and importance of the King James Bible, this monumental work that justly has been called "the noblest monument to English prose." I have written on the pages of this Forum a number of posts in praise of the King James Bible, if you care to view them. ...... The Latin Vulgate was for centuries one of the most respected and authoritative translations of God's word, but who reads it today? Why don't they read it? Do you read it? Why not? Obviously on account of a language barrier, isn't this true? Well, my friend, time and change have taken their toll on the 400-year-old translation known as the Authorized, or King James Version. And what is language and of what use is it if is not a human contrivance, a tool, with which to communicate thought clearly and accurately? The translators of the King James Bible wrote the following words in their Preface, "The Translators to the Reader" to the 1611 Edition: "But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." Now, 400 years later, so profound and dynamic have been the changes in English vocabulary, grammar, and other syntatic rules of the language that to the generations growing up before us now, the King James Version is, in no small measure, essentially being "kept close in an unknown tongue," as the KJV translators put it. ...... Ken John, the King James Version is NOT the word of God. It is a translation, and a good one, of some ancient manuscripts, which also were not the word of God. They were copied from other manuscripts which are called autographs, which are the original documents penned by the men of God who were guided by the Spirit of God to write them. These -- the autographs -- THEY were the word of God. .... There have been claims made and continue to be made that somehow the King James translators were divinely inspired in much the same manner as the authors of the original autographs were inspired. Surely had these august scholars who effected the translation of this version felt that they were so inspired, they would have left us with some indication of it. The biblical writers certainly did. But throughout their long preface in the 1611 priniting of the Authorized Version, there is no indication whatever that these learned men ever had the slightest notion they or their translation might have been divinely inspired. They, in fact, did not make a new or original translation. As they state plainly in their Preface, their aim and purpose in rendering what is now called the Authorized or King James Version was this: "Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better." ...... The King James Bible was a masterpiece, a literary gem, in 1611 and it remains one still. This is not the issue. The issue is this: Do modern scholars who have given us a number of translations that are transparent of the ancient biblical texts possess language skills and personal integrity that in all likelihood are comparable to those of the translators of 1611 who toiled to give the world the Authorized Version? There is no earthly reason to believe that modern scholars are not as trustworthy as the scholars of 400 years ago. And it is ridiculous to hatch up the myth, or to believe it, that they are part of some sort of conspiracy. ...... Many more manuscrips are extant now than in 16ll. Much more has been learned about Bible times and languages than was known in 1611. And, finally, I believe it should be noted that the King James Version was written in the fresh, contemporary language of its day. Why should we not avail ourselves of a responsible translation of God's word that is written in language that is fresh and contemporary in ours? It's noteworthy that even the most avid promoters of "King James Only" don't travel by horse and buggy or light their homes with oil lamps or weave their own clothing. --Hank | ||||||
229 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 111915 | ||
Dear Ed and Kalos: My first inclination was not to step into the arena on the Isaiah 7:14 passage, but I have, perhaps all too unwisely, changed my mind. It was, to my recollection, the Revised Standard Version which among modern translations became the vanguard in its substitution of the traditional term "virgin" with "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. For this, among other departures from the traditional, the RSV and its sequel, the NRSV, have become the brunt of severe criticism which has been levied upon them by various theologically conservative schools. Hence, the RSV and other translations of a similar stripe, deservedly or not, have come to be considered translations by and for the liberal main-liners and were rejected, by and large, by the conservative wing of Protestants. ..... I claim no expertise whatever in biblical Hebrew and thus proceed in the argument that follows with this considerable disclaimer. From my readings, however, I've learned that the Hebrew noun in question in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah' and that the Hebrew definite article 'ha' that precedes it is indicative of a specific woman, not just any woman, and that the proper English article would be 'the' and not 'a.' Moreover, a comparison of other instances where the word occurs (e.g., Gen. 24:43; Prov. 30:19 and Song 1:3 and 6:8) suggests strongly that the prophet chose this term to indicate that the young woman in view was indeed a virgin. By the way, in all foregoing passages cited in parentheses, the New King James and the English Standard Versions both translate 'virgin' in every instance. Furthermore, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew 'almah' as 'parthenos' in the Greek, which means 'virgin,' as in Matthew 1:23. ..... Speaking of the word traditionally translated 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14, John MacArthur writes, "This prophecy reached forward to the virgin birth of the Messiah, as the New Testament notes (Matt. 1:23). The Hebrew word refers to an unmarried woman and means 'virgin' (Gen. 24:43; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3, 6:8), so the birth of Isaiah's own son (8:3) could not have fully satisfied the prophecy. Cf. Gen. 3:15." ...... I've read considerable pieces of material over the years on this issue from among those who embrace the 'virgin' translation and those who opt for the 'young woman' or 'maiden' translation. It is my considered opinion and the one to which I have clung for a number of years that 'virgin' is the translation that better satisfies the meaning that the prophet writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit had in mind in Isaiah 7:14. The argument for 'young woman' is not without a measure of merit and foundation, but I feel that stronger by far is the argument for 'virgin." .... The only translation of 'maiden' or 'young woman' that I could truly accept in this passage would be one in which the terms were preceded by the word 'chaste.' Says Charles Ryrie: "The Hebrew word that is here translated 'virgin' is found elsewhere in the Old Testament in Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8, and in those instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried." (Ryrie Study Bible). Of course, a "chaste maiden who is unmarried" is, by definition, a virgin. --Hank | ||||||
230 | Did Jesus have to die? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 113547 | ||
Mommapbs: Poignant as it was, the most significant aspect of Jesus' Passion was not the penitent criminal, in my view. It was Jesus' words, "It is finished." Had not Jesus finished the work that the Father gave Him to do, all mankind would ever be doomed by sin. Were it not for the finished work of Jesus on the Cross, there could be no propitiation for sin and all in the world would die in their sins. This is the sole message and purpose of the Cross. --Hank | ||||||
231 | Did Jesus have to die? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 113560 | ||
Hello, CDBJ. Thanks for pointing out the meaning of the original word that is translated "It is finished." I've read that this word has also been found on receipts for taxes, and it signifies that the taxes were paid in full. So Jesus brought the entire work of redemption to completion, having "paid in full" for our sins. What a glorious thought! Praise His name! --Hank | ||||||
232 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 114000 | ||
Arrow1: A number of us long-time veterans of this Forum have asked you in a kind and civil manner to give your campaign to promote baptism a rest. Emmaus very recently pointed out to you how lop-sided your subject matter really is: almost all your posts to date have been about baptism, a subject with which the archives of this Forum were already overflowing long before you came aboard. You choose to remain obscured under the cloak of anonymity, having not bothered to provide us in the User Profile with anything about yourself, your beliefs or denominational affiliation. If I were disposed to wager, however, I'd bet my horse and dog that you are a member of the denominational group known as the "Church of Christ," for nowhere in all Christendom do I know of any other group who are so adamant about salvific immersion that they come to this Forum and drive it bananas because they post on virtually nothing else. Clearly you are promoting a denominational bias when you engage in this type of one-sided posting, and promotion of denominational bias is strictly forbidden on the Forum and much the more when it is incessant and excessive, with both of which I accuse you. If you choose to ignore the counsel of Forum veteran users, please be aware that other remedies to stop this sort of abuse of the Forum are at our disposal. --Hank | ||||||
233 | Where in Acts do you find INDIVIDUALS... | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 114846 | ||
kalos: To be fair to all, perhaps you should include a "C" on your multiple-choice menu: Suggestions for "C" -- Duh? ... Whazat? ... What's Acts? ... Where's Acts? ... I dunno. All of the above. None of the above. What's that got to do with Cain's wife anyhow? ... It's in the Law of Moses, ain't it? --Hank | ||||||
234 | Where in Acts do you find INDIVIDUALS... | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 114864 | ||
Kalos, yes "D" is important and handy to have around. It's sort of a universal, brainless remark that can be used as a response to any sound, biblically-based post. I recommend it to anyone who doesn't wish to, or can't, think. --Hank | ||||||
235 | I am looking for a study bible.... | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115086 | ||
Thank you, Ischus, for your generous note. I have read your user profile with pleasure and am impressed by it. I extend the hand of Christian fellowship to you as I bid you welcome to this Forum. It is my fondest wish that you will both give and receive much as a product of your association with Lockman's StudyBibleForum. There are a large number of users of this Forum who work hard to make it a place of honor to God and His precious word. May you ever find it so to be is my prayer. --Hank | ||||||
236 | Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115148 | ||
EdB: "How much trouble am I in?" Now, Ed, you know I wouldn't touch that line with a ten-foot pole! :-) Let's discuss principles, not troubles. ...... As I read your post, a tale of two preachers came to mind. Several years ago my wife and I were members of a liberal church with a liberal preacher. Week after week we sat in the pew seeking to be fed, but we always went away as hungry as when we came. The preacher never quoted any Scripture. None. He dispensed little pallid 20-minute homilies from the pulpit about how nice it is to love one another and enjoy Christian fellowship. One could call these limp talks brief excursion into "Bible philosophy" I suppose. The pastor never gave a "thus says the Lord" for anything he said. No mention of sin, judgment, the Cross, redemption, atonement, repentence, regeneration, or hell. Not any of that. And not any Scripture. But -- and here's the kicker -- he didn't DISAGREE with biblical truths. He simply ignored them in the interests of not offending anyone. He developed a broad, sweeping "Bible philosophy" style that was as limp as a wet noodle. It had no meat. It had no substance. It was not the kind of message that Paul envisaged when he told young Timony to preach the word. ...... Eventually we changed churches. The pastor of the church to which we now belong is a man who does preach the word in season and out of season. He cites Scripture upon Scripture every time he comes to the pulpit. He gives a reason for the hope that lies in him, he cites a "thus says the Lord" as his authority for his faith and practice. He keeps the worshipers busy "searching the Scriptures" to see whether those things they are being taught are so. ..... So, we have a tale of two preachers. Given a choice, which had you rather sit under -- a Bible philosopher (whatever that means) or a preacher of the gospel of Christ? ..... No, Ed, I disagree with your premise. I believe you are in error here. Please think about this: I've never advocated on this Forum "proof texting" in the sense you use it. Major doctrines should be derived from much more biblical evidence than an isolated verse or two. But this does not invalidate the proper quoting of verses -- one or a hundred -- that clearly teach biblical truth, for all of them do. The error lies not in the text, but in faulty interpretation. One can draw erroneous conclusions from a single verse of Scripture. But one can draw erroneous conclusions from the entire Bible too. The person who makes broad, sweeping statements, who subscribes to "Bible philosophy" in place of the exact words of Scripture, is every bit as prone to error and bad teaching -- I should think he is even more so -- than the person who comes to the table with his "proof texts." Proof texting can be annoying when Scripture is twisted in an effort to prove an unbiblical doctrine. ...... But let's suppose someone comes and makes a broad, "philosophical" statement to the effect that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and fable. How are you going to rebut him? What else can you do but cite the passages of Scripture that clearly attest to His resurrection? Are you not, in a certain sense, "proof texting" him? It carries little weight to respond in kind, i.e., to assert (without giving any scriptural references) that Christ did so rise from the dead. Your "philosophy" carries no more weight than his does. ...... I hear these "Bible philosophers" spout off their opinions frequently. Theses opinions are usually preceded by some phrase such as 'the Bible teaches this' or 'it says in the Bible that." A couple of weeks ago someone who had suffered a civil wrong and who had sufficient grounds to file suit for redress, said to me, "I don't plan to sue, because the Bible says its wrong." That was his "Bible philosophy." How are we to know whether this man was right or wrong unless we get more specific and find out whether the Bible forbids legal redress for wrongs inflicted? And how are we to know what the Bible teaches unless we produce a biblical text for it?. ...... I've rambled long enough, Ed. I maintain that it is impossible to engage in Bible study unless one studies the Bible. It is important to synthesize Scripture for an over view. But it is also important to analyze Scripture verse by verse. Each verse is true, each verse is vital, each verse has a relationship to the whole. Each brick has its own peculiar relationship to the whole structure, and it is wise to keep that relationship in mind while examining each brick, each verse of Scripture. But it is still important to examine each brick very carefully. One doesn't do that when he engages in broad sweeping statements, when he posts his opinions and conclusions which, he claims, is "Bible philosophy." --Hank | ||||||
237 | what does slain in the spirit mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115502 | ||
Colin, the symptoms are similar at any rate :-) --Hank | ||||||
238 | what does slain in the spirit mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115516 | ||
BradK: There's nothing like a little well-measured jocundity to dispel the Monday blues, and yours did the trick for me. --Hank | ||||||
239 | In Revelation 4 1-11 | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115518 | ||
EdB: You ask, "What is the question?" ..... Ed, have you forgotten how we play this game? If you don't know what the question is, guess, and answer it anyway. :-) I could be wrong, but I think the question may be "Who's on first?" :-) --Hank | ||||||
240 | what does slain in the spirit mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 115527 | ||
kalos: A translation poorer than the NWT? Your conundrum carries me well beyond the limits of my limited imagination. But I await with rapt anticipation your answer! Please hasten to satisfy my curiosity! --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [217] >> |