Results 301 - 320 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 131639 | ||
gods son: How unfortunate that your first post to this Forum was an ugly exercise in Catholic bashing. If this is your purpose for posting, it is hoped that your first post will be your last. --Hank, a Baptist. | ||||||
302 | Satan said I will how many times? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134282 | ||
Glory Bound - In speaking of versions (translations) of the Bible, you wrote "...only a few are truly inspired..." Now, which translations are inspired, and just how does a translation become inspired and who inspires it? For example, you in your user profile list the KJV and the NIV as inspired versions. Is it your contention that God inspired these two versions and skipped over all others? The NASB, for instance, is considered by Bible scholars as a thoroughly reliable translation and possibly the most literally accurate one available today. And yet the NIV is inspired and the NASB is not, is that what you are saying? How can you possibly prove that ANY team of translators or that ANY translation is divinely inspired? And, to carry this supposition even further, would you say that certain translations into languages other than English are inspired while others are not? Are you the author of these value judgments or is someone else? Regardless of whose claim it is, what evidence can you produce to show that any TRANSLATION of the Scriptures is inspired? What are the criteria that you used to reach your judgment? When Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed, was he speaking of the KJV and the NIV, or was he indeed speaking of something else entirely? --Hank | ||||||
303 | Satan said I will how many times? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134391 | ||
Glory Bound - Wouldn't it have been much more appropriate simply to answer my questions than to evade them by launching into a tirade at me, suggesting that I was being hostile merely for asking? Now, why not back off the evasion and answer the questions I asked of you? If you cannot defend your position that the KJV and NIV are inspired translations, say so. If you can, then please proceed to do so. But please cease to attack me. You have no reason to make me the scapegoat of your inability or unwillingness, whichever it is, to answer the questions. This is a lousy defense of your position. You have posted your views on a public forum and all of your peers on this Forum have an equal right to ask you to back them up with fact. Ad hominem insults are out of line and they certainly don't promote any good thing on this Forum or any place else. --Hank | ||||||
304 | Satan said I will how many times? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134413 | ||
One of the finest examples of a cop-out ever posted on this Forum! --Hank | ||||||
305 | Question for Glory Bound | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134440 | ||
Glory Bound - I have every right to carry on this discussion as long as you continue to dodge the question. You say you have answered the question. You have not! I ask this Forum to read the exchange of posts in this thread and decide for themselves whether you have answered this important question asking for reasonable proof of your assertion that the KJV and NIV are inspired translations. If you or I or anyone else who posts to this Forum makes an assertion that could seriously mislead the readers of this Forum, it is quite the right of other Forum members to hold him to account by requiring that he offer documented, authoritative proof of such an assertion. It is abundantly clear that you have not done so, and equally clear that you have no intention of doing so. One can only suspect that you refuse to offer reasonable proof of your assertion simply because you have no proof and you are unable to find any proof; and that you are unwilling to admit that fact and confess that it is merely your opinion based on nothing more substantial than thin air. So what's the big beef? someone may ask. Why make an issue of this business about the KJV and NIV being inspired translations? For starters, it's ridiculous. No TRANSLATION of Scripture is inspired. The only words that were breathed of God are those that were written down in the original manuscripts called autographs. So far as anyone has ever been able to determine, there are no autographs extant. What we have is a group of ancient manuscripts which are copies of the originals, that is, they were copied from the autographs themselves, or they were copied from copies of the original autographs. These are not translations but copies. Now from these copies come translations. So how can it be that the KJV and the NIV just happened to be inspired translations? Were the KJV and NIV translators divinely inspired? If they were, what need would they have had for copies of manuscripts that were themselves copies of the truly inspired documents, the autographs? There is not one iota of proof anywhere that the King James Version or the New International Version teams of translators were inspired, no more than there is any proof that the NASB team or any other group of translators were inspired. So to make an assertion of this magnitude is to mislead people into thinking that the KJV and the NIV are divinely inspired, and therefore this leaves the impression on readers' minds that they must accept these two "inspired" versions of Scripture and reject all others because they are not inspired. This position is not only supremely fatuous and inane but it is dead wrong and grossly misleading. .... One would think that two versions of Scripture that were both divinely inspired would agree with one another to the letter on all points, and that they would not be dependent upon ancient manuscripts. We know that the KJV and NIV translators by no means agree to the letter on all points, and we further know that not only were both of them dependent upon the ancient manuscripts but that they didn't both use identical manuscripts throughout! Some of the manuscripts that the NIV translators used were completely unknown to the KJV translators. Case closed. --Hank | ||||||
306 | Satan said I will how many times? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134447 | ||
Glory Bound - In Post #134434 you make two observations that seem to eclipse the others. The first is the declaration that neither the KJV nor the NIV is perfect. What? How can that be? These are the very two translations that you insist are inspired. Surely you don't mean they are imperfect inspirations? ..... And the second interesting declaration falls on the heels of the first. Having said that neither the KJV nor the NIV is perfect, you add, "Nor am I yet. But I am on my way to perfection." Ah, how refreshing to read such a paean to humility. --Hank | ||||||
307 | Satan said I will how many times? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 134557 | ||
Clint - Please let me extend a loving hand of Christian fellowship as a personal welcome to StudyBibleForum. I'm so sorry that is has to come under rather adverse circumstances as we struggle to deal with a user who has been barred from this Forum twice before and comes again under a different user name. Yes, the user does need some help, and we can pray for him and clearly ought to. Clint, please consider becoming a regular contributor to this Forum. I see in your post a caring heart and a real concern for the image that believers project to that vast world of unbelivers out there who need Christ and need to see Him reflected in us. God bless you, Clint. --Hank | ||||||
308 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135482 | ||
Reighnskye - Threads typically contain posts by more than one user, so the restriction of a thread on which you've been active does not necessarily mean that you are the culprit. ...... I'll try to assuage your angst regarding the "interpretative applications of Scripture" and the Lockman Foundation. What you apparently are calling "interpretative applications" is more properly called Forum rules or Forum guidelines. These guidelines have evolved over the lifetime of this Forum and represent cooperative efforts and a consensus arrived at by the Lockman staff and several "pioneer" users of StudyBibleForum. The Forum is not moderated in the sense that you understand it, as Tim has pointed out. But this does not mean that it is unsupervised. Lockman has established an efficient means of monitoring whereby threads can be suppressed within seconds, and an especially offensive user can be warned or removed promptly, sometimes within minutes. You yourself as a user have the authority to report abuse on any user at any time if you believe that the user has crossed the line and violated the established guides for Forum use. Does this shed light on your concerns? ...... I'll close with this observation. I've been on the Forum since very near its beginning and know for certain that quite a few have been removed over the years because they refused to follow the guidelines. Others have themselves chosen to become inactive. But not one user who has followed the clear and simple guidelines has had his account revoked! If one is careful always to play the game by the rules, he need not be concerned. It is the people who ignore the rules who get into trouble, and very quickly. --Hank | ||||||
309 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135729 | ||
Interpretation has become synonymous with mere opinion. Responsible interpretation is based on exegesis but never on uninformed, subjective opinion. One hears the expression, "This passage of Scripture means so and so TO ME," thus implying that the passage has no intrinsic meaning but means whatever the reader wants it to mean. If the reader chooses to believe Darwin instead of God, he calls the creation account a myth. If he finds the account of Jonah a fish story too big for him to swallow, he calls it an allegory. If he is uncomfortable with the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, he calls the gospel account symbolism. If he finds the Bible's laws against immorality too challenging to his lifestyle, he calls them applicable to the culture that existed at the time of their writing but inapplicable to our culture and our time. ...... Last week I had a discussion on Bible inerrancy with an ordained pastor of a so-called mainline denominaion. The man was a pro-choicer (meaning he endorsed the brutal murder of unborn children) and a gay-rights advocate. I asked him the meaning of the sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). I was told that it pertained to the taking of human life, not the surgical procedure performed on a fetus. ..... Then I asked him what was the meaning of Scripture's condemnation of homosexuality in such passages as 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. What this man told me was shocking. This man who stands in the pulpit with the responsibility to shepherd his flock told me that Paul was simply writing letters giving his opinions, and that he (Paul) had absolutly no idea that we would be reading his letters today and calling them Scripture. I walked away heavy of heart. I already knew that some churches have sunk to apostasy and fallen away, but, Doc and other Forum brothers and sisters in Christ, I had no idea of the depth of the fall. Pray that they will repent and turn to God. May God have mercy on them and us. --Hank | ||||||
310 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135733 | ||
Reighnskye - Fair enough! Thank you for your fine spirit of cooperation and your gracious willingness to work for the common good of BibleStudyForum. Blessings to you also, Reighnskye. Yours in Christ --Hank | ||||||
311 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135742 | ||
Well, Doc, I believe the Roe v. Wade decision tells us something about how far afield a court can go when it does not use proper hermeneutics in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Ditto for the "separation of church and state" fiasco, wherein the courts are cramming down the people's throats rulings based on a flawed interpretation of the term "separation of church and state." What makes it even more absurd is that the term "separation of church and state" is not to be found in the Constitution. ...... The majority of the American people believe abortion is wrong. The majority of the nation's lawmakers in Congress believe it is wrong, or at least they say they do. Roe v. Wade carried by a 5-4 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court. Some 40 million unborn babies in this country have been brutally murdered as the direct result of the decision handed down to 300 million people by 5 people. Forty million babies have been murdered, not by the will of the majority of the people, not by the will of the majority of the legislators, but by the will of five people, the majority of the nine-member Supreme Court of the United States. We are in big trouble. This is not the way this republic was designed to be governed. The framers of the Constitution never intended (or dreamed) that this nation would be ruled by an oligarchy of nine activist judges wearing black robes, legislating from the bench -- not interpreting the law but making the law. --Hank | ||||||
312 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135766 | ||
Reighnskye - If I counted correctly, you used the noun "exegesis" or its verb form nine times in your post after asking me to define it. If you already knew what it meant, why did you ask me to define it? If you didn't know what it meant, should you be using it even once in a post, much less nine times? I don't use words unless I know what they mean. ..... As my great grand-father George used to say, "Wet birds rarely fly at night." ...... Who's on first? --Hank | ||||||
313 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135774 | ||
Mommapbs - Hey, there. You're back! (Now isn't that an astute observation). Dear heart, don't ask me what I mean by "Wet birds rarely fly at night." I don't know. I'm just trying to keep in step with the Forum. It doesn't seem to be a requirement any more to post things that mean anything or make sense. I was just testing my ability to post gibberish -- trying to get the hang of it, you know. How did I do? ..... By the way, do you know what kind of grades Mediterranean made in school? (He made Seas). --Hank | ||||||
314 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135781 | ||
Kalos - ROFL! What a fine Forum user Lewis Carroll would have been. That man knew what he was talking about. ..... The languages of Jabberwocky and Forumese have much in common. I read Jabberwocky years ago, and now when I sup my daily diet of Forumese, why it's deja vu -- all over again! :-) --Hank | ||||||
315 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135784 | ||
Reighnskye - I recommend and use the standard methods of exegesis that have been around for centuries. They have been posted on this Forum several times. Use Search. I will name the three principal methods. They are context, context, and context. ..... By the way, aren't you just a little bit curious about what my great grand-father George meant when he uttered his famous saying, "Wet birds rarely fly at night."? ..... Remember, pi are square! --Hank | ||||||
316 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135795 | ||
Momma - As you know I'm a denizen of the Arkansas Ozarks and we have our own language. Called Arkanese, it isn't as arcane as Forumese of course, but you Yanks do occasionaly have trouble with it. When we say "y'all" its singular in form; the plural is "all y'all' and so on. As for Mediterranean, he was so mediocre that he actually "made" them give him Seas, so therefore I suppose one could say that he "got" Seas. Oh my, semantics is so tedious, ain't they? Y'all take care now, hear? --Hank | ||||||
317 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135797 | ||
Hi, Colin - That's called the Paregoric Theorem, isn't it? :-) --Hank | ||||||
318 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 135810 | ||
Possibly, Colin, they did Kappa their Pi with it. Like us, they ate Pi Alpha they had eaten their main course. --H | ||||||
319 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 136013 | ||
Dear Janae - Such an exercise in which you invited Kalos to engage involves a great deal more than makiing a comparison of a single verse between one translation and another. In your example of Matthew 18:11 for instance, it seems fair enough to ask why it appears in the KJV and not in the NIV. Without knowing and examining the facts, one could jump to any number of conclusions which have a high probability of being wrong. One could say that the NIV translators took a nap or went on coffee break after translating Matthew 18:10 and when they returned to their work they inadvertently skipped v.11 and went to v.12. Or attribute it to printer error. Or one could even accuse them of sabotage, which is the radical view that some KJV Onlyists take. The matter involves none of these things. It involves the enormously complex and often controversial subject of textual criticism on which a large number of specialized scholars have labored so much for so long and have not as yet arrived at total unaninimity. But to say that the NIV translators have deliberately tampered with the text by omitting Matthew 18:11 is no more valid than to say that the KJV translators tampered with it by adding it. The textual basis of the KJV New Testament is known as Textus Receptus. The NIV used an eclectic one. In either case, both teams followed texts which they considered the most reliable available to them at the time. It is therefore as absurd to hurl the curses of Revelation 22:18 at the KJV translators for adding words to Scripture as it is to hurl those of Revelation 22:19 at the NIV translators for taking them away. ..... If you'd like to read more posts -- many more I might add -- on this topic, use Quick Search and type in the words Textus Receptus. I'd like also to recommend a book you might enjoy. It's called "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism" by D. A. Carson. It's readily available in inexpensive paperback on-line and at bookstores. ..... By the way, the NASB includes Matthew 18:11, but puts it in brackets and notes marginally "Early mss. do not contain this v." For what it's worth, I will note that I use the 1995 NASB Update about 90 per cent of the time for my reading and study and am trying to update my Scripture memorization from KJV to NASB. In this effort I find it tougher to "unlearn" than to learn :-). ...... And here's an exercise for you. Let someone who is unfamiliar with the KJV read Psalm 5:6 and ask him to tell you what it means to speak leasing. Blessings. --Hank | ||||||
320 | KJV Only Radicals | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 136017 | ||
Deer Mr. Kalos - You talked about that there Geneva's Bible. Us folks down hear in the Ozarks ain't right sure which Geneva it was that wrote a Bible. We got 3 Genevas in our hollow, but two of them cain't write a lick and the other one be Geneva Louise Weehunt and she ain't no great hand a writin. ...... Now us folks down here is what them city slickers call simple folks, just plain old country hicks to be honest about it, and we cain't hardly read no English a tall, except fer the Parson he does tolerably well and Miss Peabody the school teacher, she does pretty good. Facts is, she went over to that big univercity at Fayetteville for pert near a whole year and they learned her a whole lot. But the rest of us you see ain't all that versed up in book readin' and we has to git a hold of a Bible that don't have them begots and wherefores and thou arts and all sich as that. Ole King James he was likely a purty smart feller but he sure did talk funny and we jest cain't understand what it is he's trying to git acrost in that Bible of his'n. Them English folks never did speak English so a body could understand everything they was trying to say. ..... Well, let me tell you something. A few years back, I don't recollect just when, Luke Gray, my neighbor that lives across the creek from us, he went down to the big city of Fort Smith and he chanced upon a Bible that was...what do you call it?....trancelated I think it is....by some Americans that talk the kind of English that people is supposed to talk today in this country, not the way they tried to talk it way back 400 years ago in a foreign country (England). So Luke up and bought one and brung it home. He said it was a heap easier to understand than the one that English king wrote. He loaned it to me for a few days after he had wore the new off it and I kinda took a shine to it myself. So I hitched the mules to my wagon and went to Fort Smith and got me one. It's called...let me look here and see what it says...it's called the New American Standard Bible. I like it a whole lot and sure like seeing the word "American" in the title. But that's kinda the way I am I guess. Seems to me like a Bible trancelated by folks that speak American is kinda nice. Besides, I think we got jest as good Bible scollars as England does. Well, thanks a heap for listening to me and be sure to come to see us when you can. The turnip greens sure is good this time of a year. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [217] >> |