Nope.
The fact is that they never had the heart of a shepherd. You do not need to be trained in order to be that.

Anyway to continue with the discussion with prophetjul:

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The passage above shows that the main focus has always been Israel.
We are just like "dogs which eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table".

You see. It was because Israel rejected the messiah and that is why we are now able to eat the crumbs. In Romans, it was pretty clear that we are grafted in
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree

The thing is. Are we able to accept the facts that we are in fact dogs that are just eating the leftover?

Most of us cannot conceive that we are in fact dogs. We want to claim the fact that we are Israel's equal. Now I see the reason as to why Ammilleannism is so popular. Because Amileannism tells us that we are equal or even superior to the Jews. Unfortunately most traditional churches practices this. To me, this theology is a very grave error that undermine the Jews.

If you read the verses carefully.

Nope.
When the Canaan Woman says that she was a dog, Jesus did not exactly correct her to say that she wrong. Jesus did not tell her that she was same as the Jews. Jesus only praised her for her beliefs.

The fact is that Jesus concur with her that indeed from a race perspective, yes she was inferior compared to the Jews. She acknowledge that she was inferior to the Jews. She acknowledged that she was only eating the scraps left by the Israel. She acknowledged that she was not the main focus.

Similarly the passage in Romans also showed really clearly that we are eating the leftovers from the Jews. It's because the natural branches were cut off that we were given the opportunity to be grafted in. This language should have given you the idea that no, the focus is not on us. It's on Israel.

Spiritually we are equal. But then from a national basis, the Jews as a whole have been the focus. That's not really hard to imagine.

Israel is not really a tiny insignificant nation if you think seriously about it.

The whole old testament talks about God dealings with Israel. Even Paul defends Israel saying that God never abaddoned His promises with Israel.

God spent so much effort with Israel. How can you say that it's insignificant, I really cannot understand how you can even conclude that Israel is insignificant in view of the scriptures I provided.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 16 2014, 12:51 AM

Vs 15 was referring to all believers.
But as I shown you. Vs 16 is not.

Paul would not have use them if he was referring to all believers.
He would have referred to us.

How can you read vs 15 and vs 16 and then make the assumption that vs 16 was referring to all believers?

Verse 12-13 was obviously referring to the opinion of the circumcised(The Jews). They feel that the gentiles should be circumcised.

Verse 14(KJV) says that Paul who is circumcised feels that those who are both Jews and Gentiles believers are brothers in Christ and there is no need for circumcision.

Verse 15 forms his theological basis

Verse 16 Paul praises those who are of verse 15.(Peace) He was asking for mercy for Israel in general because there are circumcised people within Israel who feels the need to force the gentiles into circumcision.

The promises and covenants to Israel are not only spiritual. They are also physical.
Ezekiel 20 talks about the gathering of all of the Israelites back into the land. Obviously as mentioned earlier, the Kingdom that Jesus set up will not just be based in Jerusalem. It will have a very Jewish flavour. It's not "international" as what you are trying to imply.

In fact reading Zechariah 12 as you told me to do so should already have given you a clue the amount of attention and protection that God shower towards Israel.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 16 2014, 01:46 AM

Well look into this more carefully.

Anyway, just to let you know. I do not really trust the NIV.

Well, you can take comfort that this guy is not a real Christian.

KJV or Geneva bible version

Well. Some of the translations are actually wrong.

About their life experience?

-edited-

This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 16 2014, 11:38 AM

Well since I do not know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic,
I have to then rely on accurate translation.

I think it is well documented that NIV is not accurate.

KJV is not the most accurate but then generally it is more reliable.
Basically in NIV, you can find passages whereby the entire meaning actually changes, that is how inaccurate it is.

Very hard to think off hand.

I did discuss one passage with another person proverbs something cannot remember
and find the reason why we are in disagreement is because the passage from KJV and NIV was totally different.

I compared that NIV passage with the other versions and it's totally different.

Nope.
The more translator the worse.
Actually they can be biased because they now have to create a bible that everyone "agrees"

Somehow word for word is the best. But even then, the translator must not be biased at all. Because even when interpretating word for word, the translator can still misinterpret certain words which may change the whole meaning.

He did compare with NIV also based on the article you sent.

Would not think so.

For example, for (thought for though) bibles like NIV or NLT. It's practically useless.

If we are serious about this, then we should look at the original text.
There are certain text that are known to be more reliable for example TR etc.
Also there is the integrity and biasness of the author.


There's normally a discussion saying which part of the bible is misinterpretated wrongly etc.

For example in KJV
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

NKJV
2 even the righteousness of God, through faith of Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference;

NIV
This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,


Just the difference of "of" and "in"

The whole meaning has been twisted.

So that is why, to me NIV is practically not encouraged.

Even NKJV which claims to translate KJV to a more readable English is also suspect because if you look at the above. It does not really do what it claims to do.

As mentioned earlier, I have observed actual entire passages from NIV that are totally different from the rest of the other versions.

There are some bibles out there that are pretty reliable in translation
YLT, Geneva, KJV etc. And perheps concordance.

A literal interpretation is always much better then a not so literal interpretation like the NIV.

The reason is very clear. You are reading the Word of God. Not man's interpretation of the word of god.

After reading the first page which says that KJV is too literal, I dun think I would want to read the rest.

No need la.
As long as the scholar has integrity can already.

Most scholars know which text is the more accurate text. And they have the integrity to translate what the text says. Not what they think.

It is not about the perfect translation. It's translating with integrity. Having the heart to translate the word of God as accurate as possible without adding the own meaning in so as not to taint the Word of God.

Well, reading the Bible is not the same as Reading a story book or a text book. You are talking about the Word of God here. And you want to make sure that what you read is not distorted. Even though it's harder to read the KJV. I sleep better knowing that what I read has not been distorted.

I really do not know how you can consider Dynamic Equivalent acceptable. I just shown you that just changing the grammer even 'of' with 'in' will distort the whole meaning away. Unless you want to just have a casual understanding of what you read and accept other people's opinion instead of the actual words of God then be it.

When I told you that NIV has certain section in it that is totally different from the other versions, I wasn't joking.

Even seminary students do not take NIV seriously. Taking NIV as a study material is an embarassment. And I am talking about seminary students who do are not so serious about the Word of God. So obviously, the words of this author cannot be taken seriously.

But since to you NIV is the acceptable version, then nothing I say will change your mind. You can read from man's interpretation of God's word.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 16 2014, 06:47 PM

Seminary school is just a school teaching theology that's all.
For example master's seminary is a seminary that John Macarthur started

Normally when someone tells me this,
I get very insulted.

But for your case, I will make it an exception.

Well, only in this thread. Ppl thinks catholic is just another denomination. Only in this thread.

That is why many things said here must be treated with a pince of salt


This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 17 2014, 05:42 AM

Anyway
Amplified Version
Phillipians 2:6
6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,

New International Version
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Philippians 2:6 (KJV)
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 (GNV)
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God:

Guess the dynamic version is "better"
See Ngaisteve, I can show you hundred or thousand evidences.
But then, it will all be in vain.

This post has been edited by sylar111: Oct 17 2014, 05:37 AM