Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by thesaintman, Sep 17, 2017.
Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Just how was Jesus going to make and keep this promise?
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
can you say me it
Hello again. The amount of pages will be determined by the size font it is printed, plus the many notes different ones include, and they do differ.
There are 66 books in the Protestant bibles and 73 books in the Catholic bible which includes the apocrypha; history books that were written after God was not sending prophets to man for a period of time due to His people seeking after other gods. You can probably goggle "How many books are in the Bible" and get a better explanation.
There are many pages, but yet one God of all who that He would that none should perish, but turn back to Him.
You know the answer Saintman...
Here's my answer.
We could always know more about God.
I don't understand that grammar! Maybe that's because I'm an okker Aussie!
Wrong! That was the worst answer in the history of the universe! There is a perfect amount of pages in the Bible!
Love you, Wondering!
The Bible is perfect!
What translation are you refering to?
Don't you think you are using some hyperbole here?
Which Bible are you talking about? The Bible in Thai, Serbian, Icelandic or Portugese? Is it a dynamic equivalence or formal equivalence translation?
But translations are not!!
You're telling me.
The Living Bible
The New World Translation...
Mike was just kidding.
(or aren't you settled in yet??)
No translations since the original MSS are perfect. If you had the opportunity, compare available MSS and you'll find variants (typos), inserts and other problems from hand copying.
I'm not talking just about the paraphrases of TLB, MsG, JB Phillips, NWT. I'm speaking about ALL Bible translations that are based on imperfect copies of the original. Only the original is God-breathed.
What is MSS?
I know there were many translation mistakes.
Tyndale got burned for disseminating the Bible, but he didn't know Greek well.
I hear the New King James is good. As good could be.
I use the NASB. Have others too.
They say that if you want to read the only good Bible you have to know Greek and Hebrew.
Apart from not even having the original, its written by man inspired by God, its historical references, records and testimony. Until the 4th century there was no bible, it only come when it was put into a collecrion. What scriptures and doctrine did the early Christians have. For 3 hundred years they had no bible.
MS = manuscript (singular); MSS = manuscripts (plural). See HERE.
Tyndale was strangled as a heretic and then his body was burned for his dissemination of the Gospel (see William Tyndale). Tyndale spoke 7 languages and he knew both Hebrew and Greek well.
I don't use the NKJV because it is based on inferior, later MSS that Erasmus used for his Greek NT compilation that is known as the Textus Receptus. There are many better earlier Greek MSS that have been used for the UBS or Nestle-Aland Greek NT.
If you want a formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation, the NASB is a good one, but I find the ESV and NRSV read smoother in English.
I consider the dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translations of the Bible to be better. These are found in the NIV, NIRV, NLT, NET, REB, ISV, etc.
Please understand that the Hebrew and Greek translations we have today are just that - translations. They will get you closer to the original, but you still have to know Hebrew and Greek so well to be able to translate them accurately.
If I didn't read the original language of Greek, I could still get by fairly well by comparing English translations of both formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Try comparing the ESV, NASB and NRSV with the NIV, NET and NLT. That should give us a pretty good understanding of the language in the original MSS.
Thanks for such a complete reply!
I do have the NIV. Sometimes I'll read 3 or 4 different versions if I don't understand something. I don't like using commentaries too much. It's always what one person thinks.
If I have a real question I ask someone I know, like a priest that is also a theologian. As long as it's not a "catholic" question, I'm good with it.
I asked you because Mathew 28:19-20 was listed as a verse that was not in the original Greek bible, and that this was added after 300 AD. The person was saying that we should baptize ONLY in the name of Jesus (as in Acts). I don't agree with this because I checked the Didache and baptism was already in there and the formula was to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The theology of some churches leaves much to be desired.
I encourage you to use selective commentaries as many are written by God's teachers for the church. A good commentary is not one person's opinion but interacts with others views on the verses. If you ask a priest or OzSpen or any other person in the church, you are still getting only one person's understanding of Scripture.
One of the problems we run into when discussing Matt 28:19-20 is that there is an unorthodox/heretical group in Pentecostalism that promotes the 'Jesus Only' anti-Trinitarian, Oneness Pentecostal view. See: What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals? (Got Questions?)
The article, 'In whose name are we supposed to baptize?' supports the 'Jesus only' position and no Trinitarian formula in the baptism teaching in Matt 28:19
However, in 'Matthew 28:19 Is Genuine', this author provides evidence of the Trinitarian formula used by early church fathers before AD 300, including Ignatius of Antioch's (died about AD 107) Letter to the Philippians (ch 2) that supported the Trinitarian formula of Matt 28:19.
So by the end of the first century an early church father, Ignatius of Antioch, supported the Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19. This also is supported by Tertullian (ca. AD 200) in 'On Baptism (ch 13)'.
So, I'm not of the view that the Trinitarian formula for baptism was added after AD 300. There is evidence to the contrary.
My sister, brother-in-law and niece come tonight to stay for a couple of days. I had better get this house looking more respectable.
Separate names with a comma.