Results 4321 - 4325 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4321 | can we pray for people after they died | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2408 | ||
Thanks, Hugger. Cyberhugs, after all, are better than no hugs at all! You know, God does indeed work in mysterious ways. At the time our son died, I could see nothing but darkness. Now, some 12 years later, God has not only long since healed the wound but has in countless ways led me to be able to minister to those who have sustained the grievous loss of a child. Before the tragedy the best my wife and I could do was to try to extend our sympathy to those who had experienced a loss of a loved one. Having been there and walked in those shoes, we are able to say with feeling and conviction, "We KNOW how you feel." | ||||||
4322 | can we pray for people after they died | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2397 | ||
Praying for the dead is, unless I am much mistaken, largely a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I know of no Scripture that either espouses the practice or specifically condemns it. (But see Hebrews 9:27) Being a Protestant, I'd never engaged in the practice nor given it a second thought until, in 1989, we lost our youngest son in a car accident. In what may well have been a presumptuous prayer, I asked God to be good to our son and to take care of him. My heart was broken, I was devastated, and I felt then and feel still that somehow God heard and understood. After all, who but He knows better the agony of losing a Son? | ||||||
4323 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2386 | ||
In reference to your (rhetorical) question, "Did you get the message?" I hasten to add: "Yes I did. I got the message down in the cotton patch, and it nearly scared the living Bible out of me." | ||||||
4324 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2384 | ||
Thanks, JVH, for your kind remarks. You most assuredly have my permission to quote or use anything I said in the note. I echo your enthusiasm for the NASB and applaud your fine judgment in using the NIV with teenagers. The language of the NIV probably hits to the heart of the young somewhat more poignantly than does the more formal language of the NASB which likely appeals to the more mature mind. At 66, I'm surely ripe for the NASB! In a review for Amazon.com of the NASB single-column reference Bible, I said that if I could have only one Bible, and never again be permitted to have any other, this is the Bible I would choose. | ||||||
4325 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2358 | ||
By and large I incline to agree with the subjective dictum that the best version of the Bible is the one the reader understands and trusts, but with a caveat. What George Orwell said in "Animal Farm" -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- might well be said of today's bumper crop of Bible translations. The translator bug continues to go around still and it appears no one has found an antidote for the urge to translate. This is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that the Bible is still deemed to be of vital importance in the lives of human beings. It is good in the sense that new translations, armed with fresh up-to-date language and new knowledge about Bible languages and Bible times, remove a great deal of the shroud of obscurity about God's word in which the older versions unwittingly encased us. It is bad in the sense that the vast sea of translations virtually threatens to drown us. We are most of us utterly bewildered from time to time about which translation from the many choices available to us will be "our" Bible -- the one we carry to church, read from, study, meditate upon, memorize, hide in our hearts. The choice is not always easy. Concerning the caveat I mentioned, I submit a few questions that you might find reasonable to ask of any translation you consider. Do the translators hold the Bible to be the verbal, plenary, inerrant and infallible Word of God? Is their rendering faithful to the biblical manuscripts? (This answer will have to come from trusted reviewers unless one has a thorough knowledge of the ancient texts). What is their philosophy on translation -- as literal as possible, a loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between, e.g., a "dynamic equivalence" that attempts to cast the ancient languages in a thought pattern that purports to impact the reader of a modern languages in virtually the same way that the original message did to its readers. This philosophy of translation places an incredible responsibility on the translator. Is the translation obviously made by and primarily for adherents to a specific sect or cult? Is the translation rendered in clear, standard English (or whatever the receptor language may be)? Does it give honor to God and affirm the Deity of Jesus Christ? Finally, all things considered, is this a translation that I can live with, learn to feel at home with, and one that I can understand well enough come to a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to know Him more clearly, to follow Him more nearly, and to love Him more dearly? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ] |