What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

The Saintman's New Combined Thread

Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,069
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#27
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! :)
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?

Oz
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,901
Gender
Female
#30
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?

Oz
Mike was just kidding.

Lighten up!!!
(or aren't you settled in yet??)
:)
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,069
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#31
You're telling me.
The Living Bible
The Message
and others.
The New World Translation...
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.

Oz
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,901
Gender
Female
#32
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.

Oz
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.
 

kiwidan

Supporter
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
12,294
Christian
Yes
#33
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.

Oz
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,069
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#34
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.
wondering,

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.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,901
Gender
Female
#35
wondering,

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.

Oz
Hi Oz,
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.

Thanks again.
Blessings
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,069
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#36
Hi Oz,
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.

Thanks again.
Blessings
wondering,

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.

Oz
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
10,901
Gender
Female
#37
wondering,

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.

Oz
Amen to all that!
I know what you're speaking of.
I had a conversation with just such a person.
What I brought up was the Didache which specifically states how to do baptism.
It was written between 50 and 120 AD, probably closer to about 60-90.
But, alas, they deny everything. He told me it was not an inspired document.
I asked if the document he sent me to on the net was inspired?????

Here's Chapter 3 of the Didache. BTW, I know some of the ECF and I like Ignatius a lot --- he knew John the Apostle. (the Didache might be separated differently)

1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Source: http://thedidache.com/
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
741
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#39
is it wrong to call him god of israel or something else he needs be called
I think it is wrong to call him outside of his name, that way a person can know who it is by what the bible says.

Because the bible gives us his title of his names.He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. 1 Kings 18:36. At the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/22-32.htm
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
176
#40
GOd of creation
Revealed His name first to Moses as Yahweh.......
Genesis 3:13-15
Before that He was called Elohim
Or the God of abraham isaac and jacob.....

Jews today refuse to call the name Yahweh...
As it is considered tooo holy....
 

Site Goal

Total amount
$285.00
Goal
$5,020.00