Results 41 - 60 of 80
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: greentwiga Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141678 | ||
Thanks, looks great. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles look wonderful also. Greentwiga |
||||||
42 | greentwiga, did you check the refs? | Ezek 20:5 | greentwiga | 141677 | ||
Yes, I try to go to the original Hebrew when I can. For example, I think that the original Hebrew indicates that Israel visited Petra before it was Petra, during the 40 years in the wilderness. I also think that scripture indicates that Noah's ark was a giant reed boat. It is amazing what you can find if you doubt the experts. Greentwiga |
||||||
43 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141622 | ||
I do not own a copy of a young's literal Bible. I go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ They have copies of almot every translation available. May you always be a Berean Greentwiga |
||||||
44 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141612 | ||
I use a similar set of tools. Since my knowledge of hebrew is not much different than yours, I enjoy that sight that gives me young's literal translation. That is as close as I can come to the Hebrew. I do use the strong's exhaustive Concordance and the NIV exhaustive Concordance because I like to check on the original. Since I just found out about the youngs literal a month ago, I am delighted to add this new tool to my toolbox. Greentwiga |
||||||
45 | Why is NAS better than KJV | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141605 | ||
Try this site: http://www.ebible.org/ Notice that it uses the Am Std 1901 and updates the readability. The Hebrew version that uses the real Hebrew names looks intriguing. Greentwiga |
||||||
46 | I chose Israel and lifted up My hand? | Ezek 20:5 | greentwiga | 141582 | ||
A great resource I found is biblegateway.com use it to look up young's literal translation and many others. vs 20:8 And -- they rebel against Me, And have not been willing to hearken to Me, Each, the detestable things of their eyes, They have not cast away, And the idols of Egypt have not forsaken, And I say -- to pour out My fury on them, To complete Mine anger against them, In the midst of the land of Egypt. God bless you Greentwiga |
||||||
47 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141244 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. | ||||||
48 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141243 | ||
Bad Bible interpretation has been corrected by Science. Bad Science has been corrected and now fits the Bible. Greentwiga |
||||||
49 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | greentwiga | 141242 | ||
I have sola scriptura bookmarked on my isp. I see you like it also. I like your statement about the problems with our understanding. I am researching the book of Genesis big time. It opens your eyes to stick to the original words. Blessings Greentwiga |
||||||
50 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141200 | ||
There is a huge difference between unproven and unsupported. You make the theory sound unsupported. Notice also that the Bible only indicates it was about 6,000 years since Adam. What if the man in Genesis 1 was different from the man in Genesis two. If so, we can't say how old the earth was. This is just an example of how we might be relying too heavily on one interpretation. Do we also suppress other interpretations, just like we accuse the scientists of doing? Greentwiga |
||||||
51 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141199 | ||
"It is said that no valid evolutionary scientist believes man evolved from a non-human life form. Yet evolution of man from an ooze of muck and mire is still in our textbooks, is still taught in our schools and colleges, still presented to the public as a viable answer to creation of man." Where do you get this???? Have you suddenly declared 99.99 percent of evolutionary scientists invalid? I know many and do not know any that disagree with the idea man evolved from a non-human life form. I do not say they are right, just that they all believe it with a very few exceptions. Your first paragraph is an interesting statement. I have no problems with it. The second and thord paragraphs are also very valid. The first sentance of the last paragraph has repetition of doubtful information. It is statements like that that I object to. Greentwiga |
||||||
52 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141197 | ||
My original objection had been to the misstatements about the facts of science. The age of the earth is based on interpretations of the facts. There may be strong support from a variety of lines of reasoning, but that just means the theory is strongly supported. Science is also useful to Christians. c14 dating, based on 4,000 year old bristlecone pines has done much to support the stories in Genesis. It is a great tool, but just a tool. We can't throw it out because it is inconvenient. The Bible is inspired. That does not mean my or your interpretation is inspired. Based on accepting each and every word, we can consider various interpretations. Based on accepting the facts, the data of science, scientists constantly debate their theories. After Einstein's theory of reletivity was accepted, the only one out to prove Einstein wrong was Einstein. The latest theories say he was right to say he was wrong. I would have made a fool of myself to weigh in on the debate. I therefore stick to the Bible rather than trying to look like a fool. greentwiga |
||||||
53 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | greentwiga | 141193 | ||
God Bless you brother. I personally do not reverence the paper and ink, but the original greek and Hebrew. I do honor those who wish to put the book on top or in the pocket nearest the heart. I give respect to the word, and worship the Word. Thanks for the fun chewing over capitalization. Greentwiga |
||||||
54 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141189 | ||
My point. We can't just attack one thing, carbon 14 dating and think the problem goes away. Let's focus on our strength, the Bible, debate the meaning of the word, and preach salvation. I just plead that we do not use bad science and make ourselves look like fools. Greentwiga |
||||||
55 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141184 | ||
Let's not confuse things, please. It is one thing to take a measurement, such as the amount of c14 in the atmosphere currently, the amount in the various rings of a tree I just chopped down, and the amount in oil just pumped out of the ground. (none) It is another to debate the meaning of those measurements. The facts, the repeatable experiments can be tested. The meaning, whether you are convinced the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth is 6,000 or 5 billion years old is the debate on the interpretation. I clearly stated That I love to debate these interpretations or theories of science. Similarly, I believe in each and every word in the Bible. I will compare wild beasts to beasts of the field (Gen 1-3) and debate the meaning or interpretation of the terms. I will even accept two competing interpretations as equally likely. I will not accept one institutes interpretation of the Word just because they believe it, especially if other equally vaild interpretations also fit each and every word of scripture. The roadblock is not Creation as expressed in the Bible, but the very bad science some Christians use. Your last sentance is the one I wholeheartedly agree with. Science has even proven various facets of it. Greentwiga |
||||||
56 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141179 | ||
Thanks. This is a more honest attempt to answer the questions I raised. It is a different Biblical theory than the theory of God creating an earth with apparant age, but it also attempts to answer the questions. Both are better than just throwing out scientific facts. Thanks again. Greentwiga |
||||||
57 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | greentwiga | 141178 | ||
Duly noted. I can get carried away when emphasizing something. It is the others feelings that are important. I once had a small Bible I carried in my hip pocket. It was not a problem until a Muslim say me remove it and was aghast for the lack of reverence. I never put it back there again. Greentwiga |
||||||
58 | The things concerning this Child. | Luke 2:16 | greentwiga | 141177 | ||
Thanks again. I do not care if people want to capitalize. I just do not make it into theology. Greentwiga |
||||||
59 | The things concerning this Child. | Luke 2:16 | greentwiga | 141174 | ||
Thanks | ||||||
60 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141169 | ||
Radioactive dating is highly accurate. I am a scientist and a fundamentalist Christian who has worked as a missionary. I have also worked in the radioactive dating field, and know no scientists that admit any major flaws. Scientists do argue over purity and original concentrations, but have methods to answer the problems. We might just as well argue that all stars are no farther away than 6,000 lightyears away. Even if we prove the radioactive problem, we still suffer the star problem. Some reputable Christians, instead argue that God created an earth and starry heavens about 6,000 years ago with an apparent ancient history of about 15 billion years. I just accept the facts of the Bible and the facts of science. I am willing to argue about interpretations of the Bible and interpretations of science, but I base it on solid arguments. Show me why carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, seafloor dating, and lakebed dating, along with stalactite dating are all wrong with strong scientific facts and arguments. As it is, when I attempt to witness to scientists, we have to get past them rejecting the message because they lump me with the Creation research people. Scientists find their work very unscientific. The bones are there, they are ancient by all our tests. Lets deal with them honestly. Greentwiga |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |