Results 81 - 100 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Holy Spirit question on mysterious ways | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 103939 | ||
Ray: Yes, I am enjoying the conversation. :-) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
82 | what is the oldest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60386 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
83 | what is the ploest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60388 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
84 | The choice to abstain from alcohol | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77048 | ||
"Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to abstain [from alcohol] be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern." __________________________ 'The term "abstinence" is often identified with the question of the use or nonuse of alcoholic beverages. The Bible consistently condemns drunkenness, but it cannot be viewed as teaching total abstinence from fermented wine. The linguistic, historical-cultural, and contextual aspects of Scripture are often abused by those who claim that the Bible requires total abstinence. The primary Hebrew terms are yayin [Iy:y], tiros [v/ryiT], and asim. All three may refer to fermented wine in a negative connotation (cf. in order Prov 23:31; Hosea 4:11; Isa 49:26) and all three refer to the expected positive use of fermented wine (yayin [Iy:y] - Lev 23:13; Num 6:20; 28:14; Deut 14:26; Psalm 104:15; Isa 55:1; Itiros [v/ryiT] - Deut 14:23; asim - Joel 3:18). All three are used interchangeably and no hard-line distinctions for a linguistic reference to unfermented as opposed to fermented wine can be sustained for any term. The Greek word oinos [oi\no"] commonly translates all three terms in the Septuagint and is the common term for wine in the Greek period and in the New Testament. Paul cites oinos [oi\no"] as a nonissue equivalent to the meat offered to idols in Romans 14:21. The less-used Greek term gleukos [gleu'ko"], "new wine, " may also mean fermented (cf. Acts 2:13). The ancient world often diluted wine with water for a more or less fermented effect, although this could be viewed as an insult (cf. Isa 1:22). 'The historical setting of Israel as one of the leading and most respected wine-producing nations in their part of the ancient world is well documented. The blessings of this product are recorded in the Bible along with the evils that come from its abuse. Wine is a major image of joy and blessing (cf. Gen 27:28; Psalm 104:14-15). The messianic era is depicted as a time of great blessing via this imagery (Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13; Zech 9:17). The destruction of wine is noted as a calamity in the life of Israel (Deut 28:30-39; Isa 62:8; 65:21; Micah 6:15; Zeph 1:13). 'Believers in any given time period or geographical location may choose total abstinence from alcoholic beverages for numerous reasons. One may use certain passages of Scripture to warn against abuse just like ancient Israel did. The abuse of strong drink has plagued all cultures and reasons to abstain abound. Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to abstain be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern.' Gary T. Meadors Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
85 | The choice to abstain from alcohol | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77068 | ||
It has been my experience and observation on this forum that a Note posted as a Note and not addressed to any particular thread often (usually?) goes unnoticed. Further, it seems that in order to receive a response to one's primary post, it is often necessary to post it as a Question. And if one's "Question" is addressed to a post in an existing thread, it is even more likely that it will receive a response. I see no point in posting a Note only to have it buried in the archives. |
||||||
86 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77212 | ||
Acts 2:38 (NET Bible) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for[5] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Footnote 5. translators' note. 'There is debate over the meaning of eij" in the prepositional phrase eij" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a “causal” sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: '(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); '(2)The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41); '(3)The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it; '(4)Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. 'One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eij" 4.f.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_5) |
||||||
87 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77455 | ||
The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
88 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77571 | ||
The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
89 | Failure to communicate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77584 | ||
Do we have a failure to communicate? "If we may cast aside the 'norm' of immersion, what other norms may we cast aside?" "...May be used as substitutes IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" does not equal "cast aside." Cast aside is not only an exaggeration, but also an apparently deliberate misquote of what I previously wrote. |
||||||
90 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78108 | ||
'Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer' '(Note: numbers that appear in in the following text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) ' Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not. So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical - or spiritual - death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability. ' Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984 edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech....The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible." ' With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that. ' Although it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating, this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in translations. Simple observation can be powerful. 'Observing the Difference ' Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears weight. ' Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John 5:39-40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV). ' In NWT's Matthew 10:32-33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus - what is its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is - not what He stands for - the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud! 'Only the Context Knows for Sure ' When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?" ' "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32). ' "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the 'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament. He was equating Jesus with Jehovah." ' Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.' (To read the rest of the article, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) |
||||||
91 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78112 | ||
The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. (...) Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. |
||||||
92 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78116 | ||
Yes, you did say the NASB. No, you did not say NAB in any other post except this one. The post to which I am replying, ID# 78111, is the only one you have made today that contains "NAB". - - - - - - - - - - Further searching has revealed that you NEVER used the word "NAB" in anything you have posted, except for ID# 78111. |
||||||
93 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78120 | ||
New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) 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." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
94 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78126 | ||
John 17:3 and the Only True God "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," (John 17:3, NASB). The Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, cite John 17:3 as a proof text to deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus Christ is not God. They reason is that if Jesus were God, then He would not have called the Father, "the only true God." If the Father is the only true God, then it must require that Jesus cannot be God. First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is something the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently. Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, the word made flesh (John 1:1,14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man He would naturally, and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: “And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God,” (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and as a man He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God. But it is not a phrase that excludes Christ for Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28. Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized. Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31. Fifth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem -- if we use their logic. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4, NASB). Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10). Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," (Mark 10:18, NASB). Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. “I, even I, am the Lord [YHW]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic would have a problem. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," (NASB). As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine. (http://www.carm.org/jw/John17_3.htm) |
||||||
95 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78585 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part One Is baptism necessary for salvation? "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: "First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. "Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. "The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation." (to be continued) (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
96 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78586 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part Two "In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. "Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. "I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. "In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
97 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78667 | ||
'Let's take a look at one quote from the Watchtower. '"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p. 29). 'The Watchtower says that the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the physical resurrection of Christ are all false doctrines. Yet, the Watchtower says that if you read the Bible by itself you will end up believing these doctrines. In other words, if you read the Bible by itself, then you will become a Trinitarian, believe that Jesus is God, and believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. Why is that? Could it be because the Bible teaches these things? So I ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, what is it in the Bible that would lead someone to this conclusion? Again, what is in the Bible that reading it by itself would lead you to believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection? This quote from the Watchtower is proof that it is teaching contrary to the natural reading of the Bible and that it is controlling the beliefs of those who follow it. To see the Watchtower quote in context, go to: (http://www.carm.org/jw/bibletrinity.htm) |
||||||
98 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78702 | ||
You write: "Last but not lest, Acts 2:21; And everyone who calls on the name of JEHOVAH will be saved." As it is translated here, this statement is not true. It is false. It is a lie. In the Greek, Acts 2:21 does not say "Jevhovah." What is says is: NASB Acts 2:21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD (Greek KURIOS, Strong's #2962) WILL BE SAVED.' |
||||||
99 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78703 | ||
Nice try, trying to put words into God's mouth. 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? |
||||||
100 | What exactly must a person to be saved? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79505 | ||
Face value interpretation You write: "However, I feel that we must take nothing at face value. Then we along with the holy spirit will know what is right." - - - - - - - - - - "The text of Scripture can be understood when taken at FACE VALUE, making allowances for obvious figures of speech, near/far interpretations, its context, and comparative passages of Scripture that harmonize with it, without contradiction." 'By employing a FACE VALUE method of interpretation, the reader of Scripture attempts to discover the normal, natural, customary sense of the text as it was intended by the Author/author (God/human) at the time that it was written. (...) 'TWO CONDITIONS FOR INTERPRETATION '1) Understand that we are working with English translations of texts originally written in other languages. '2) Scripture never contradicts Scripture. 'FIVE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION '1) Seek to discover the Author/author's intended meaning. '2) All Scripture is to be taken in its proper context be it words, phrases, passages, chapters, books,etc. Remember, "a text taken out of context is a pretext." '3) All Scripture is to be compared with other Scripture. "The best interpreter of Scripture is other Scripture," said Martin Luther. '4) Determine the literal reference of figures of speech. '5) Recognize that many passages of Scripture, in both Testaments, have both near and far implications and applications. 'The text of Scripture can be understood when taken at FACE VALUE, making allowances for obvious figures of speech, near/far interpretations, its context, and comparative passages of Scripture that harmonize with it, without contradiction. '"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)' (http://www.solagroup.org/) (Emphasis added) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [66] >> |