Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
63 Pages « < 53 54 55 56 57 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 LYN Christian Fellowship V14 (Group)

views
     
thomasthai
post Sep 11 2019, 04:45 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(TheRant @ Sep 10 2019, 04:42 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
So what does this mean?

QUOTE
    Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1 Timothy 5:17 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/1ti.5.17.KJV 



yaokb
post Sep 11 2019, 10:59 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
Matthew 7:17-20 New Living Translation (NLT)

17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.


Galatians 5

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.


console.gif


James 1

19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
yeeck
post Sep 11 2019, 12:05 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,577 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Sep 10 2019, 12:38 PM)
From scriptures, we understand that the Levitical priesthood is is a shadow of the ultimate Priesthood of Christ. (Hebrews 7-8)

They were signs pointing to Christ, not something to be passed down.

In fact, the whole book of Hebrews was written to tell the Jews to stop hanging on to the law and traditions.
Following the pattern of Acts, Tim and Titus, we see that the church is to be ruled by presbuteros and diakonos, elders and deacons.

Nothing like the priesthood catholics understand it to be.
*
It is the old ceremonial laws which points to the fulfilment of Christ's sacrifice and institution of the New Testament which are no longer to be observed, not the moral laws such as the 10 Commandments. Are you like UW saying that even the 10 Commandments no longer applies?

Thank you for showing that scripture has presbyteros, diakonos. Question. Who ordained them?

The earliest organization of the Church in Jerusalem was according to most scholars similar to that of Jewish synagogues, but it had a council or college of ordained presbyters (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι elders[8]). In Acts 11:30[9] and Acts 15:22, we see a collegiate system of government in Jerusalem though headed by James, according to tradition the first bishop of the city. In Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains presbyters in the churches he founded.

The term presbyter was often not yet clearly distinguished from the term overseer (ἐπίσκοποι episkopoi, later exclusively used as meaning bishop), as in Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5–7[10] and 1 Peter 5:1.[11][12][13] The earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Didache and the First Epistle of Clement for example, show the church used two terms for local church offices—presbyters (seen by many as an interchangeable term with episcopos or overseer) and deacon.

In Timothy and Titus in the New Testament a more clearly defined episcopate can be seen. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain presbyters/bishops and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

That to me is more synonymous with Catholic teaching that authority is passed down from the Christ to the apostles downwards to whomever they ordain, aka distinct roles, rather than the Protestant concept.
SUSTheRant
post Sep 11 2019, 12:20 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
688 posts

Joined: Apr 2019
QUOTE(yaokb @ Sep 11 2019, 10:59 AM)
Matthew 7:17-20 New Living Translation (NLT)

17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit.  A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit.  So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire.  Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
Galatians 5

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;  idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions  and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 
console.gif
James 1

19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,  because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.  Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.  Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror  and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.  But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.  Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
*
1) You use a corrupted version of the worst kind. Which even ThomasThai would probably not approve.

NLT is a thought for thought bible. It is not even worthy to be use in the first place. But then what do you even know?

Just take a comparison

1 John 5:7 NLT
7 So we have these three witnesses[a]—

1 John 5:7 ESV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 John 5:7 KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In fact ThomasThai challenged me on whether there are doctrinal differences. It's so clear as day just by looking at those 3 verses.

Sorry Actually this verse was taken out from both esv and nlt.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And you actually call yourself a Christian. The irony is you actually have the audacity to imply that I am not a Christian even though you use corrupted sources that totally perverts the word of God.

https://preachersinstitute.com/2013/01/10/h...e-translations/

My standards are higher then this guy though. But if even someone like him can condemn the NLT, then it really says a lot of someone who uses it.

You see. It is so corrupted, that even most "KJB Only" people dun even bother to compare this Bible with their KJB.

By the way, found a "pearl" in NLT

8 Then the LORD asked Satan, "Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth—a man of complete integrity

In fact the following passage is a complete joke. Guess where I quoted from
21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

I have no problems calling the above passage a joke. Please "sue" me. You have been reading from a joke bible all these while.


If you have any understanding, that verse above is blesphemy actually. It contradicts the verse that there is no one good. Did I just insulted your "word of God" then? For me, no issues insulting your "word of God" when it's actually the "word of Satan". The fact that you are using this type of Bible tells me a lot about you actually. But then you probably think you are saved because of your mere profession right?

Next time, just use the message Bible.

This post has been edited by TheRant: Sep 11 2019, 03:53 PM
SUSTheRant
post Sep 11 2019, 12:39 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
688 posts

Joined: Apr 2019
QUOTE(thomasthai @ Sep 11 2019, 04:45 AM)
So what does this mean?
*
Ok you got me there. Thanks for using the KJB though

But then how do you consider 1 Peter 5:2-3
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

The thing is, it also depends on your definition of rule.

Of course by "comparing scripture with scripture" (You probably know why I put the inverted commas there)

rule can be compared with oversight.

oversight is more like a managerial kind of authority. But at the same time, it's not really a dictatorial type if you know what i mean.

So it really depends on what context you define rule. Of course I do not deny that Pastors and Elders should have authority. But then it's not the dictatorial kind if you know what I mean.
prophetjul
post Sep 11 2019, 01:43 PM

10k Club
********
All Stars
12,268 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
QUOTE(yeeck @ Sep 11 2019, 12:05 PM)
It is the old ceremonial laws which points to the fulfilment of Christ's sacrifice and institution of the New Testament which are no longer to be observed, not the moral laws such as the 10 Commandments. Are you like UW saying that even the 10 Commandments no longer applies?

Thank you for showing that scripture has presbyteros, diakonos. Question. Who ordained them?

The earliest organization of the Church in Jerusalem was according to most scholars similar to that of Jewish synagogues, but it had a council or college of ordained presbyters (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι elders[8]). In Acts 11:30[9] and Acts 15:22, we see a collegiate system of government in Jerusalem though headed by James, according to tradition the first bishop of the city. In Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains presbyters in the churches he founded.

The term presbyter was often not yet clearly distinguished from the term overseer (ἐπίσκοποι episkopoi, later exclusively used as meaning bishop), as in Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5–7[10] and 1 Peter 5:1.[11][12][13] The earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Didache and the First Epistle of Clement for example, show the church used two terms for local church offices—presbyters (seen by many as an interchangeable term with episcopos or overseer) and deacon.

In Timothy and Titus in the New Testament a more clearly defined episcopate can be seen. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain presbyters/bishops and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

That to me is more synonymous with Catholic teaching that authority is passed down from the Christ to the apostles downwards to whomever they ordain, aka distinct roles, rather than the Protestant concept.
*
You should give a reference to your posting since its cut and paste!.

Yes, there is hierarchy of bishops and deacons. That is about it. However, all are priests unto the Lord.
However, there is no indication of a centralized government like the RCC with the pope as its head. It appears to be the local church as in Jerusalem, etc. Peter was not the first pope as RCC likes to indicate.

Further on the qualifications of the episkopos, (elder,bishop)

QUOTE
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil


QUOTE
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.



WHY then does the RCC forbid their bishops to be married?
yeeck
post Sep 11 2019, 02:30 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,577 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
QUOTE(prophetjul @ Sep 11 2019, 01:43 PM)
You should give a reference to your posting since its cut and paste!.

Yes, there is hierarchy of bishops and deacons. That is about it.  However, all are priests unto the Lord.
However, there is no indication of a centralized government like the RCC with the pope as its head. It appears to be the local church as in Jerusalem, etc.  Peter was not the first pope as RCC likes to indicate.

Further on the qualifications of the episkopos, (elder,bishop)
WHY then does the RCC forbid their bishops to be married?
*
"Do this in remembrance of Me" and the authority to forgive or retain sins were given only to the Apostles and not every believer, thus only the episkopos and presbyteros have this authority as they were the select ordained by the Apostles. And certainly this authority was not meant to be only at the first century but meant to last until the end of time until Christ returns again.

The Apostle Paul does not say that a Bishop must be the husband of a wife, but insists upon the expression "one wife." Had he meant that it was necessary to have a wife, he would have been violating the law himself. In the early Church, owing to the scarcity of single men eligible for the Priesthood, married men who wished to be ordained could be accepted provided they had not been married twice. Those presenting themselves must have been the husband of but one wife. That is all that the text means. Catholic Bishops and Priests do not violate that law. A law forbidding a man to have had more than one wife does not order him to have one; nor is it violated by a man who has never had a wife at all. However, as Christianity grew and vocations became more plentiful, single men only were accepted, and had to remain celibates, according to the advice of Paul.

Your question has been answered over and over again. The RCC does not forbid their bishops to be married. It is a vow they themselves voluntarily make.

Catholic priests do not wish to be only natural. They wish to be supernatural. Paul was human, but he did not marry. And like Paul, Catholic priests wish to centre their interests in Christ and share their hearts with no one else. Meantime, they are not forbidden to marry as human beings. They are forbidden as Priests. Prior to their choice of the Priesthood, every Priest could have chosen marriage instead had he wished.

On the practical reason, I can see why this is also a good case for celibacy. If priests are married, there might be grumblings of unfairness when it comes to attention to their own family members compared to the flock which they are supposed to pastor.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Sep 11 2019, 02:32 PM
thomasthai
post Sep 11 2019, 03:55 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(yeeck @ Sep 11 2019, 12:05 PM)
It is the old ceremonial laws which points to the fulfilment of Christ's sacrifice and institution of the New Testament which are no longer to be observed, not the moral laws such as the 10 Commandments. Are you like UW saying that even the 10 Commandments no longer applies?

Of course not. If you look a few pages there, I said that the 10 commandments is God's holy moral standard for all people and all time.

But in terms of the gospel, no, you are not saved by keeping the law.

The jews thought that they were saved by being Abraham's descendants and keeping all the law. In fact, they developed their own system of law.

QUOTE
Thank you for showing that scripture has presbyteros, diakonos. Question. Who ordained them?

The congregation, by the guidelines given in Timothy and Titus.

QUOTE
The earliest organization of the Church in Jerusalem was according to most scholars similar to that of Jewish synagogues, but it had a council or college of ordained presbyters (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι elders[8]). In Acts 11:30[9] and Acts 15:22, we see a collegiate system of government in Jerusalem though headed by James, according to tradition the first bishop of the city. In Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains presbyters in the churches he founded.

The term presbyter was often not yet clearly distinguished from the term overseer (ἐπίσκοποι episkopoi, later exclusively used as meaning bishop), as in Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5–7[10] and 1 Peter 5:1.[11][12][13] The earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Didache and the First Epistle of Clement for example, show the church used two terms for local church offices—presbyters (seen by many as an interchangeable term with episcopos or overseer) and deacon.

In Timothy and Titus in the New Testament a more clearly defined episcopate can be seen. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain presbyters/bishops and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

That to me is more synonymous with Catholic teaching that authority is passed down from the Christ to the apostles downwards to whomever they ordain, aka distinct roles, rather than the Protestant concept.
*
Protestants (or more specifically, the Reformed churches) believe that presbuteros, episkopos, shepherd(pastor from latin pasteur) are all interchangable.

Their duties of overseeing the church and teaching and preaching more or less overlaps.

We see that scriptures have given complete guidelines so that the church will never be without leaders.

One question back to you, what happens to the catholic church if all the pope and bishops died at the same time? How is the authority passed down?
thomasthai
post Sep 11 2019, 03:58 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(TheRant @ Sep 11 2019, 12:39 PM)
Ok you got me there. Thanks for using the KJB though

But then how do you consider 1 Peter 5:2-3
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

The thing is, it also depends on your definition of rule.

Of course by "comparing scripture with scripture" (You probably know why I put the inverted commas there)

rule can be compared with oversight.

oversight is more like a managerial kind of authority.  But at the same time, it's not really a dictatorial type if you know what i mean.

So it really depends on what context you define rule. Of course I do not deny that Pastors and Elders should have authority. But then it's not the dictatorial kind if you know what I mean.
*
Of course I know what you mean. I didn't mean that kind of ruling too.
thomasthai
post Sep 11 2019, 04:02 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
321 posts

Joined: Apr 2012
QUOTE(TheRant @ Sep 11 2019, 12:20 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
Thanks, I think laugh.gif

The message, passion, NLT are all paraphrase bibles, which basically mean some guy sitting in his porch 'thinks' what that verse mean by what it says. Absolutely no translation rules.

I once read a Psalm from the message, can really go bonkers if read too much.

I wouldn't touch them with a 6 foot pole.

This post has been edited by thomasthai: Sep 11 2019, 04:04 PM
prophetjul
post Sep 11 2019, 04:36 PM

10k Club
********
All Stars
12,268 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
QUOTE(yeeck @ Sep 11 2019, 02:30 PM)
"Do this in remembrance of Me" and the authority to forgive or retain sins were given only to the Apostles and not every believer, thus only the episkopos and presbyteros have this authority as they were the select ordained by the Apostles. And certainly this authority was not meant to be only at the first century but meant to last until the end of time until Christ returns again.

The Apostle Paul does not say that a Bishop must be the husband of a wife, but insists upon the expression "one wife." Had he meant that it was necessary to have a wife, he would have been violating the law himself. In the early Church, owing to the scarcity of single men eligible for the Priesthood, married men who wished to be ordained could be accepted provided they had not been married twice. Those presenting themselves must have been the husband of but one wife. That is all that the text means. Catholic Bishops and Priests do not violate that law. A law forbidding a man to have had more than one wife does not order him to have one; nor is it violated by a man who has never had a wife at all. However, as Christianity grew and vocations became more plentiful, single men only were accepted, and had to remain celibates, according to the advice of Paul.

Your question has been answered over and over again. The RCC does not forbid their bishops to be married. It is a vow they themselves voluntarily make.

Catholic priests do not wish to be only natural. They wish to be supernatural. Paul was human, but he did not marry. And like Paul, Catholic priests wish to centre their interests in Christ and share their hearts with no one else. Meantime, they are not forbidden to marry as human beings. They are forbidden as Priests. Prior to their choice of the Priesthood, every Priest could have chosen marriage instead had he wished.

On the practical reason, I can see why this is also a good case for celibacy. If priests are married, there might be grumblings of unfairness when it comes to attention to their own family members compared to the flock which they are supposed to pastor.
*
"Do this in remembrance of me" is a command given to every believer.
Where is scriptures states the retention of sins by the episkopos? This is the practice of the unbiblical separation of priest and laity, started by the RCC. Essentially to control the people.
When Jesus gave the instructions to the apostles present, it was a pattern to ALL believers.

While Paul does not say the bishop must have a wife, his statement implies marriage and family is a norm for the eldership. TWICE. In 1 Tim 3 and Titus 2.
The RCC essentially forbids marriage of their priests. This contradicts what Paul instructs.

QUOTE
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


The Latin RCC forbids their clergy to marry. And at large most RCC follows this.
It is a BAD practice as we have seen. Paul instructs marriage, not celibacy.
By the way, we believers are supernatural, not only the priests!

Your excuse and reasoning is bunk and without merit. Paul says so

QUOTE
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


This post has been edited by prophetjul: Sep 11 2019, 04:45 PM
yaokb
post Sep 11 2019, 10:37 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
It is ok to have our own opinions.

I had the privilege of meeting Brian Simmons, the translator of the Passion Bible.

At that time, he had just published his first passion book, the Song of Songs (Solomon).

He strongly believes his translation bring a fresh take on the scripture through the eyes of a lover.

My take on versions like NLT, the Passion translation and the Message is that they are no different from the efforts taken by many to translate the bible into various languages like Thai, Cambodian, Burmese etc etc.

There are literally thousands of such translations.

While they are no works of scholarship, they all do touch specific target groups. So do the versions like NLT, Message and Passion.

And the one thing they have in common is that they are works of love.

In my eyes, they each are all a tiny part of the wonderful mosaic of God's plan to reach as many people as possible with His wonderful Word.


As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Can we really deny that the Holy Spirit has used these translations to touch and change lives?

yaokb
post Sep 11 2019, 10:37 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
double post again blush.gif

This post has been edited by yaokb: Sep 11 2019, 10:40 PM
SUSTheRant
post Sep 11 2019, 11:00 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
688 posts

Joined: Apr 2019
QUOTE(yaokb @ Sep 11 2019, 10:37 PM)
It is ok to have our own opinions.

I had the privilege of meeting Brian Simmons, the translator of the Passion Bible.

At that time, he had just published his first passion book, the Song of Songs (Solomon).

He strongly believes his translation bring a fresh take on the scripture through the eyes of a lover.

My take on versions like NLT, the Passion translation and the Message is that they are no different from the efforts taken by many to translate the bible into various languages like Thai, Cambodian, Burmese etc etc.

There are literally thousands of such translations.

While they are no works of scholarship, they all do touch specific target groups. So do the versions like NLT, Message and Passion.

And the one thing they have in common is that they are works of love.

In my eyes, they each are all a tiny part of the wonderful mosaic of God's plan to reach as many people as possible with His wonderful Word.
As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Can we really deny that the Holy Spirit has used these translations to touch and change lives?
*
Fresh take of the Bible. What a joke. Might as well ask alestir crowley to write a Bible and he would probably give the same approval to His Bible as well.

Those translations have probably damn more ppl to hell then any other thing else.

No need to say anymore. You have the antichrist spirit and those bibles probably creare more ppl with the same spirit as you.

In fact I can even see the mockery antichrist spirit in the end. You will definitely get your just desserts.

@thomasthai I hope you can see the delusion. But the thing is. The delusion you see in him is probably the same delusion I see in those using the modern versions. As I have implied, I have a, higher standard. But at least I have something to "debate " with you on. I have nothing more to say to him.

I found this video.
Coincidence?
https://youtu.be/tqKCz_Hqg7M
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegatew...V&interface=amp

@Thomasthai cannot help you if after you read the link showed you are still not convinced. I still cannot believe it. To be honest. Wow they actually wrote that in the footnotes.


This post has been edited by TheRant: Sep 11 2019, 11:26 PM
SUSTheRant
post Sep 11 2019, 11:12 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
688 posts

Joined: Apr 2019
Actually I dun deny that there may be a few that are "saved" using corrupted versions. God can probably save using stones as well. Just like Nebuchadnezzar can speak the truth sometimes. Of course the credit to Nebuchadnezzar saying the truth is not to him but to God.
yaokb
post Sep 11 2019, 11:29 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
225 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
Luke 18

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

KJV
unknown warrior
post Sep 12 2019, 09:01 AM

/k/ Legend
*******
Senior Member
6,240 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
QUOTE(yaokb @ Sep 11 2019, 10:37 PM)
It is ok to have our own opinions.

I had the privilege of meeting Brian Simmons, the translator of the Passion Bible.

At that time, he had just published his first passion book, the Song of Songs (Solomon).

He strongly believes his translation bring a fresh take on the scripture through the eyes of a lover.

My take on versions like NLT, the Passion translation and the Message is that they are no different from the efforts taken by many to translate the bible into various languages like Thai, Cambodian, Burmese etc etc.

There are literally thousands of such translations.

While they are no works of scholarship, they all do touch specific target groups. So do the versions like NLT, Message and Passion.

And the one thing they have in common is that they are works of love.

In my eyes, they each are all a tiny part of the wonderful mosaic of God's plan to reach as many people as possible with His wonderful Word.
As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Can we really deny that the Holy Spirit has used these translations to touch and change lives?
*
Yup, I agree. icon_rolleyes.gif
prophetjul
post Sep 12 2019, 09:22 AM

10k Club
********
All Stars
12,268 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
QUOTE(yaokb @ Sep 11 2019, 10:37 PM)
It is ok to have our own opinions.

I had the privilege of meeting Brian Simmons, the translator of the Passion Bible.

At that time, he had just published his first passion book, the Song of Songs (Solomon).

He strongly believes his translation bring a fresh take on the scripture through the eyes of a lover.

My take on versions like NLT, the Passion translation and the Message is that they are no different from the efforts taken by many to translate the bible into various languages like Thai, Cambodian, Burmese etc etc.

There are literally thousands of such translations.

While they are no works of scholarship, they all do touch specific target groups. So do the versions like NLT, Message and Passion.

And the one thing they have in common is that they are works of love.

In my eyes, they each are all a tiny part of the wonderful mosaic of God's plan to reach as many people as possible with His wonderful Word.
As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Can we really deny that the Holy Spirit has used these translations to touch and change lives?
*
I think the fresh take approach is rather dangerous.
At best, its a commentary.
At worst, its misrepresents God.
Love has boundaries set by Holiness of God. Its not unbounded which ends in lust.

Bear in Mind, the Spirit of God wrote the scriptures. Be aware that we do not chop and change for the purpose of 'groups'.
That will be misrepresenting God's word.

QUOTE
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


QUOTE
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
unknown warrior
post Sep 12 2019, 10:28 AM

/k/ Legend
*******
Senior Member
6,240 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
John 3: 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.


We are so judgmental of other people sometimes. God did not send Christ to condemn you. So likewise I think we should not judge others with harsh words like you're the anti christ lah, you're not saved lah, etc etc.

It's a very condemning spirit.

Besides on the same verse the condemnation here in context is on people who reject the name of Christ, not because they don't have it all together.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Sep 12 2019, 10:38 AM
prophetjul
post Sep 12 2019, 01:25 PM

10k Club
********
All Stars
12,268 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
QUOTE(unknown warrior @ Sep 12 2019, 10:28 AM)
John 3: 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. 18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
We are so judgmental of other people sometimes. God did not send Christ to condemn you. So likewise I think we should not judge others with harsh words like you're the anti christ lah, you're not saved lah, etc etc.

It's a very condemning spirit.

Besides on the same verse the condemnation here in context is on people who reject the name of Christ, not because they don't have it all together.
*
Depends how you define 'belief' and faith.

The Jewish understanding of faith is not just a mental ascend. Faith demands action or works to justify that paradigm.

Therefore James put it as

QUOTE
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


So when we have faith in Him who saves, we should be obeying His commands. Otherwise, its open to doubts.

QUOTE
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


For even those who do works but not according to His commands

QUOTE
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
« Next Oldest · Serious Kopitiam · Next Newest »
 

63 Pages « < 53 54 55 56 57 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0255sec    0.20    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 7th December 2025 - 12:33 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.