Results 7721 - 7732 of 7732
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
7721 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149140 | ||
Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired "What is the Apocrypha? Do the Apocryphal books belong in the Bible?" 'Answer: Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Christian Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha with respect, but never accepted the Apocrypha as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha, but almost always rejected them from being included in the Bible. Probably the most conclusive argument against the Apocrypha being included in the Bible is the fact that the New Testament nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal books. 'The Apocrypha teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. The Roman Catholic church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible after the Protestant Reformation because it supports some of the things that the Roman Catholic church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but if you read it, you have to treat it as a fallible historical document, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.' ____________________ http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
7722 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149141 | ||
"What About the Apocrypha?" 'The Catholic institution claims the apocrypha is inspired. Protestants don't. Therefore, within the Body, there are two different lists of supposedly God-inspired authoritative Scripture. So... How can we claim the Bible is authoritative when there are two differing lists of supposed Scriptures within Christianity...Two different Bibles? My next question is akin to the first: How do we know with certainty which list is THE list?" Both of these questions center on authority. Who do we trust as our God approved authority able to testify for us on behalf of Scriptures? 'It is no wonder that the other religions of the world do not take true Christianity seriously when such fundamental divisions exist within the Body. 'The Apocrypha is not included as part of the inspired text because it does not meet the criteria of the inspired canon. Here are just a few examples. 'The Apocrypha contains historical errors. In Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar is reigning in Ninevah instead of Babylon. 'The Apocrypha contains unbiblical teaching. 2 Maccabees 12 teaches to pray for the dead. Tobit 12:9 teaches faith by works, a clear contradiction to the Bible (Ephesians 2:8-9). 'Jesus and the Apostles do not quote the Apocrypha. We do not see it directly quoted in the New Testament. 'Finally Jesus tells us where the inspired canon ends in Luke 11:51. He says the prophets extend from Abel (Genesis 4) to Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). So the line of prophets ends with the Jewish Old Testament, the Masoretic text that Jesus used as authoritative. 'The history of the Apocrypha is interesting. It was not part of the Catholic Church's inspired canon until 1545 AD. No council recognized it in the first four centuries. The historical evidence goes against the Apocrypha. It was incorporated by the Catholic Church in response to the Protestant challenge to several unbiblical teachings such as praying for the dead and penance. Hope this helps.' Patrick Zukeran Probe Ministries ____________________ http://www.probe.org/docs/e-apocrypha.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
7723 | Apocrypha--fallible, not inspired | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 149143 | ||
The Apocrypha By Gregory Koukl 'The books of the Apocrypha were Jewish books, both wisdom books and historical books, written (for the most part) during the intertestamental period, between Malachi and the Gospels. (...) 'The Jews never did (and still don't) accept these books as inspired on par with the rest of the OT Scripture (the Palestinian Canon, 22 books in Hebrew, equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). However, the Apocrypha were translated into Greek along with the rest of the Old Testament in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, circa 250 B.C.) to make up the Alexandrian canon. The 1 century Jewish historian Josephus said the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (Malachi). The Talmud concurs. Jews did not consider this collection of their books as canon. 'Reasons to Reject the Aprocrypha: '1. Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don't know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon. '2. The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God. '3. Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46). '4. Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith.' ____________________ To read more go to: http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.seekfind.org Christian Search Engine The mission of SeekFind.org is to provide God-honoring, Biblically-based, and theologically-sound Christian search engine results in a highly accurate and well-organized format. |
||||||
7724 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158636 | ||
Christian dream interpretation? Are our dreams from God? 'GotQuestions.org is not a Christian dream interpretation service. We do not interpret dreams. We strongly believe that a person's dreams and the meaning of those dreams is between them and God alone. Does God still speak through dreams? God has spoken to people many times throughout the Scriptures by means of dreams. Examples would be Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel), Joseph the husband of Mary, Solomon and many others. There is also a quotation of Joel the prophet made by Peter in Acts 2:17 that mentions dreams. So the simple answer is yes, God speaks through dreams, among other ways. 'There is a difference of how we apply that truth to today however. One thing we must keep in mind is that the Bible is finished, having covered everything we really need to know from now till eternity. This is not to say that God does not work miracles or even speak through dreams today. The difference from how it works in the past though is that God has already revealed the way He chooses to deal with mankind from now to eternity, and anything He says, whether it is a dream, vision, "still small voice" etc., will line up completely with what He has already revealed. Dreams cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the word of God either, as this puts the dream into the place of authority rather than the Scriptures. If you have a dream and feel that perhaps God gave it to you, prayerfully examine the Word of God and make sure your dream is in agreement with Scripture. If so, prayerfully consider what God would have you do in response to your dream (James 1:5).' ____________________ www.gotquestions.org/ Christian-dream-interpretation.html |
||||||
7725 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158638 | ||
What it does NOT say - 2 Tim 3:16 What it does NOT say: 2 Timothy 3:16 All DREAMS are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (Emphasis added.) What it DOES say: NASB 2 Timothy 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (Emphasis added.) Note that the definition of Scripture includes only WRITINGS -- only that which is WRITTEN. 'scrip·ture Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin scriptura, from Latin, act or product of WRITING, from scriptus 1 a (1) capitalized : the books of the Bible -- often used in plural (2) often capitalized : a passage from the Bible b : a body of WRITINGS considered sacred or authoritative 2 : something WRITTEN' (Emphasis added.) (www.m-w.com) I've never before seen anyone interpret 2 Tim 3:16 to prove something that is not Scripture (i.e. dreams) is inspired. It's like taking the verse and reinterpreting it to mean the opposite of what it actually says. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
7726 | Does God speak to us in dreams today? | Rev 22:18 | kalos | 158641 | ||
Bows44: My sincere thanks to you for the clarification. Grace and peace, Kalos |
||||||
7727 | Playing with the NT Greek text? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 55763 | ||
Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? | ||||||
7728 | Playing with the NT Greek text? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 55774 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) (Retxar: what follows does not directly answer your questions, but it does give us a good example of problems with the NWT. Also note: anyone who thinks I am dependent solely on www.carm.org to refute the false teachings of the Watchtower organization is badly mistaken.) 'The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. '"...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) 'Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." 'Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." 'Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." 'Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." 'Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" 'Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." 'Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" 'Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." 'Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] 'Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" 'Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." 'Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." _____________ (...) 'Just a side note, I found this quote in the Watchtower's official website, www.watchtower.org in the "How can you find out what God Requires" section, paragraph #3, -- "God made sure that the Bible was accurately copied and preserved." 'Then why was the New World Translation Bible needed?' (www.soulright.com/nwt.html |
||||||
7729 | Were the apocrypha part of original KJV? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 157540 | ||
'F. F. Bruce states there is no evidence that the Jews (neither Hebrew nor Greek speaking) ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT. He argues that when the Christian community took over the Greek OT they added the Apocrypha to it and "gave some measure of scriptural status to them also." 'Gleason Archer makes the point that other Jewish translations of the OT did not include the Apocryphal books. The Targums, the Aramaic translation of the OT, did not include them; neither did the earliest versions of the Syriac translation called the Peshitta. Only one Jewish translation, the Greek (Septuagint), and those translations later derived from it (the Italia, the Coptic, Ethiopic, and later Syriac) contained the Apocrypha. 'Even the respected Greek Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria never quotes from the Apocrypha. One would think that if the Greek Jews had accepted the additional books, they would have used them as part of the canon. Josephus, who used the Septuagint and made references to 1 Esdras and 1 Maccabees writing about 90 A.D. states that the canon was closed in the time of Artaxerxes I whose reign ended in 423 B.C. It is also important to note that Aquila's Greek version of the OT made about 128 A.D., which was adopted by the Alexandrian Jews, did not include the Apocrypha.' ____________________ From "The Old Testament Apocrypha Controversy" by Don Closson To read the entire article go to:(http://www.probe.org/docs/apocrypha.html) |
||||||
7730 | Were the apocrypha part of original KJV? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 157541 | ||
Contradictions in the Koran www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm Following is a list of web pages containing information about the Koran: 1. Islam Islam, its history, teachings, future, etc. Examined against the Bible. www.carm.org/islam.htm 2. Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity is something Christians need to be aware of. www.carm.org/islam/muslim_attacks.htm 3. Islamic Terms A concise list of common Islamic terms. www.carm.org/islam/islamic_terms.htm 4. The Koran, Qur'an The Koran (Qur'an), and intro to the Koran. www.carm.org/islam/koran.htm 7. Differences between the Bible and the Koran Differences between the Bible and the Koran www.carm.org/islam/Bible_koran_diff.htm 10. Contradictions in the Qur'an, Koran Contradictions in the Qur'an, Koran www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm For more information go to: www.carm.org/questions_doctrine.htm and do a search for: Koran * * * * * * * * * * * * * For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:3a NIV |
||||||
7731 | Conjecture or opening scripture? | Rev 22:19 | kalos | 160424 | ||
Loobylight: I understand what you mean by 'rewriting' the letter. I can appreciate your reasons. But I myself wouldn't even attempt it unless I were fluent in New Testament Greek, which I'm not. After all, unless I started with the Greek, I would be rewriting a translation. There's just too much risk of error. It would be too easy to stray, however unintentionally, from the original and end up with meanings that just aren't there. If it were me, I think I'd stick with a good dynamic equivalent translation (such as the NIV) or a good paraphrase (such as the New Living Translation). This is no criticism of you at all. Please don't take it that way. I'm just answering your question and giving honest reasons for my answer. God bless you and use you as you preach and teach. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
7732 | WHY DO WE SEEK A SIGN? | Rev 22:20 | kalos | 157759 | ||
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Rev 22:20 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 ] |