Results 41 - 60 of 4934
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232998 | ||
Greetings Doc! Well, it would have to be unleavened bread! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
42 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232986 | ||
Good info Ed! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
43 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232960 | ||
Greetings Preston! I agree with you that God has many names. I looked up the link you provided, and I did not see the reference you mentioned concerning changing 'God' to 'Gods'. Do you have that reference? What do I mean by textual reason? Simply this, how we get the Bible is a complicated process. There are many thousands of copies, but to the best of our knowledge, we do not have any of the original texts. In the copies, are many variant readings. Almost all of them are minor issues of spelling, or word order. None of them affect any major doctrine. However, there are some instances where copyists either intentionally or unintentionally changed the original text. According the the link you provided, the modern translations either change or omit things, but this is only true if KJV accurately reflects what the original text actually said. If the KJV doesn't accurately reflect the original text, then it is the one that added or changed the text, and the modern translation are correcting it's mistakes. One famous example is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), where the entire passage is pretty much added to the KJV without any textual support. Here is what the NET Bible says about the lack of textual support for this reading. "This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest MS with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century (629), and that MS deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the Textus Receptus (TR) was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (Codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading... Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings — even in places where the Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (TR) equals the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history." I apologize for the long quote, but it is necessary to understand the textual issues before us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
44 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232949 | ||
Greetings Preston! Could you give me the reference for the change from 'God' to 'Gods'? Without knowing the reference, all I can say in general is that 'elohim' (the Hebrew word for God) is a plural noun in form. When it is used with singular verbs, it is usually translated as 'God', but when used with plural verbs, it is usually translated as 'gods'. When you provide the specific reference, we will probably find a textual reason for the change. I agree with you that some translations are motivated for the wrong reasons, but there are many that are done for the right reasons as well. Whatever the reason, God's word is still powerful and will not return void. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
45 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232940 | ||
Greetings Preston! You said in your post: I am sure you are aware but, for reminders to all of us the origional KJV was brought about by the king of england who assembled the greatest scholars known at the time, who used the only known to man... manuscripts. I don't know how much closer we will ever be able to come to the origional Word. Please answer a question for me...we have one from the origional manuscripts...why is another/new one necessary...for what purpose?"" The KJV New Testament text was actually based upon the greek text of Erasmus. His first edition was put together in only 5 months, and he only had a handful of greek manuscripts available to him, the oldest of which dated to the 10th century. So, as much good as has been accomplish by and through the KJV, it certainly is not the closest we have to the original manuscripts. We now have thousands of manuscripts from which to work, some of which date back to the 1st century. So, modern translation have a tremendous advantage when it comes to source material. Now, now all modern translations are good. :-) I would not use the TNIV as a door stop. ;-) But, almost all of them are much closer to the originals than the KJV. p.s. - Here is a link that details the manuscripts used for the KJV: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
46 | Is there more needed than Rom 1:18-32 | Jonah | Morant61 | 232878 | ||
Greetings Ed! I wanted to throw a little more information out there for everyone's consideration. Rom. 1:21 clearly states that the pagan world 'knew' God, but refused to worship Him as God. Yet, DocTrinsograce sent me an e-mail with some references that clearly state that the world does not know God. I quote: "Given all the passages that specifically deny that some do not know Him (John 1:10; 14:5; 1 John 3:1; Jeremiah 2:8; 22:16; etc.) we have to look at this word the way we use it in English. There are all kinds of knowing, but the particulars ride in the context. I would have distinguished between knowing and loving. There is Psalm 9:10... but I think John as a whole connects knowing Him and loving Him." Doc makes an excellent point. 'Knowing' God definitely has different meaning in different contexts. In the verses Doc points out, 'not knowing' refers to a lack of a loving relationship. Or, one could say, 'not knowing' refers to a lack of a saving knowledge of God. In Rom. 1:21, they knew enough about God to be held culpable for their rejection of Him, but not enough to be saved. It is also interesting that each author differs in their use of the term. John seems to be quite fond of using 'to know' in terms of a loving relationship, while Paul doesn't seem to make that connection as much. This is a great reminder why we need to always look at the context in which a word is used, to look at who is using the word, and to examine the various ways in which a word is used. Keep up the great study! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
47 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Morant61 | 232877 | ||
Greetings Seth! Well said! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
48 | Know God but not Jesus | Jonah | Morant61 | 232865 | ||
Greetings Ed! Yes and no! :-) Yes, in the sense that general revelation is not enough to save, but no in the sense that it doesn't tell the whole story. If all we had was general revelation, no one would be saved. But, we have a God who loves us and doesn't want anyone to perish. So, like with the case of Nineveh, God will make Himself known in a more complete way those who need Him. There is no salvation apart from Christ. So, those who have never heard of Jesus, will have no hope of salvation unless God reveals Himself to them. He could do this directly like He did with Abram. Or, He could do this indirectly by sending someone to proclaim the gospel to them like He did with Jonah and Nineveh. But, one way or another, the lost must hear about Jesus to be saved. So, Romans 1:18-32 describes what normally happens in the case of general revelation alone, but it does not describe what God can and will do because of His great love and mercy. I hope this answers your question my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
49 | What is the law? | Gen 26:5 | Morant61 | 232841 | ||
Great answer Doc! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
50 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Morant61 | 232840 | ||
Greetings Beja! Excellent observations! At our congregation, we have been doing a Wednesday night study on how to interpret the various genres of Scripture. When we were studying narratives, it took me a while to get our class to understand that just because a narratives describes something does not necessarily mean that said action is prescribed. The example we were looking at was the communal practices of the early church in Acts 4. This is exactly what you are saying concerning Sabbath worship. Keep up the good posts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
51 | Possibility of an unsaved knowing God | Jonah | Morant61 | 232839 | ||
Greetings Ed! I think that Rom. 1:21 directly answers this question: Rom 1:21 - "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." But, knowing God and trusting God are two different things. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
52 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232128 | ||
Greetings Preston: Thanks for the clarification. Here is what the study note from the Net Bible says about this phrase: "The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic "like that of a son of the gods." Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., "the Son of God"). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase "like a son of the gods" is equivalent to "like a divine being."" So, there argument is that the plural is more faithful to what the phrase would have meant to this pagan king. In fact, most of the commentaries that I checked accepted the NIV's translation as the better choice. Personally, I probably would have used the singular and included the above information in the study note. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
53 | Called to Peace | Matt 5:9 | Morant61 | 231883 | ||
Greetings All! As I watch the news each day, I notice that we live in an increasingly divided world. The world needs the Church to become the salt and light that she was called to be by Christ. (Mt. 5:13-14) One way in which we can accomplish this goal is to become the peacemakers that God has called us to become. Romans 12:18 commands us, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people." Numerous times in Scripture, God is called the 'God of Peace'. As His children, peace should be on the fruits evident in our lives. (Gal. 5:22) However, peace doesn't just happen, we must pursue it. (Rom. 14:19) How can we become true peacemakers? First of all, God's peace must rule in our hearts. (Col. 3:15) Peace must characterize our relationship both with God and others. The fruit of the Spirit are in direct opposition and contrast to the works of the flesh. We must look at the fruit in our lives. Do we see hatred, bitterness, rage, envy, ect.? Then our lives are not characterized by peace. We can't produce the fruit of the Spirit, only the Spirit can do produce fruit in our lives. But, Scripture promises us that the God of peace will give us peace. (2 Thess. 3:16) Secondly, we must promote peace through our actions. 1 Peter 3:8-12 speaks of not responding to the evil of the world in kind, but of turning from evil and doing good. We need to love everyone, especially those who hate us. Our love needs to be demonstrable and visible. Finally, we need to promote peace through our words as well. 1 Peter 3:8-12 also mentions the importance of controlling what we say. Scripture has much to say about our words. 1) A soft answer turns away wrath - Prov. 15:1. 2) Do not return...insult for insult - 1 Peter 3:9. 3) Do not engage in heated disputes - 2 Tim. 2:24. If our hearts are ruled by the peace of Christ, then our lips should reflect that fact, "...for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." (Luke 6:45) Let us follow the example of the God of Peace, and be called His sons! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
54 | How should the word "epi" be translated | Rev 5:10 | Morant61 | 231024 | ||
Greetings Doc! Great question! Not only do prepositions have a wide variety of possible meanings, but they are often used in combination with other words to produce entirely different meanings. In the case of 'epignosis', the basic meaning of the preposition is 'through' with the resultant meaning of 'full knowledge'. I did some checking in Dana and Mantey's grammar (pp. 106-107). The base meanings of 'epi' are: With the genitive case: upon, on, at, by, before, emphasizing contact. With the locative case: upon, on, at, over, before, emphasizing position. With the accusative case: upon, on, up to, to, over, emphasizing motion or direction. Of course, there is a lot of interpretation involved in deciding which case is being used as the form of all three is the same. There are other examples of 'epi' in combination with other words where the meanings are more exotic. In Matt. 3:7, it is used in the phrase 'coming for baptism'. In Matt. 14:48, it is used in the phrase 'you came out as against a thief'. In Luke 1:59, it is used in the phrase 'after the name of his father'. It is used in Acts 4:21 in the phrase 'on account of the event'. In some instances, it can be translated as 'because'. Finally, in Acts 11:28, it is used in the phrase 'in the time of Claudius'. The main thing to remember with preposition is the base idea. That meaning is near far away in a translation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
55 | Is Belief in the Trinity Required? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 230279 | ||
Greetings Holmes! I have been trying to catch up on this thread. :) It seems to me that many forget the incarnation when discussion the question of equality. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is fully God in every sense of the word, but His status changed during the incarnation. He 'emptied Himself' and 'became a servant'. During this time, His Father was greater than He. His Father was His God, because He Himself was fully man. But, these situation only existed during the incarnation. P.S. - I am in agreement with Beja. I believe that no one comes to salvation with a full understanding of the Trinity. So, in that sense, it is not necessary for salvation. But, any view that demeans Jesus is heresy and should be rejected. Thus, as a believer submits to Scripture, he or she will come to recognize the Trinity. As an individual, I could not say that someone who rejects the Trinity is not saved, but I can say that he or she is a false teacher. Great discussion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
56 | Do we accept? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 230034 | ||
Greetings Wings on Fire! Without really knowing you, it seems from your posts that you are confused about what the Doctrine of the Trinity is really all about. Here is a link that might help: http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html The short version is this: 1) The Bible is clear that there is only One God, not two or three. 2) The Bible is also clear that three distinct Persons are all called God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Doctrine of the Trinity is saying that there are three distinct Person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who make up this One God. So, there is no problem with the New Testament saying the Jesus created everything and the Old Testament saying that God created everything, since Jesus is God. Read the short article above and see if it clarifies your understanding of the Trinity any. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
57 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Morant61 | 229345 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! Well, it was a half confirmation. :-) That source certainly confirms that a child born out of wedlock did not have a stigma attached to them personally, unless the child was the result of what would be a prohibited marriage. But, the rest of the source certainly indicated that the betrothal was normally 12 months long, and sexual relations were not to take place until the wedding night. The point you made in another post about sexual relations resulting in marriage does not indicate acceptance, but protection of the woman. It is much like in the OT where if a man raped a virgin, he had to marry her. In summary, I think you are right about the stigma not being attached to the child, so John 8:41 probably is not a reference to Jesus. But, I do believe that sexual relations were not supposed to be a part of the betrothal period, which used to be 12 months. In modern times, this period does not really exist anymore. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
58 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Morant61 | 229327 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You mention Jewish Halakhic tradition. I looked it up, and here is what it says about betrothal and marriage: "The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other. Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete. The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together. In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family. There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. Today, the two ceremonies are normally performed together. Because marriage under Jewish law is essentially a private contractual agreement between a man and a woman, it does not require the presence of a rabbi or any other religious official. It is common, however, for rabbis to officiate, partly in imitation of the Christian practice and partly because the presence of a religious or civil official is required under United States civil law. As you can see, it is very easy to make a marriage, so the rabbis instituted severe punishments (usually flogging and compelled divorce) where marriage was undertaken without proper planning and solemnity." Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm It does go on to say that only children of forbidden marriages were considered illegitimate under Jewish Law. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
59 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Morant61 | 229324 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! I have consulted every source at my disposal, and have not found any thing near what you are saying. Everyone says that sexual relations were not allowed during the betrothal period. I am sure, given human nature that it probably occurred. However, that is not the same thing as acceptance. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
60 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Morant61 | 229282 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! John 8:41 may or may not have been an insult aimed at Jesus, but sexual relations were not supposed to be a part of the Betrothal period. During the 12 months of the betrothal, the future wife lived with her parents and the marriage was not to be consummated until the the actual wedding took place. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [247] >> |