Results 81 - 100 of 239
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: djconklin Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Present tense | Col 2:17 | djconklin | 28454 | ||
Steve, 1) vs 16 isn't referring to the dietary laws because there is no law about drinks as my study shows. 2) It is highly likely that the early Christians obeyed the health laws that God set up and kept the ceremonial days mentioned in vs 16--the verse does not refer to the seventh day Sabbath. 3) While the identity of the critics of the believers at Colossae cannot be identified completely it is acknowledged that in part they were Jewish. The thrust of the criticism which vs 16 combats seems to be asceticism. 4) In reading vs 16 there are a varoiety of possibilities as to what the critics were criticizing. Not obeying as you point out is one option. Howevere, it is far more likely that the critics were not trying to impose an old way but rather were claiming that if the believers were really sincere in knowing God (part of the gnostic aspect of the heresy) then they should follow their man-made rules (partly reflected in vss 21-22). All of the above is given in far more detail in my study. |
||||||
82 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28453 | ||
Your wish is my command, Ed for you are my brother in Christ. | ||||||
83 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28452 | ||
Love the metaphors Steve! | ||||||
84 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28381 | ||
"I simply took what you said and based on accepted practices of reading and comprehension restated them." For that I blame the liberal educational system; I didn't really learn how to read carefully and thoughtfully till I was in grad school. "If you did not say them then I and I feel safe in saying most of the forum have no idea what it is you did say." Isn't it amazing how quickly some will judge their experience to be the same as others? Others have emailed me to tell me they understood what I was saying quite well. When I preach even those who haven't finished high school understood me quite well. When I run my papers through a grammar checker I have to take the Bible verses out because it drags the grade level down to the 4th-6th grade; without them it is at the 9th grade level. So, I find it really difficult to understand how any thoughtful praying Christian couldn't understand my study--unless, of course, they never bothered to read it in the first place. I had one gent who has a D.Min. who was working on a Th.d. on the book of Colossians email me who stated that I was the first he had seen to have correctly understood the verse. We also had a pleasant hour or so on the phone conversing about it and he gave me a few more ideas to plug into my study! |
||||||
85 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28378 | ||
Thank you Brian for your very kind words. I hope I can live up to Mat. 5:37--kinda hard for Irish-Germans! | ||||||
86 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28377 | ||
I always appreciate how quickly Ed can apologize. That takes real courage which many others should learn. For my part I have to admit that I get very easliy frustrated with people who (to use a different analogy) who don't even know the numerical system and yet persist in asking how to solve a differential calculus equation and then quibble over what you show them just because they were taught differently when learning to use the abacus (sp?). |
||||||
87 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28375 | ||
TDNT is the standard abbreviation for the mutli-volume (about 2.5 feet of shelf space!) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Unfortunately, all my books are at my sister's place and so I cannot tell you which scholar wrote the article. Here's part of what I wrote up on this in a sermon on Romans: "(The Greek word used here "doulos" is "the most abject, servile term used by the Greeks to denote a slave."(9) So, it should be translated as "slave" and not as "servant."(10))" 9) Wuest, 11. 10) contra Black, 19; Godet, 74; Wenham, 121 allows both interpretations, although on page 1 he uses just "slave". Bruce, 67; Edwards, 26; Fitzmyer, 3, 227, 231; Hodge, 15; LABC, 2; Sproul, 21. Here's the biblio for the above: Barton, Bruce B., David R. Veerman, Neil Wilson Life Application Bible Commentary. (Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL: 1992) abbreviated in footnotes as LABC. Black, Matthew Romans. New Century Bible Commentary. Second edition. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.: Grand Rapids, MI: 1973) Bruce, F. F. Romans. Revised Edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.: Grand Rapids, MI: 1985, 1994 reprint) Edwards, James R. Romans. New International Biblical Commentary. (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA: 1992) Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible, vol. 33. (Anchor Bible/Doubleday: New York: 1993) Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on Romans. (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI: 1977 reprint, orig. 1883) Hodge, Charles Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.: Grand Rapids, MI: 1864, 1994 reprint) Sproul, R. C. Romans. (Christian Focus Publications: 1994) Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest's Word Studies Romans in the Greek New Testament. (Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI: 1955) |
||||||
88 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28370 | ||
Since you say that I did say what I in fact did not say means that you are calling me a liar. I will cease discussing this with you and turn the matter over to the webmaster. If you wish to read "intent" or "purpose" into what someone ewlse says that's between you and God. But the last thing yoiu should be doing is claiming that it was in fact my intent or purpose. My sole purpose was to study this verse to find out what it said. I only contributed one little element into the whole; the rest I found by reading what pro's in the field have said. |
||||||
89 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28369 | ||
"I was merely trying to show what you said was not accepted by the Christian majority and therefore should be taken with a large measure of salt." Let me get this straight: if you study something in any sort of deprth and find that the majority who have not disagree with you then you're supposed to chuck it? Good thing Martin Luther didn't think like that. "I also was trying to show your scholarship was lacking and was in need of correction." I didn't write the article on doulos for the TDNT. If you wish to quibble with them then go right ahead and prove them wrong--just get off my back!!!!! "I just really wish you would get off the seventh day soap box." Ah, Ed this verse doesn't talk about the seventh-day at all. So, why are you on the soapbox? |
||||||
90 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28363 | ||
"Of course I know you think MacArthur is a cheap hack that copied this from some other writer." Well, if you think that then you don't know me nor do you know how to think. I have never said that MacArthur was cheap or a hack or that he copied from some other writer. Still haven't read point #2 for posting on this forum? Please apologize for you lies about me. |
||||||
91 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28360 | ||
Ah, so now I'm a liar? You claim I inferred it; in fact, it was you who inferred it falsely from what I did in fact say. I don't have an agenda; what's yours? |
||||||
92 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28359 | ||
Unfortunately, for some it will be too late and others will refuse to admit that they could possibly be wronmg all because of the strong stands they have taken previously. | ||||||
93 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28357 | ||
Well, if their opinions were based on sound exegesis then you shouldn't have any trouble dealing with the few points that I showed. Paul is saying in Galatians that keeping the law cannot save you. There is no argument on that point. What the antinomians do is leap beyond that (eisegesis) and say that therefore we don't have to keep the law at all--which point Paul rebutted in Romans. Why should I disagree with truth? Why the lame attempt at a personal attack? See point #2 when you got to post. |
||||||
94 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28353 | ||
"The dictionary says, "bond-servant n. 1 a person bound to service without pay 2 a slave"" Thanks Ray. Which dictionary? I was using TDNT. |
||||||
95 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28351 | ||
I don't know the full answer other than those points that which I pointed out. Do you have anything constructive to share? | ||||||
96 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 28345 | ||
Well Ed, let's see how well you analyze things: "I have learned from you: You have a web site!" Yeah, one right! "You rather proud of your education." I have never said such a thing; see Hosea 4:6. "You are rather impressed with you scholarship." Nope, two wrong! "The leading and foremost Bible translators are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception as to the day of worship." Never said such a thing; three wrong. "Most if not all commentators either do a half baked job or simply use what was previously written on the subject." The amateur commentators do it in part. Note the number of lexical sources I use that contradict some of the commentators I do cite. Where the writers of the lexicons wrong? Am I wrong in noting what they say? Am I wrong in simply pointing out that some commentators are wrong? "Most Bible scholars of today are either wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception about which day we as Christians should worship." Never said that either, four wrong. Try reading the full study; perhaps you are trying to read too much into the litle posts here. "Most Christian denominations are wrong, mistaken, mislead or conspiring to create a deception on what day to worship." Since we never even talked about various denominations this is really a totally mis-read. "Most “scholars” question the veracity of date the Bible implies as to when Daniel was written." See the study on the date of the book of Daniel; there are very many well-known scholars who say that the book was written in about 164 B.C.. "However my own experience shows most genuine theologians now agree Daniel was written at the time of Daniel’s experiences." "genuine"? How do you determine who is and who isn't? "Most theologians do not understand Greek as well as you." Never said that--five wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of the your 195 references." Nope, never said that either--six wrong. "Most theologians must stand in the shadow of you two years of your studying the meaning of Col. 2:16." Nope, never said that either--seven wrong. "That you can not or will not verbalize what it is you believe." I did, repeatedly: Col. 2:16-17 isn't talking about the seventh-day Sabbath. Anything about that is irrelevant as in I do not believe in child baptism, I do believe in the Trinty--now are you happy? "Nor will you reveal your religious affiliation." Who cares? How about: Reformed Druid? "You have a Web site." Repeat from above. Now, since we now know that you read way too much into stuff why don't you actually try reading the full study? |
||||||
97 | turtle / turtle-dove | Song 2:12 | djconklin | 28342 | ||
In the KJV it has "voice of the turtle" and some Bible critics have used it against the Bible. Both of the above have it correct. So, why did the KJV use the word "tutle"? Well, if look up the word "turtle" in the Oxford English Dictionary (the multi-volume work) you'll find that many English writers used the word "turtle" as a metaphor for "turtle-dove". If you look at Shakespeare you'll find that he wrote a play in 1611 in which he did the same thing! | ||||||
98 | 1Ki 7:23 apparent error measuring sea | 1 Kin 7:23 | djconklin | 28341 | ||
It is possible that the circumference was measured internally--it helps to know how it was built. What they did was to create a huge clay "mound" of the internal shape of the bowl. They then covered the outside with wax. Then they put a coat of clay on the outside with some holes left at the bottom. Then they poured molten brass in the top and this melted the wax that then ran out the holes at the bottom. Once the brass hardens they take off the outside layer of clay, flip the bowl over and haul it to the Temple. The only problem I see with Missler's (what was the source?) approach is that 111/106 doesn't come up to 1.415, it is 1.04717 (which is still awfully close considering the level of technology of the day). But, I don't know where he is getting the 105 figure from in the first place, either. That there could be a missing jot over time would not be surprising (and is frequently used to solve other little numerical problems) and doesn't have to be completely missing from some mss either--the little jots and titles are very small (it is no wonder some people ruined their eyesight trying to read Hebrew!), it could have been very faded when the mss was copied. The approach I took was that the critics had to make a number of assumptions in order to sustain their claim. The full picture can be seen at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com |
||||||
99 | eisegesis and formula | Gal 4:10 | djconklin | 28338 | ||
It is interesting to note how many people use thise verse as a condemnation of keeping holy days without a trace of it appearing in the verse itself! This is called eisegesis. The word translated here as "month" is never used for the new moon which suggests to me that Paul isn't talking about it. Another fact is that this sequence of terms never appears elsewhere in the Bible. Also, there is a "formula" in the OT that does list the ceremonial days (see Col. 2:16 in the NT for example) and it is nowhere near like this list. Perhaps Paul isn't even talking about the ceremonial days here? But, then what is he talking about? |
||||||
100 | Translation | Rom 1:1 | djconklin | 28337 | ||
The Greek word that is here mis-translated as "bond-servant" in both translations is "doulos" and means "slave". The NASB has Christ Jesus just as Paul wrote it--why did he do that? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |