Results 41 - 60 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | diakonos vs synergos | 1 Thess 3:2 | Beja | 241120 | ||
Chilidog, Unfortunately you will not receive a reply here from anybody who represents the translators of the NASB. All participants are just like you, those who log on to find a community to discuss questions like yours. What you ask is an excellent question, yet text criticism principles are hard to explain sometimes. As you seem to be aware, there is a mixed witness in the texts which we have. Diakonos by far has more texts, however the multitude of witnesses to a particular reading is not the only question which a text critic weighs. Another major question which determines the preferred reading is which of the readings best explain the development of the additional readings? In this case it is really easy to see how a scribe reading one being described as "a fellow worker of God" could see that as a bit much and out of a pious but misguided humility softening the statement to "servant." Now on the flip side it is really hard to imagine some scribe being so bold as to read the original reading of "servant" and then decide he should upgrade us from servants to "fellow workers of God." And this is precisely why groups favor the reading of "fellow servant" as being original rather then the more widely attested "servant." Now we can't be certain about this. But the reasoning is sound especially given that we know for sure that scribes often changed the text to what they thought would be a more reverent reading when they were copying. I hope this helps and if this type of information is helpful to you I recommend to you "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd edition by Bruce Metzger. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
42 | what does it mean to pray amiss | Bible general | Beja | 241117 | ||
That would be the KJV version of James 4:3 Blessings, Beja |
||||||
43 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241110 | ||
Sharsmit, Absolutely. Israel is a masculine noun, so it is grammatically necessary for it to be a masculine pronoun. Anytime you see Israel referred to in a feminine sense is purely for poetical reasons when she is meant to be portrayed as God's bride or something along that nature. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
44 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241107 | ||
Sharsmit, We are speaking about this verse, no? "And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities." It would be safe to say that the "his iniquities" refers to the iniquities of Israel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
45 | How many churches will be saved? | Matthew | Beja | 241044 | ||
Movingon, However you may read this verse, at the end of the day "ekklesia" is in fact the word scritpure uses for "church." For example, 1 Corinthians 1:2 addresses the letter "to the 'ekklesia' of God which is at Corinth." Yes, the word does mean "assembly" but "ekklesia" remains the word constantly used for the church. On that note I wonder about your interpretation of Hebrews 12:22-23 where he tells them they have already (perfect tense) come to the "ekklesia" of the firstborn? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
46 | How many churches will be saved? | Matthew | Beja | 241043 | ||
Hi Jasper, I tried to post once already and it didn't work, so if this duplicates forgive me. I just wanted to point out that Baptists do not derive their name from John the Baptist of scripture, but rather from their conviction concerning a post conversion baptism rather than infant baptism. Blessings, Beja |
||||||
47 | Yes but why did the NASB choose "God" | Bible general | Beja | 240836 | ||
PeterH, A person could list the evidence for one reading verses the other. But only those who actually made the decision can tell you what particular evidence they found the most compelling. I would point you to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger. On there you will find what persuaded that particular group concerning various textual differences of significance. They determined "God" to be most likely original in that passage and they briefly list why. From there you would need to look into what the NASB's policy was. Did they just accept the other committee's judgement or did they make up their own mind? This you might find in the foreword to you NASB. Best of luck. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
48 | Why "only begotten GOD" as against "Son | Bible general | Beja | 240833 | ||
PeterH, The reason is because different ancient texts vary on this verse. Some of them read son and others read God. It is a matter of text criticism to try and determine which is more likely the original reading. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
49 | later versions contain this paragraph? | Mark 16:20 | Beja | 240553 | ||
Tim, Doc has indeed pointed you to one of the key places to begin a study of your question. However, just to be blunt, if you are not trained to understand those sources or have somebody able to help you work through them they won't practically pay off. You are going to basically be told that aleph and beta two fourth century manuscripts omit this section of Mark. Many more manuscripts contain it, the problem is that Aleph and Beta are perhaps the most reliable and of the most early of the sources we have available. However, any modern commentary on Mark that is worth its salt must deal with the question you are asking and likely deal with it in great detail. Therefore I would suggest you seek your answer in commentaries. They are far from inerrant but you will get to see the discussion. R.T. France's commentary on Mark is usually agreed to be at least among the finest of the commentaries on Mark recently published. So I would point you there to seek an answer. It will take a little work on your part but any answer given on this forum will be reductionistic out of necessity. Good luck to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
50 | Saying we are sorry to one another! | Matt 5:1 | Beja | 240430 | ||
LovemyLord7, Take a look at Matthew 5:23-24. It doesn't use the exact words "Say you are sorry" but the principle of us taking the initiative in reconciling ourselves to those who "have something against us" meaning we have wronged them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
51 | Is the allegorical or metaphorical metho | Bible general | Beja | 240395 | ||
Movingon, What was the question? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
52 | The allegorical or metaphorical teaching | Bible general | Beja | 240393 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
53 | Anyone interested in Revalations 13:3? | Bible general | Beja | 240372 | ||
See MzVicki's profile. | ||||||
54 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240311 | ||
Jalek, Thank you for the clarifications. I think I understand you better now. I still disagree with your reading of verse 19 for two reasons. Reason 1: I maintain that "in" is not the best translation for this context. First, en is far far more flexible of a preposition than you suggest here. But specifically I have compiled a list of places where the NASB has translated the phrase "en autois" as "among them. Luke 9:46;22:24;John9:16;15:24 Acts 4:34;18:11;24:21;25:6 Rom 11:17 2 Peter 2:8 Plainly "among them" is a possible translation for the phrase "en autois." However, (reason 2) I don't mean to suggest that the phrase itself constrains this interpretation. There are many instances where this phrase is not translated as such but is translated variously "with them" "by them" and "in them". It is the context which guides our translation as to what the proper sense is in the particular passage. And in this instance you failed to respond to what I am suggesting is the key contextual constrain. The passage says that it is "en autois for God revealed it to them." The basis in this context of it being "in them or among them" is that it was revealed to them. This in my mind rules out something inherrent in humans being referred to. Some sort of revelation is the basis, and in the context it is indeed general revelation within creation. Now this being said I think your point in no way rests on this question, or at least I don't see how it would. Also with regards to "but how does General Revelation condemn us? It condemns us because it contains the first step towards coming to a saving belief in Christ." I would suggest that it condemns us because in our idolatry and living for our pleasures, it removes all pretense of suggesting we didn't know such things were wrong. Once again there is a phrase that gives the basis of why "They are without excuse." Verses 20 and 21 say,"...so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." So Paul's point is that general revelation means that they knew they were doing wrong. There is no place in the passage where Paul is arguing that general revelation condemns because it is the first step towards salvation. Now you might argue this from other passages, but I think it is nowhere in Romans 1. At least that I can yet see. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
55 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240307 | ||
RitaAnn, May God bless you with spiritual wisdom for this. I will not continue this thread as I personally think talking through something like this would be quite a long discussion and I don't suspect a long counseling discussion is what the forum was meant for. Despite that, when you tell me that you are being counseled by your church leaders and in your words you are yet "so lost and confused about whether or not, I should terminate this marriage," I can not help but to worry if you are getting sound advice. If you wish to speak further about this you are welcome to e-mail me at jdobbins865@students.sbts.edu and we may talk further. But let me also say that getting spiritual advise from some stranger on the internet is a pretty silly notion. The forum works because we are discussing a specific text that is before each of us and discussing what it might mean. Should anyone tell me some weird interpretation I can look down at the text and see it is a bogus interpretation. Counseling is much more difficult via internet because you must analyze what is going on in a person's thinking, because the point is to get your thoughts and actions in line with scripture. You can rarely get a complete picture of somebody's thoughts and life when you have never met them. Plus YOU don't really know if my teaching is scriptural or if I'm some fringe heretic wanting to win you over to a cult. You can know two things about me. First, I am a southern baptist, with a strong reformed bent if that is helpful to you at all. Second, I am married and my wife will always be welcome to read any and all of my e-mails (and often does). All that said, if you wish to speak further on it with me in particular, you may e-mail me. Again, may God bless you with knowledge for obedience. And again, I commend 1 Peter to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
56 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240305 | ||
Jalek, Let me first say it is refreshing to see a post that plainly desires to analyse a passage of scripture about a specific question. I have a few thoughts and questions for you. First, I'm not very clear on what you are specifically disagreeing with in Sproul's post or what precisely you are asserting. I am sure that is my fault but is there anyway you could help me see what thesis your line of reasoning is meant to prove? Second, I'm not sure about that interpretation of verse 19. The actual words used in the greek could just as easily be interpreted as "among them" as it could "in them." So I begin wondering what that phrase could mean. Then I note the way Paul supports the statment. He says, "It is (phrase in question) for God revealed it to them." So the reason it is in them is because God has plainly revealed it not because it is inherently tied up in what each of us are. Now I don't disagree that mankind is made in God's image. But it seems in this passage Paul is not referring to anything inherent in humans, but rather trying to say that due to general revelation by God, knowledge of God is readily within our midst due to creation all around us. So I don't think he is arguing from some internal thing or image of God. The point is that this general revelation of God is in our midst. Not sure how crucial that is to your arguement but thoughts? Finally, your final phrase concerns me, allow me to repost. "Each time a step is taken, God gives mankind a chance to turn back from their ways, and recognize his sovereignty. If they don't, God punishes them." What concerns me, is that it sounds a little like you are suggesting that if mankind had at any point simply repented then faith in Christ's personal intervention on our behalf would have been unnecessary. Because trusting in that is what we are talking about with "special revelation." Could mankind have responded to general revelation during one of these steps and been "ok" with God? I would think not, because a sin debt remains still regardless of whether they further add to that debt. If that is so then while we may not like the tone of the statement, we do affirm that general revelation only gives enough knowledge to condemn us. I suspect your point is thus: While general revelation does indeed condemn us, it may also spur us to seek out that special revelation that saves us, which is the gospel. Am I close? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
57 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240301 | ||
RitaAnn, Let me first say that I can not begin to imagine the difficulty of your situation and I have prayed for you. Second, I would say that you need to be faithfully committed to a sound local church where the elders may give you wise counsel from the scripture on the basis of both the word of God and knowing your situation more specifically that they may counsel you more accurately from the word of God. An internet forum with strangers, however much sympathy they might feel, is a poor substitute for these things. Third, I highly commend to you the book of 1 Peter as it gives a lot of thought to how a Christian is to react to a rightful authority wrongfully abusing its power. May God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
58 | is there forgivenessofsinswithouttruerep | Luke | Beja | 240276 | ||
Charlesey, I don't think that one proof text is ever going to finally settle this question, but let me attempt to help out. First, a proof text! Luke 13:1-5 tells us pretty clearly that repentance is required. Second, a bit of biblical context. Many places in scripture assume repentance and rather discuss what is actually the thing that connects us to Christ. The answer to that is faith. Some old theologians might call faith the appropriating organ, what they meant was that while faith is never alone, faith alone is the only event upon which we are justified. One really good excerice is to do a search on an bible software for the word repentance and repent. This will quickly give you a sense of the necessity of repentance. We are saved by embracing Christ's sacrificial death for our sins through FAITH. But Christ is offerred as such to REPENTANT sinners. Third, a seriously good resource on these are John MacArthur's books "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According to the Apostles". Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
59 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240250 | ||
Jalek, Sorry, just noticed that you wanted a reference to ankles specifically as distinct from the hem. So much for reading when I first wake up! The previous poster probably was thinking of the hem bells. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
60 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240249 | ||
Exodus 28:21-35 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |