Results 41 - 60 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 157727 | ||
Tim, if you develop fever with those chills, take a couple of aspirin and call me in the morning :-) Perhaps it would be good to forget about 216 and concentrate on 911. --Hank | ||||||
42 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 157728 | ||
The key to understanding the post is to recognize that it is pure tongue-in-cheek, pure irony, a parody designed to spoof the inane notion of finding hidden meanings in Scripture through the use of the arcane pseudo-science of numerology. We don't play Dungeons and Dragons on this Forum. --Hank | ||||||
43 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 157730 | ||
Truly amazing discoveries, Doc! As Cousin Caleb, who is beyond doubt the world's greatest authority here in the Ozarks, is so fond of saying, "The more I study on this nummerology, the nummer and dummer I git." --Hank | ||||||
44 | List Nasb departures from Hebrew text? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 157980 | ||
Peter, you may already be in the habit of comparing several translations with one another. I find this practice helpful, because often a murky locution in one version will be cleared up by another. I frequently find myself using the NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV and NLT in making comparisons of difficult passages. Almost always it helps. --Hank | ||||||
45 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158841 | ||
Doc, at one time or another I believe I've seen all these interpretative mistakes committed on the Forum, some of them many times over. Mercifully hidden away somewhere in the Forum archives is a gruesomely long thread debating, of all things, the meaning of the little word "all" in which we were asked to believe that when the Bible uses all, it doesn't mean all at all. That pill was hard for me to swallow, because where I come from when a man says you all he means every last one of you. The whole shootin' match. ..... I guess the eisegesis business -- forcing an interpretation into a text that simply isn't there -- and taking a passage out of context are the two most frequently seen on the Forum. Many of the "old regulars" on the Forum have posted again and again about the importance of context. Yet the problem persists. Either the warnings against lifting passages out of context don't get read, or if they do, they go in one ear and out the other two. :-) --Hank | ||||||
46 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158869 | ||
"Truly sir, all that I live by is the awl. I meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters, but with awl. I am indeed, sir, a surgeon to old shoes. A trade, sir, that I hope I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles. I beseech you, sir, be not out with me, yet if you be out, sir, I can mend you" (Shakespere: "Julius Caesar," Act 1, Scene 1). ...... Awl things considered, Kalos, we are in the debt of the Bard of Stratford for clearing this matter up once and for awl. ...... It was he who also gave us -- well almost -- the famous lines, "Oil's well that ends well" and "What fuels these mortals be." ..... With that I will end, sir, hoping awl's well with thee. --Hank | ||||||
47 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158874 | ||
To correct a typo in my post 168869 -- For those who caught it, as I'm sure you did, Kalos, the Bard's name is spelled Shakespeare, not Shakespere as in the cited post. For those who failed to catch the typo, well, read more carefully next time! And for those who don't know or care who Shakespeare was, I apologize for disturbing your afternoon nap. :-) --Hank | ||||||
48 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158893 | ||
Kalos, congratulations! I thought I had you on this one, but you're too smart for me. You figured it out. Actually, the Brad of Stratford isn't exactly a restaurant, but you're close. The Brad of Stratford, Ltd. is a British firm that actually produces brads, but no tacks. They are a tacks-exempt organization. And yes, the international headquarters of the Avon cosmetics corporation is also located in Stratford. And did you know that Stratford has no male citizens? They're all Avon ladies. Read Psalm 23 tonight. It has nothing to do with Brad of Stratford or Avon, but it will do all of us good to read it. Don't miss it if you can. --Hank | ||||||
49 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158903 | ||
Who's Mart Twang? | ||||||
50 | Could there be more? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 158940 | ||
Hello, Angel in Training: I rather like your user name; while I would not adjudge myself an Angel, I've been "in training" as a Christian for some 56 years. ..... By the way, would you consider giving the Forum a little background information on yourself in the User Profile? (access by clicking on to your user name on any of your posts). You can use other registrants' profiles a guides if you'd like. ..... I'd like to ask you something so that we can get to know you and your views a little better, and I'd like, if you don't mind, for you to make the answers as short and to the point as you can. The question is about facing God which you touched upon in your post. Angel, do you believe and accept the following statements with all your heart: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as the result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8,9). .... No need to be expansive, just a yes or no will do. ..... I was once young and new in the faith, but it was so very long ago. I didn't have all the answers then, and some that I had were wrong ones. After 56 years as a born-again believer in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I still don't have all the answers, but I have more than I had at age 14 when I was saved. But through it all I've hung on to and cherished the firm belief that I was saved, am being saved, and will be saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And when I come to the end of my journey on earth and meet Him face to face, my plea will not be based on my righteous deeds, which have been so few, and are like filthy rags to Him; or my good intentions, which have been so many, and are equally valueless; but solely upon the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross. He and He alone saves me from sin and gives me eternal life. Believest thou this also, Angel? ..... We are happy to have you on the Forum and pray that we can in some measure encourage and strengthen and help you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (see 2 Peter 3:18). --Hank | ||||||
51 | tell me what you think | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 160110 | ||
Jimmy: The purpose of this Forum is Bible study. Many things the Forum is not, among them it is not a soapbox to air theories on contemporary issues on which the Bible is silent, or to pronounce judgment on any other user, or to declare another user deceived because his views do not agree with your own on every issue. Guard your words with all diligence. Adhere to Forum guidelines. Ask Bible questions. Give Bible answers. Avoid ad hominem slurs against your fellow users of the Forum. Base your comments on Scripture, but not on emotion, conjecture or speculation. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. --Hank | ||||||
52 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 160418 | ||
Dear ebrain: Thanks for responding. Indeed there is sagacity in Psalm 118:8 regardless of the method one uses to arrive at it! ..... You may be acquainted with the numerological tale of Shakespeare and Psalm 46. The Authorized Version was printed the same year that William Shakespeare turned 46. If one counts down from the beginning of Psalm 46, the 46th word is "shake." If he counts up from the end of the Psalm, the 46th word is "spear." Is the connection with the Bard merely coincidental or did the translators, or even the Bard himself, have a hand in it? ..... I've followed your posts with interest and take this opportunity to bid you a belated welcome to this Forum. I note that hail from the UK. So did my great-grandfather who came to America from Birmingham, England and settled in Birmingham, Alabama. --Hank | ||||||
53 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166726 | ||
Excellent post, most excellent Huron! To carry your fine observations of the NASB a trifle farther, it might be noted that it is the considered opinion of this writer that to a certain degree the NASB has become the victim of a somewhat nasty and essentially inaccurate rumor; to wit, that in its herculean efforts to be literal it has inadventently become what the critics have called "a wooden translation." I sometimes feel like countering with, "Well, if I were a translation, I'd sooner be wooden than plastic. And would prefer to be literal than approximate, to be the real McCoy than the shadowy "dynamic equivalent" of the real thing. It'd rather give praises to God by translating the actual phrases of God than dumping off my own gussied-up paraphrases." .... Actually, I do get a little tired of hearing some of these wild-eyed disciples of the dynamic equivalence/paraphrase school carp on the woodeness of such excellent formal, word-for-word translations as the NASB 1995 Update. I've been hanging around words for many decades and even majored in English, and so lay claim to knowing a thing or two about putting English words together in order to be able to say something meaningful. And I find that by and large the NASB reads well. It is clear and comprehensible. I'll concede it doesn't read, as a blurb for a certain sorry paraphrased version announced upon its publication some years ago, "like today's newspaper", a fact for which I am enormously grateful and stand in admiration of the good sense of the NASB translators! --Hank | ||||||
54 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166735 | ||
Brother Tim: Good to hear from you and enlightening to ponder your provocative points! Running parallel to, as I believe it does, your essential arguments and philosophy on Bible translation, the preface to the English Standard Version (ESV) says, in part: ....... "The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. ... In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a 'thought-for-thought' rather than 'word-for-word' translation philosophy, emphasizing 'dynamic equivalence' rather than 'essentially literal' meaning of the original. A 'thought-for-thought' translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture. Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between 'formal equivalence' in expression and 'functional equivalence' in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within the framework we have sought to be 'as literal as possible' while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original, and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts." ...... And much of what the ESV translation team have said of their work, the NASB team could say, and have said, of theirs. But this is not so of the highly paraphrased versions. Some of them have gone far afield of the original texts, even to the extent in some cases, and in my opinion, of perverting the sacred text. And for the "What it's Worth Department" I will venture the opinion that the NASB and the ESV just may be in a dead heat for the overall best translations currently available in modern English. I have no reservations about recommending both of them. I believe they deliver "The Message" far better and more accurately than many others, including that popular paraphrase that calls itself by that name. --Hank | ||||||
55 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166799 | ||
atdcross: Please supply book, chapter and verse to support your statement, "God did not create Satan." (If God did not create Satan, then who did?) --Hank | ||||||
56 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166930 | ||
Ocelot: Stating one's firm belief in the orthodoxy of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God does not constitute the "pushing" of Calvinism! While all Calvinists I've ever heard of assuredly hold to the doctrine, it is by no means a Calvinist distinctive, nor can it rightly be called a denominational bias. It is a doctrine so deeply and firmly grounded in Scripture that it transcends all so-called "denominational biases" and is so inextricably rooted in the very core of orthodox doctrine that all who are worthy to be called God's people must, and indeed do, believe that God is absolutely sovereign. By "the rules" I assume you mean the Forum's guidelines, and they do not in any wise prohibit one from declaring his belief in the sovereignty of almighty God. Therefore, scolding Doc for his bold and unequivocal declaration was without warrant. --Hank | ||||||
57 | ch. 1 verses 3-14 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166936 | ||
Hi, CDBJ. Brother, I'm not convinced that we're all on the same page or even reading the same book! :-) --Hank | ||||||
58 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167071 | ||
Hmmm...now that we know what atdcross thinks about repentence and confession, would anyone happen to know what the Bible teaches on these topics? --Hank | ||||||
59 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167642 | ||
Hey, atdcross and other participants on this thread, I just had an idea -- my first in three days! Why don't you all retreat to the comfort and safety of your cozy dens, pick up a copy of your personal dictionary and look up the word "repent." I suggest it as a remedy to cure the confusion about the meaning of the word that this interminable thread is plainly causing. And once you have looked up the meaning and have it stored away in your little gray cells, hold on to it for dear life, and for goodness sake don't take the risk of losing it by returning to this thread! ..... Caveat: Should this unfruitful thread continue, it faces the nearly certain prospect of becoming overloaded and self-destructing before your very eyes! --Hank | ||||||
60 | Sayings Not Found in Scripture | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167669 | ||
Kalos, and my favorite non-scripture scripture is, "A stitch in time is worth two in the bush." :-) Some say it ain't in scripture, but Uncle Ezra Hackinbush claims it is. He says it's found summers in the book of Hezekiah, but old Uncle Ezra, he ain't as sharp as he used to be, and in never was much sharp. ..... He says his wife, Aunt Aud, never did throw dishes at him till she took to watching them sci-fi movies about them flyin' saucers. Of course, he come up with a scripture about that too. He claims the Good Book plainly says that women folks who live in log cabins ought not to throw dishes at their husbands. He says it's found in the book of Exoducks right after that story about Moses and the Bull Rushers, but I never had no luck finding it. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [217] >> |