Results 81 - 100 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Is their a good LXX translation | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234551 | ||
Greeting Servetus! The LXX translation is only relevant for two reasons. 1) Andy questioned whether or not 'I am' is a good translation of the Hebrew verb 'hayah'. I used the LXX to demonstrate that the first occurrence of 'hayah' in Ex. 3:14 is in fact translated by the Jews in the LXX with the Greek phrase 'ego eimi'. Thus, 'I am' is certainly a legitimate translation of 'hayah'. 2) Andy also questioned whether or not the 'I am' translation of the Hebrew word was done to make it conform with Jesus' statement in John 8:24. I brought up the LXX translation to illustrate that the Jews translated the first occurrence of the verb 'hayah' as 'ego eimi' and they certainly had no Christological axe to grind, especially since they translate the verse prior to Jesus' birth. As for titles, I pointed out in the other thread that God Himself didn't use exactly the same form of the title either. Look at Ex. 3:14-15. First God calls Himself 'I am Who I am'. Then, says that Moses should say to the Israelites that 'I am' has sent me to you. Then, He says to say to them that 'the Lord, the God of your father's has sent me to you.' So, it doesn't seem as though God was too hung up on some exact form of a title. :-) So, the important thing is not whether Jesus claimed the 'ego eimi' of the LXX (which is there too by the way). It is important that Jesus is alluding to the 'I am' of Ex. 3:14. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
82 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234550 | ||
Greetings Servetus! I thought I did answer his question! :-) But, it you insist that I complete the sentence, here goes: ....but I disagree with you because no one fully understands the Divine nature of Christ, especially not someone who is not even a Christian yet. Our understanding of Jesus is progressive and ever growing as we grow in Him and His Word. That is why we don't see a lot of verses that say one must believe this, this, this, and this before they can be saved. I hope this clears up my understanding. And, yes, I had a great turkey day! I pray that you and your family did as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
83 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234544 | ||
Greetings Andy! The reason I mentioned meeting face to face (not that it will probably ever happen) is that posts are not a very effective way to communicate. As evidence, even though I have explained several times what I believe about John 8:24 and salvation, you are still asking for me to answer. To begin my answer again, allow me to quote from JFB: "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins — They knew well enough what He meant (Mar_13:6, Greek; compare Mat_24:5). But He would not, by speaking it out, give them the materials for a charge for which they were watching. At the same time, one is irresistibly reminded by such language, so far transcending what is becoming in men, of those ancient declarations of the God of Israel, “I AM HE” (Deu_32:39; Isa_43:10, Isa_43:13; Isa_46:4; Isa_48:12). See on Joh_6:20." Jesus is fully God. He is God incarnate. He is the Son of God. He is our Priest, our King, and Our Sacrifice. One cannot be saved if they do not understand at least some of this about Jesus. But, our understanding about Jesus prior to salvation, during salvation, and even in Heaven, is progressive in nature. Must someone fully understand the truth of His nature in order to be saved? NO! NO! NO! That is where I disagree with your former pastor's statement. Someone need not be able to fully explain the doctrine of the Trinity in order to be saved! However, someone cannot also not be saved if they believe that Jesus is just a great teacher, a man with wonderful insights. Now, I have answered your question as directly as I can. Will you answer a few for me? Who do you say Jesus is? Is He fully God? In other words, do you reject the Deity of Christ? Do you reject the Trinity itself or just the view that one must understand the Trinity to be saved? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
84 | One thread? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234533 | ||
Greetings Andy! Happy Thanksgiving to you too my friend! You raise a number of points in this post. I will try to address them all. 1) Strong's number 1961. It is the same verb used in the Psalms, but it does appear to be pointed differently. I don't have the resources here to find out why. So, I'll have to dig some more on that point. 2) LXX: 'Ego eimi' is used in the LXX, but they follow it with the participial form of 'eimi'. So, it ends us reading 'ego eimi ho on'. This was their attempt to capture the same meaning in Greek. 3) Exact titles: Ex. 3:14 actually disproves your contention about exact titles. :-) In the first part of the verse, God says, "I AM WHO I AM". But, in the second part of the verse, God says, "This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " So, God Himself didn't even use the exact title in the save verse. 4) Alluding: I think you are reading more in to my use of the term than I intended. What I am trying to say is that 'I am' is a normal verb than everyone used hundreds of times a day. One could say, "I am tired", ect.... But, Jesus used it in a way that does not make sense in normal usage and in a way that would call the hearers attention back to Ex. 3:14. Did they understand exactly who He was? No! Otherwise, they would not have killed Him. But, they understood from His statements that He was claiming something no mere mortal man could possible claim. This is why I used to word 'alluding'. Like many of Jesus' teachings, one could always dig deeper into the meaning of what He was saying. The evidence is there for those who are willing to dig. Unfortunately, the Jewish leaders were not willing to dig deeper. 5) Context: While Jesus certainly mentions His Father in John 8, nowhere in that chapter does He use the phrase 'Son of God'. But, in 8:58 Jesus uses the 'I am' statement, and immediately they pick up stones to stone Him. So, I hold that the contextual evidence is strongly in favor of Jesus claiming to be God. 6) Church fathers and the Council of Nicea: My concern in what Scripture says, not what the church fathers said. At best, their statements (or lack of statements) are anecdotal evidence. As for the Council of Nicea, the length of time had nothing to with people not accepting the Deity of Christ, as only two Bishop rejected His Deity. The length of time had to do with the careful hammering out of the proper wording to express what the Church believed about the nature of Christ. We could condense to one thread! Have a great day my friend. I have to run. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
85 | do you believe in binity? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234528 | ||
Greetings Andy! Thanks for the testimony my friend! Trust me, I did not take any offense at your comment. :-) Your testimony though illustrates what I have been trying to say. I wish we could talk face to face. It would be so much easier to be clear. :-) My point has been that when we are first saved, we understand very little. You knew that you were lost and needed a Savior. You knew that Jesus was that Savior. Could you explain or even understand the Hypostatic Union? There are some who have been Christians for many years who still could not explain it. ;-) So, what I was trying to say with my quotes about 'believe' is that there is not a long checklist of doctrine that one must fully understand and believe before they can be saved. Remember General Booth's vision of the lost, where millions were drowning and he was called to throw life preservers to those who were dying? To say that one must understand all these different points of doctrine prior to be saved is like saying that one must understand the make and model of the lifeboat, must understand the tolerances of the robe, must understand the amount of weight that the preserver can carry, before one can reach out and grab it. Our understanding of God progresses throughout our lives, and even then it will never be complete. As a finite being myself, I will never fully be able to understand our infinite God. So, I would disagree with your former pastor's understanding of John 8:24. But, as I demonstrated with my quotes about 'believe', there is very little that Scripture says we "MUST" believe to be saved. I am sure there are those out there who would argue that one must believe the Trinity before salvation, but they are wrong. By the way, if you are looking for complete agreement on every point with the Protestant faith, you will be continually disappointed. :-) Truth is truth because it is true, not because everyone agrees with it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
86 | Is their a good LXX translation | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234526 | ||
Greetings Servetus! Welcome to the forum and to the discussion my friend! Andy is aware of the Septuagint translation. It translates Ex. 3:14 as 'I am He who is'. They use 'ego eimi' but they also add the definitive participial form of 'eimi'. This differs from the form in Ex. 3:14. I agree with you that the LXX translation is strong evidence that Jesus is referring to the Divine Name in John 8:24. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
87 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234502 | ||
Greetings Andy! Let's address this point in more detail. First of all, could you share with us your language background? The reason I ask is because many people who have not been trained in Greek or Hebrew (or really any other language than their native language) tend to view translation as simply taking one definition and plugging it into the text anytime a certain word is used. But this doesn't work! Allow me to illustrate. Take the English word 'level'. It can be a noun referring to the horizontal condition of a surface, a tool used to ensure that a surface is level. It can refer to rank or position in a game. It can even be a verb and refer to the acting of making something level, or the attaining of a new rank. My point is that words are fluid and varying contexts and combinations affect the meaning. So, a unique translation is not necessarily a bad thing or wrong. However, a unique translation is not necessarily correct either. So, how about Ex. 3:14. Consider the evidence for this translation. 1) The most basic meaning (according to Strong's) of the verb is 'to exist' or 'to be'. It also has a lot of other meaning depending upon the context. The translation 'I am who I am' does justice to the root meaning of the verb. So, it is not a far stretch. As you mentioned in an earlier text there are some other possibilities. Some view the verbs as future, "I will be who I will be." But, the basic meaning is "I am." By the way, this is not the only place in the Old Testament where this verb is translated as "I am." It is also translated this way in Ps. 31:12, Ps. 71:7, Ps. 88:4, Ps. 102:6, and Ps. 102:7. These are just the examples I found in the KJV of the Psalms. Thus, the translation "I am" is not really far stretched at all. It holds true to the basic meaning of the verb and is actually translated in that manner several times in the Old Testament. 2) A further piece of evidence is the LXX translation itself. You contend that Ex. 3:14 was stretched to make a connection between it and John 8:58, but the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew for the LXX did so before Jesus ever uttered these words. They translated Ex. 3:14 as, "I am He who is". I always try to translate a definitive participle as 'He who..." Their translation differs from Ex. 3:14 in that they could have just translated it as "I am who I am", but they maintain the concept of eternal existence that is at the heart of Ex. 3:14. Clearly, they had no Christological axe to grind. It is also clear that while Jesus did not use the entire phrase 'I am who I am', He was definitely alluding to it. It is also clear from the reaction of the Jewish leaders that they understood Him to be alluding to it. After all, one does not try to kill someone for simply stating that they exist. :-) Well, I have to run now my friend! I look forward to our discussion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
88 | Was the blind man God? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234501 | ||
Greetings Andy! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I work nights, so there maybe a little lag in our conversation. Allow me to touch upon a couple of things. 1) My purpose behind the quotes was to demonstrate two things. First of all, there is very little that Scripture says we are required to believe in order to be saved. As you noted, most six year old kids don't even know their address. I did, but that is beside the point. :-) Secondly, there is no mention that we must understand the Trinity in order to be saved. But, we do need to understand the true nature of Jesus. He is fully God. He is also fully man. We can't be saved if we simply view Him as being a 'good teacher'. So, I would maintain that accepting Jesus as the "I am" is not a perversion of the Gospel, but the heart of it. Thus far, you have not articulated your position. Most who reject the Trinity either take one of two position. One, they believe that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father. Or, two, they believe that Jesus, Father, and Spirit are all just one name for one Person. Which position do you hold? 2) Blind man: The blind man was responding the questions about whether or not he was the man born blind. He responded, "I am." Using the 'to be' verb much in the same way that we do. However, Jesus makes a statement in John 8:24 that would not make sense in the ordinary usage of the word. You must believe that 'I exist'. Jesus was standing right in front of them. Of course, they knew that He existed. ;-) He meant something else. I believe He was appealing back to Ex. 3:14. The discussion progresses and finally in John 8:58, Jesus makes a claim that can only be true of God, not any mere man, using the 'I am' in a dual sense. Jesus was claiming to be God, and stating that He existed in the time of Abraham. 3) I'll address your Ex. 3:14 question in your other post my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
89 | I am Who I am in New Testament | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234468 | ||
Greetings Andy! You are right that Ex. 3:14 has been interpreted in a number of ways. However, the 'name' used is literally 'I am' 'What or Who' 'I am'. The LXX translate the Hebrew with the Greek 'I am' and a participial form of 'I am'. So, it is not a stretch to connect John 8:24 to Ex. 3:14 as Jesus is clearly making that connection Himself. By the way, one cannot simply 'count' translations using Strong's. The verb 'hayah' is simply our 'to be'. It can be translated a number of way. But, God uses it in a unique way in Ex. 3:14. It is an interesting study. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
90 | Tim, what's the gospel truth? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234467 | ||
Greetings Andy! Allow me to touch upon a couple of your points! 1) What did I mean by 'baiting'? When most people ask a question, it is because they don't know something or haven't formed a solid opinion. Based upon your posts, you seem to have a very definite opinion on this issue. Therefore, your question was simply an attempt to bait a discussion. 2) What are we required to believe? Mark 1:15 tells us that we are to believe the good news. John 1:12 speaks of believing in His name. John 3:15-16 speak of believing in Him. John 3:36 speaks of believing in the Son. John 5:24 speaks of believing His word and in Him who sent Him. John 6:29 says that we must believe in the one He has sent. John 8:24 says that we must believe that He is 'I am'. John 20:31 says that we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Rom. 10:9 speaks of believing that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead. So, it is apparent that there must be a basic understanding that Jesus is God, and that God sent Him to die for us. This is a very basic introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity. Must every Christian be able to explain the Trinity in order to be a Christian? I would say no! Like I said, I was six when I was saved. So, I am not sure what your issue really is? Jesus is God and He is also the Son of God. Your Brother in Christ. Tim Moran |
||||||
91 | Who really deserves to go to Hell/Heaven | Eph 2:8 | Morant61 | 234452 | ||
Greetings Sabrina! Maybe this will help clear up your confusion. Salvation is not based upon anything we do, either good or bad. Read Eph. 2:8-9! Eph 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- (9) not by works, so that no one can boast. So, getting to heaven is not a question of fairness or of goodness. We get to heaven only because of the gracious gift of salvation purchased upon the cross of Calvary with the blood of Jesus. No one deserves to be in Heaven. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
92 | Is your religion a true religion? | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234450 | ||
Greetings Andy! I thought you were asking an honest question, but it seems as though you are baiting us. :-( Mr. Martin and I did not actually disagree in our responses. One must understand and accept the true nature of Jesus in order to be saved, but most Christians feel that a full understanding of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. However, as a Christian grows in his or her faith, an understanding of the Trinity will follow. For instance, I was saved when I was six years old. Did I really understand the Trinity at that age? Of course not! But, I did understand that Jesus was and is God. So, do you really have honest questions about this topic, or are you just pushing an agenda? Either way, I would be happy to discuss this issue with you, but it would be nice to know up front what your motivation is. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
93 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Morant61 | 234443 | ||
Greetings Brad! Well said my friend! Many in our society have a bias against theology that is partly our own fault. Theology is simply an organized understanding of what we know about God through His Word. We can not be slaves to a particular 'theology', but our theology must always be shaped and informed by God's Word. If our 'theology' is not biblical, then it is really of no value. However, there is also no value to ignorance either. I met a guy once who wanted to get involved in the ministry of our congregation. I asked him, 'Tell me about what you believe?' He replied, 'Well, I believe the Bible!' That sounds great, but every cult member would say the same thing. What do you believe the Bible says? Your understanding can be wrong. So, theology is important for organizing and presenting what we know about God from Scripture, but theology is only 'true' in as far as it accurately reflects what Scripture actually says about God. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
94 | die in your sins | John 8:24 | Morant61 | 234442 | ||
Greetings Andy! The context of the passage would support that 'I am' is used in John as a title, indicating that Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus uses "I am" four times in John (8:24, 8:28, 8:58 and 13:19). The wording is the same as in Deut. 32:39 and Is. 43:10. In fact, the LXX uses the exact same Greek phrase in Is. 43:10 as Jesus uses in John. So, clearly, Jesus is stating that He is God, not that He simply exists. The reaction of the Jews in 8:59 supports this view as they try to stone Him. Blasphemy was one of the few offenses worthy of stoning. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
95 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 234300 | ||
Greetings G.Preston! I am assuming that the relevant verse is Ex. 32:33, where God says, "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." There are a couple of questions which this text does not answer: 1) Which book is God talking about? 2) When will they be blotted out of this book? 3) Can they be added to the book again? So, to answer your question, I believe that names can be blotted out of the book of Ex. 32:33, but I am not sure what that book is! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
96 | Man's understanding is not always God's | Prov 21:2 | Morant61 | 233610 | ||
Greetings Ed! You do realize that Mr. Ingersol was an agnostic and noted enemy of the faith! There simply is no way to remove theology from our faith. As one of my theology professors noted, theology is simply our thinking or understanding about God. If you say that God is good, that is theology. If you say that Jesus was God in the flesh, that is theology. If you say Jesus is the only means of salvation, that is theology. How then can we remove theology? Every New Testament letter is a corrective for either faith or practice. What we believe about God will determine how we act. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
97 | STMTS GOD TOOK PEOPLE TO HELL CONTRADICT | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233273 | ||
Greetings J Lo! Luke 16:26 certainly indicates that individuals cannot cross between the paradise side and punishment side of Hades, but that does not necessarily mean that someone from earth could not go there either physically or in a vision. However, I would take any such claims with a giant grain of salt. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
98 | Explain Isa.Chapter 9 verse 3 | Is 9:3 | Morant61 | 233271 | ||
Greetings Goldy! This is one of the instances where the King James text appears to be in error. This is what Barnes says about this verse: "And not increased the joy - The Masoretes here read in the margin “to it,” instead of not.” Eleven manuscripts, two of them ancient, have this reading. This reading is followed by the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriac, and the Arabic. The Septuagint seems also to have so understood it. So also it is in the margin, and so the connection demands; and it is unquestionably the correct reading. It would then read, ‘thou hast increased for it (the nation) the joy.’ Hengstenberg, however, suggests that the phrase may mean, ‘whose joy thou didst not before enlarge,’ that is, upon whom thou hast before inflicted heavy sufferings. But this is harsh, and I see no reason to doubt that an error may have crept into the text." JFB says, "not increased the joy — By a slight change in the Hebrew, its (joy) is substituted by some for not, because “not increased the joy” seems opposite to what immediately follows, “the joy,” etc. Hengstenberg, retains not thus: “Whose joy thou hadst not increased,” (that is, hadst diminished). Others, “Hast thou not increased the joy?” The very difficulty of the reading, not, makes it less likely to be an interpolation. Horsley best explains it: The prophet sees in vision a shifting scene, comprehending at one glance the history of the Christian Church to remotest times - a land dark and thinly peopled - lit up by a sudden light - filled with new inhabitants - then struggling with difficulties, and again delivered by the utter and final overthrow of their enemies. The influx of Gentile converts (represented here by “Galilee of the Gentiles”) soon was to be followed by the growth of corruption, and the final rise of Antichrist, who is to be destroyed, while God’s people is delivered, as in the case of Gideon’s victory over Midian, not by man’s prowess, but by the special interposition of God." So, most modern translation do not use the word 'not'. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
99 | KJV LUKE 10:1 70 NIV HAS 72 ? | Luke 10:1 | Morant61 | 233263 | ||
Greetings John! Doc gave you an excellent answer to which I would add one quick point. The manuscript evidence for both readings is fairly strong, with the evidence for '70' being perhaps a bit more abundant. However, the manuscript evidence for '72' tends to be a bit older, by about 100 years. Thus, one has to decide on other grounds which reading is the more accurate. The other method that textual critics use is to decide which reading is more difficult. It is more understandable that a difficult reading would be changed to a more acceptable reading. In this case, '72' seems to be slightly more difficult than '70', thus many feel that '72' is the original reading. However, in this particular case, it is really a toss up. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
100 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233133 | ||
Thanks! That would be a good one to add to the list! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [339] >> |