Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The Good News/The Bad News

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, a source of unorganized or only partly organized facts out of which he formulates his generalizations. As it is unsafe for the scientist to draw conclusions before he has made a sufficient number of inductions, so it is unsafe for the Bible student to formulate doctrines out of isolated or insufficient proof-tests. Nowhere is this principle more important than in the study of the doctrine of salvation, for in no field are there more differences of opinion and in no study are the conclusions more far-reaching. Henry Thiessen
I would add to this also, our description and insight is always in part, awaiting further revelation to us of the truths we have not yet quite grasped. I am always humbled by the mathematical reality of the infinity of Pi. It is such a simple relationship yet it never ends. I have begun to realise the interaction of so many things in morality, spirituality, position, justification, mercy, grace, forgiveness, I would suggest this is also infinite, as Jesus says His words are eternal.

We assume when we see Jesus everything will be made clear, but I suggest rather we will be astounded by the infinite nature and we have but seen the beginning of something too wonderful to encompass. The clarity of how sinners are chaff and the wheat at work in believers will become apparent, though the lost cannot see this reality, His people are already aware of it.

God bless you
 
I've been required to follow them more than you do.
Then you should understand the difference between a noun and a verb. They can not be used as synonyms and they carry different emphasis.

Calm down for goodness sakes.
I am calm, thank you.
YOUR talking about grammar....
I'M talking about the difference between the English use of the word BELIEVE and the Greek usage.
I am talking about the English words Faith and Believe. I have showed you grammatically how your three English sentences are to be grammatically understood in an attempt to lift your misunderstandings of their usages.
I do not recall you discussing their Greek equivalents.
Also, you're putting words into my mouth and this is not appreciated.
And I never push fault on anyone.
I am merely stating how you are improperly using the words and usage of the English words Faith and Believe. You don’t seem to acknowledge your misunderstandings of these two words and their correct English usages, yet you try to convince us that because your intent means something, that the words your using must bend to the meaning of your intent rather than you actually choosing the correct words which accurately represents your intent.
I hope you're not having a bad day....
Thank you for your concern. My day is going well. I do hope your day is going well too. It is a sunny 40 degrees out today and there is hardly a cloud in the sky.
 
We assume when we see Jesus everything will be made clear, but I suggest rather we will be astounded by the infinite nature and we have but seen the beginning of something too wonderful to encompass.
I am in agreement with you. A pastor of mine said we will spend eternity learning about God. He didn't give a scripture verse, but the sentiment stuck.
More importantly, if there's a test, I hope I beat wondering
 
Then you should understand the difference between a noun and a verb. They can not be used as synonyms and they carry different emphasis.
Oh for goodness sakes SB,,,
Do you really think I don't know the difference between a noun and a verb?
Did I just join this forum yesterday?

I am calm, thank you.

I am talking about the English words Faith and Belief. I have showed you grammatically how your three English sentences are to be grammatically understood in an attempt to lift your misunderstandings of their usages.
I do not recall you discussing their Greek equivalents.

I have no misunderstandings of their usage.
Many who use the English language tend to use the word BELIEVE instead of the words I THINK.

For instance:
At what time is the meeting?

I BELIEVE it's at 4 p.m.
instead of
I THINK it's at 4 p.m.

When, really, that is an incorrect usage.
The correct usage is:

I BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD.

THAT is the correct usage; however, in our modern world, words change in meaning.

(how do you like that punctuation?!)
I am merely stating how you are improperly using the words and usage of the English words Faith and Believe. You don’t seem to acknowledge your misunderstandings of these two words and their correct English usages, yet you try to convince us that because your intent means something, that the words your using must bend to the meaning of your intent rather than you actually choosing the correct words which accurately represents your intent.

Thank you for your concern. My day is going well. I do hope your day is going well too. It is a sunny 40 degrees out today and there is hardly a cloud in the sky.
I don't acknowledge my misunderstanding because there is none.
I'm not trying to convince anyone on this thread of anything except that calvinism is bad news.

How much longer do you wish to continue with this?

The problem here is that you did not grasp what I was saying in my post no. 484.

Here it is again:

LOL --

I tried to use the NOUN BELIEF in the 3rd sentence, keeping the same theme.

In the faith sentence, I do agree with you that it sounds like the most certain one.

As to "I believe my husband will drive me to the florist".
Isn't this the same as when we say even the demons believe?

There are different types of "believe".
When referring to scripture, isn't the use of the word BELIEVE the same a HAVING FAITH IN??

We all know that BELIEVE in the Greek means much more than just having a mental belief.

In my first sentence I meant BELIEVE in this manner....
but you took it as a mental belief.

Comment?


As you can see, I was interested in how we use the word BELIEVE...
NOT in grammar.
 
Hmm, you would have to expound on the statement before I took sides.

You're a synergist and I am a monergist, so chances are we are divided.
Yes. We are divided.
But, as my mother used to say:
Hope is the last thing to die.
You could always BECOME a synergist!
 
So, your saying grammar isn’t important? Your saying that you can improperly use an English word and when your misunderstood, you push fault on others who have a proper understanding of the usage of said words?

Intent is very important, and I’m glad God looks at our hearts. Everyone, including myself misuses words. We often struggle to find the right words and we need to find more words to clarify our previous words.

Let me just say this. I understand your intent. However, your understanding of the basic meaning of Faith and Believe are lacking and incorrect according to the basic mechanics of the English language and how Webster’s dictionary defines both words and their uses. The two are not interchangeable. When you treat both words with the same exact meaning, you do a disservice to the English language. You also propagate misinformation and cause confusion through misunderstandings.

I don’t make the rules on the English language, but I do try to follow them.
I,be the poster that meanwhile slaughters the language at all costs .lol

that said ,English a combination. of French,Latin and Anglo Saxon .a Germanic tounge from saxony,Germany . that's why its so annoying to learn for those who have more logical languages,no such idiotic rule on double negatives in th r romance languages or Chinese or Russian ,

a double negative means don't emphatically in Spanish!
 
Since we both agree neither of us have the authority to change the mechanics of the English language, then the burden is on you to show from a reputable dictionary that believe and faith are indeed synonyms.

SB,

I've already done that in this thread. To make this sensible in the English language, I've used the nouns for comparison: faith vs belief:

Oxford English Dictionary: synonyms of "faith" are, "trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence, optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation."

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: synonyms of "faith" are, "belief and trust in and loyalty to God."

Macmillan Dictionary: defines "faith" as, "strong belief in or trust in something."

Dictionary.com: One of the definitions of "faith", "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion."

So, 2 of these dictionaries include "belief" as part of the definition of "faith." The other 2 dictionaries have "belief" as a synonym for "faith."

I'm left to conclude in English that "faith" and "belief" mean the same thing.

Oz
 
I'm left to conclude in English that "faith" and "belief" mean the same thing.
hmmmm .... perhaps the Swahili to English dictionary would clear this up?

I had the inclination to do a blind test .... Put multiple definitions of Faith and Belief in a column and see if someone could determine which definition went with Faith or Belief .... but you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

  1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  2. strong xxxx or trust
  3. bold trust in God's grace
  4. a firm and certain knowledge of God
  5. as xxxx with strong conviction
  6. being sure that a person or thing exists, religious xxxx
  7. an opinion or conviction
Darn, half the definitions (represented by xxxx) use Faith or Belief to define the other .... coincidence ???

English, the common language the separates us ... :wall
 
Sorry if this is a repeat reply....I was offline for about 2 days.

I don't have anything against commentaries - this is not what I meant at all.

It's just that when reading a commentary, one will find differing opinions as to what a text means.
How would I know who is right UNLESS I already have some kind of understanding about what the bible
is about, the nature of God/Jesus, why the N.T. was written, etc.

You mentioned 1 Timothy 2:15.....women will be saved by childbirth.

I doubt anyone really knows what Paul meant by this... do we even have the correct wording??
A commentary will not help much since there is varying opinion.

But I do believe commentaries are necessary to fully understand the N.T.
or I should say: The writings of Paul.

wondering,

There's a lengthy footnote about 1 Tim 2:15 (NET) (online):

Or “But she will be preserved through childbearing,” or “But she will be saved in spite of childbearing.” This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73). (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10). (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high maternal mortality rate while giving birth). (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth—that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15) ["The promise concerning the seed of the woman implied in the curse upon the serpent (Genesis 3:15), regarded as the earliest intimation of the gospel" (Oxford English Dictionary. s.v. "Protevangelium). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context.​
However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, sōthēsētai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men; [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view. There are three other views that have greater plausibility:

(4) This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression (v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. δία A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14). (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche ["A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa (OED. s.v. synecdoche)] in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role. (6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy [the use of a word or phrase, when you refer to something using the name of something else that it is closely related to. For example, journalists often use the expression ‘The White House’ to mean the President of the US, Macmillan Dictionary. s.v. metonymy] of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).​
 
hmmmm .... perhaps the Swahili to English dictionary would clear this up?

I had the inclination to do a blind test .... Put multiple definitions of Faith and Belief in a column and see if someone could determine which definition went with Faith or Belief .... but you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

  1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  2. strong xxxx or trust
  3. bold trust in God's grace
  4. a firm and certain knowledge of God
  5. as xxxx with strong conviction
  6. being sure that a person or thing exists, religious xxxx
  7. an opinion or conviction
Darn, half the definitions (represented by xxxx) use Faith or Belief to define the other .... coincidence ???

English, the common language the separates us ... :wall
This discussion seems to me back to front.
If we define the different aspects of the subject matter, its subtlety and variations, and once explored see which single words summarise important aspects well, I think that begins to gain agreement.

A for instance is God forgives the iniquity and transgression of those who follow Him and repent but visits iniquity on the children 3 of 4 generations later. In terms of english we do not use the term iniquity much so the words do not have a meaning. It could mean their bad behaviour of sinners is remembered so God brings bad behaviour into their lives and that of their descendants, or their own bad behaviour is allowed to run riot for generations.

Now the subject matter is karma, ie you get what you deserve, and also children inherit the emotional handling of the parents which often lead them to form families with similar failures and problems. By exploring all these avenues then the meaning of what God is saying begins to make sense.

God bless you
 
wondering,

There's a lengthy footnote about 1 Tim 2:15 (NET) (online):

Or “But she will be preserved through childbearing,” or “But she will be saved in spite of childbearing.” This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73). (1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10). (2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high maternal mortality rate while giving birth). (3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth—that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15) ["The promise concerning the seed of the woman implied in the curse upon the serpent (Genesis 3:15), regarded as the earliest intimation of the gospel" (Oxford English Dictionary. s.v. "Protevangelium). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context.​
However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, sōthēsētai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men; [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view. There are three other views that have greater plausibility:

(4) This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression (v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. δία A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14). (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche ["A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa (OED. s.v. synecdoche)] in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role. (6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy [the use of a word or phrase, when you refer to something using the name of something else that it is closely related to. For example, journalists often use the expression ‘The White House’ to mean the President of the US, Macmillan Dictionary. s.v. metonymy] of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).​
Thanks Oz.
The last paragraph does indeed make sense.
We have many phrases that would not make sense to one learning English in school.

I also was never comfortable with the idea that it meant the birth of the Savior.
 
What za matter with you?
Don't cha know nuttin'?
Well, I know something...
but I can't think of it right now.


You mean to tell me you know what
1 Timothy 2:15 means!
15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
 
Thanks Oz.
The last paragraph does indeed make sense.
We have many phrases that would not make sense to one learning English in school.

I also was never comfortable with the idea that it meant the birth of the Savior.

wondering,

For me, one of the great obstacles to understanding the text is the language of 1 Tim 2:15 (NASB): "But [a]women [Lit, "she", singular] will be [b]preserved through [c]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation."

The grammar is baffling to me that the singular, "she", should be the antecedent and refer to the plural, "they."

Oz
 
wondering,

For me, one of the great obstacles to understanding the text is the language of 1 Tim 2:15 (NASB): "But [a]women [Lit, "she", singular] will be [b]preserved through [c]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation."

The grammar is baffling to me that the singular, "she", should be the antecedent and refer to the plural, "they."

Oz
It's not baffling to me Oz.
We also speak like this today:
But a woman will be preserved through childbirth, If they continue in faith......

It's like saying:
But a man can wear shorts in Bermuda, if they also wear long white socks....

However,
I DID check my Italian bible and I can understand why the wording in English is confusing.
It refers to ESSA, which is a singular female pronoun.

In English it would read:
1 Tim 2:14-15
MY RENDERING:
14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into sin.
15In any case (or however) she can save herself through the generations of the sons, on the condition,
however, that she perseveres in the faith, in love and in holiness, with wisdom.

In the footnotes it says:
"The most authentic mission of the woman, according to God's creative design, is that of motherhood
which is achieved through the generating act of having children and educating them. (generating = creating)

Perhaps in this affirmation Paul has in mind the false teachers that were condemning marriage."


Personally, I don't know what condemning marriage has to do with childbearing.
Perhaps the women of this sect were refusing to bear children?
 
Back
Top