Hi folks,
Again, this could descend into a 'is the devil symbolic' or not discussion, but the topic is more along the lines of myths and legends.
Is it possible for this to happen i.e. Robert Johnson (blues guitarist), the Devil's Bible & the monk, or not?
God says 'all souls are mine', and I ask because of the prospective talents offered to people like the above mentioned in exchange for their 'souls'?
I
Quote from: KingKenny on September 01, 2013, 12:26:14 AM
Hi folks,
Again, this could descend into a 'is the devil symbolic' or not discussion, but the topic is more along the lines of myths and legends.
Is it possible for this to happen i.e. Robert Johnson (blues guitarist), the Devil's Bible & the monk, or not?
God says 'all souls are mine', and I ask because of the prospective talents offered to people like the above mentioned in exchange for their 'souls'?
I
The soul is the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit.
"And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
The common concept of "the devil" with horns and hooves is not scriptural. The Concordant Version doesn't even use the word "devil."
"Satan," Hebrew for "Adversary," also known as "the Adversary," "the dragon," "the ancient serpent," "the Slanderer," and "the chief of the jurisdiction of the air" is head of the forces of evil.
God created evil and controls Satan.
"Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
"I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it." (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
God gives Satan power to try us (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7), but Satan will eventually lose that power (1 Corinthians 15:24).
Paul gave up "Hymeneus and Alexander...to Satan, that they may be trained not to calumniate." (1 Timothy 1:20)
I don't believe the so called "devil" is "symbolic" as you said some may say because scripture speaks of Satan as a real spirit being. Scripture indicates there are many invisible spirit beings. God is invisible, but Christ is God's image (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15).
"There is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6)
Paul says he's a slave of Christ Jesus and a slave of God, but some folks seem to be slaves of Satan.
Can you sell your soul to Satan? I think you can be deceived into thinking Satan will do you some good, but you will find out the hard way that his promises are a trap. We all deal with this. It's called sin.
Satan can't do you any good. Satan is a liar and a deceiver. Satan provides an experience of enchantment and delusion. That's how folks get addicted to various chemicals.
God is spirit that is the power of action, life, and intelligence. Only the spirit of God provides "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22).
Don't believe Satan no matter what he promises because it's a lie.
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/TheSoulAndTheUnseen.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 01:27:45 AM
Quote from: KingKenny on September 01, 2013, 12:26:14 AM
Hi folks,
Again, this could descend into a 'is the devil symbolic' or not discussion, but the topic is more along the lines of myths and legends.
Is it possible for this to happen i.e. Robert Johnson (blues guitarist), the Devil's Bible & the monk, or not?
God says 'all souls are mine', and I ask because of the prospective talents offered to people like the above mentioned in exchange for their 'souls'?
I
The soul is the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit.
"And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
The common concept of "the devil" with horns and hooves is not scriptural. The Concordant Version doesn't even use the word "devil."
"Satan," Hebrew for "Adversary," also known as "the Adversary," "the dragon," "the ancient serpent," "the Slanderer," and "the chief of the jurisdiction of the air" is head of the forces of evil.
God created evil and controls Satan.
"Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
"I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it." (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
God gives Satan power to try us (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7), but Satan will eventually lose that power (1 Corinthians 15:24).
Paul gave up "Hymeneus and Alexander...to Satan, that they may be trained not to calumniate." (1 Timothy 1:20)
I don't believe the so called "devil" is "symbolic" as you said some may say because scripture speaks of Satan as a real spirit being. Scripture indicates there are many invisible spirit beings. God is invisible, but Christ is God's image.
"There is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6)
Paul says he's a slave of Christ Jesus and a slave of God, but some folks seem to be slaves of Satan.
Can you sell your soul to Satan? I think you can be deceived into thinking Satan will do you some good, but you will find out the hard way that his promises are a trap. We all deal with this. It's called sin.
Satan can't do you any good. Satan is a liar and a deceiver. Satan provides an experience of enchantment and delusion. That's how folks get addicted to various chemicals.
God is spirit that is the power of action, life, and intelligence. Only the spirit of God provides "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22).
Don't believe Satan no matter what he promises because it's a lie.
So ... no?
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 01:27:45 AM
Quote from: KingKenny on September 01, 2013, 12:26:14 AM
Hi folks,
Again, this could descend into a 'is the devil symbolic' or not discussion, but the topic is more along the lines of myths and legends.
Is it possible for this to happen i.e. Robert Johnson (blues guitarist), the Devil's Bible & the monk, or not?
God says 'all souls are mine', and I ask because of the prospective talents offered to people like the above mentioned in exchange for their 'souls'?
I
The soul is the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit.
"And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
The common concept of "the devil" with horns and hooves is not scriptural. The Concordant Version doesn't even use the word "devil."
"Satan," Hebrew for "Adversary," also known as "the Adversary," "the dragon," "the ancient serpent," "the Slanderer," and "the chief of the jurisdiction of the air" is head of the forces of evil.
God created evil and controls Satan.
"Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
"I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it." (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
God gives Satan power to try us (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7), but Satan will eventually lose that power (1 Corinthians 15:24).
Paul gave up "Hymeneus and Alexander...to Satan, that they may be trained not to calumniate." (1 Timothy 1:20)
I don't believe the so called "devil" is "symbolic" as you said some may say because scripture speaks of Satan as a real spirit being. Scripture indicates there are many invisible spirit beings. God is invisible, but Christ is God's image.
"There is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6)
Paul says he's a slave of Christ Jesus and a slave of God, but some folks seem to be slaves of Satan.
Can you sell your soul to Satan? I think you can be deceived into thinking Satan will do you some good, but you will find out the hard way that his promises are a trap. We all deal with this. It's called sin.
Satan can't do you any good. Satan is a liar and a deceiver. Satan provides an experience of enchantment and delusion. That's how folks get addicted to various chemicals.
God is spirit that is the power of action, life, and intelligence. Only the spirit of God provides "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22).
Don't believe Satan no matter what he promises because it's a lie.
So ... no?
I can see how you could say yes or no. I'd say Satan cons you into thinking you're "selling" him your soul for some temporary gain, but, since "soul" from the Greek "psuche," literally meaning "cool," is sensation, your sense may be that you have "sold" your soul because you are allowing yourself to be Satan's slave. I wouldn't really call it "selling" your soul though. I was enchanted by various chemicals in the past, but those types of experiences are just delusional. I don't think I sold my soul, but I allowed myself to be Satan's slave in the sense that the way I chose was not the truth. I knew some folks in the past who were actual Satan worshippers. I think folks would probably be more likely to say they "sold" their souls to Satan, but it wasn't a binding contract because some have become followers of Christ. I think the idea of "selling" your soul to Satan is simply Satan's deception because it is God who breathes the breath (spirit) of life into our bodies that causes the sensation called "soul." So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen," translated as "hell" in the King James, which is what happens when we die. This started out as a clarification of my perspective, but I don't think I've done a very good job. I'll tell you one thing for sure, even though I've been fooled by him in the past, Satan can't buy my soul.
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:47:08 AM
I can see how you could say yes or no. I'd say Satan cons you into thinking you're "selling" him your soul for some temporary gain, but, since "soul" from the Greek "psuche," literally meaning "cool," is sensation, your sense may be that you have "sold" your soul because you are allowing yourself to be Satan's slave. I wouldn't really call it "selling" your soul though. I was enchanted by various chemicals in the past, but those types of experiences are just a delusion. I don't think I sold my soul, but I allowed myself to be Satan's slave in the sense that the way I chose was not the truth. I knew some folks in the past who were actual Satan worshippers. I think folks would probably be more likely to say they "sold" their souls to Satan, but it wasn't a binding contract because some have become followers of Christ. I think the idea of "selling" your soul to Satan is simply Satan's deception because it is God who breathes the breath (spirit) of life into our bodies that causes the sensation called "soul." So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen," translated as "hell" in the King James, which is what happens when we die. This started out as a clarification of my perspective, but I don't think I've done a very good job. I'll tell you one thing for sure, even though I've been fooled by him in the past, Satan can't buy my soul.
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
But doesn't psuche actually mean breath? I don't think soul is a sensation caused by breath. The other Greek word we use is pneuma, which also means breath; the usual Hebrew word we use is nefesh, which is again breath or vitality. That breath was breathed into people by God and by so doing He made us human.
In a plain reading of soul, and in the way I found most people to use it, we are usually referring to a person's essence when we talk about their soul. True, this may be a modern way of using the word, but it's been used like that, at least in the popular literature, for centuries. When we refer to selling one's soul, I think we mean selling the thing which actually makes you you, as an individual. When we say we are getting to the soul of the matter, we mean we are getting to basics.
The phrasing seems to be used both figuratively and literally. You can sell your soul to the devil (for example 30 pieces of silver), or you can sell your soul metaphorically: I sold my soul to the company store, or my boss owns my soul (because I spend all my time at work). You seem to be using them interchangeably.
This one however, has me stimed: "So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen," translated as "hell" in the King James, which is what happens when we die." Could you please walk me though what that means? You seem to be saying that the soul becomes unseen after I die. Does that mean it is seen before I die?
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 05:07:55 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:47:08 AM
I can see how you could say yes or no. I'd say Satan cons you into thinking you're "selling" him your soul for some temporary gain, but, since "soul" from the Greek "psuche," literally meaning "cool," is sensation, your sense may be that you have "sold" your soul because you are allowing yourself to be Satan's slave. I wouldn't really call it "selling" your soul though. I was enchanted by various chemicals in the past, but those types of experiences are just a delusion. I don't think I sold my soul, but I allowed myself to be Satan's slave in the sense that the way I chose was not the truth. I knew some folks in the past who were actual Satan worshippers. I think folks would probably be more likely to say they "sold" their souls to Satan, but it wasn't a binding contract because some have become followers of Christ. I think the idea of "selling" your soul to Satan is simply Satan's deception because it is God who breathes the breath (spirit) of life into our bodies that causes the sensation called "soul." So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen," translated as "hell" in the King James, which is what happens when we die. This started out as a clarification of my perspective, but I don't think I've done a very good job. I'll tell you one thing for sure, even though I've been fooled by him in the past, Satan can't buy my soul.
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
But doesn't psuche actually mean breath? I don't think soul is a sensation caused by breath. The other Greek word we use is pneuma, which also means breath; the usual Hebrew word we use is nefesh, which is again breath or vitality. That breath was breathed into people by God and by so doing He made us human.
In a plain reading of soul, and in the way I found most people to use it, we are usually referring to a person's essence when we talk about their soul. True, this may be a modern way of using the word, but it's been used like that, at least in the popular literature, for centuries. When we refer to selling one's soul, I think we mean selling the thing which actually makes you you, as an individual. When we say we are getting to the soul of the matter, we mean we are getting to basics.
The phrasing seems to be used both figuratively and literally. You can sell your soul to the devil (for example 30 pieces of silver), or you can sell your soul metaphorically: I sold my soul to the company store, or my boss owns my soul (because I spend all my time at work). You seem to be using them interchangeably.
This one however, has me stimed: "So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen," translated as "hell" in the King James, which is what happens when we die." Could you please walk me though what that means? You seem to be saying that the soul becomes unseen after I die. Does that mean it is seen before I die?
You are a living soul, and you become "unseen" after you die.
"And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
But scripture also speaks of having a soul.
"for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11)
The word "spirit" from the Greek "pneuma," literally meaning "blow-effect," by implication means the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
The word "soul" from the Greek "psuche," literally meaning "cool," is the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit.
Church doctrine has confused the spirit and soul with the false doctrine of immortality of the soul.
Immortality of the soul is the philosophy of Plato, adopted as church doctrine, that originally came from the serpent's lie in the garden of Eden.
"And saying is the serpent to the woman, 'Not to die shall you be dying'" (Genesis 3:4)
The dead are reposing. As far as their consciousness is concerned, from the moment they die, the very next thing they will know is that they are alive again regardless of how long they have been dead. There is no consciousness in death.
"The living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
Death is a return.
"I know that You are turning me back to death, To that house appointed for all the living." (Job 30:23)
The body returns to the soil.
"In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning." (Genesis 3:19)
The spirit returns to God.
"And the soil returns to the earth just as it was, And the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
"The wicked shall return to the unseen, All the nations, forgetful of Elohim." (Psalms 9:17)
"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay." (Acts 2:27)
"perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay" (Acts 2:31)
Scripture says the soul dies.
"The soul that is sinning--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:4)
"The soul that does sin--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:20)
Christ alone has immortality.
"He is King of kings and Lord of lords, Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!" (1 Timothy 6:15,16)
Believers will be immortalized when we are snatched away to meet Christ in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), and unbelievers condemned to "the second death" will be immortalized when death is abolished at the consummation of the eons (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).
"Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory." (1 Corinthians 15:51-54)
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsDeath.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/TheSoulAndTheUnseen.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
Satan, is most likely the most misunderstood spirit ever. Likely more so than the Man, Judas.
Satan is the advesary, or devils advocate. He is no more evil or a liar than anyone of us.
If he was truly evil and truly apposed to the rule of Father, he would not "do" what he is told. The Bible has a number of proofs where Satan obeyed for the fulfilment of Scripture resulting the advancement of Fathers Plan.
Basically, Satan is used as a huge cop-out by any number of Churches. It is so easy to point the finger at Satan and blame him for everything. Why is it that there is only two accounts (to my knowledge) of Satan causing calmity? Job and Judas.
You see, with everything else, Satan just sows seeds of a different type. It is we who are so willing to water them, nuturing them until they form full disconcent. To say that Satan "Entered me" and made me do .......(fill in the blanks) is borderline childish.
In my mind, Satan is just the opposite polarity of Christ. Together they make the WHOLE. Seems to a lot of people profess who profess tofollow Christ have a harder time of that than following Satan.
It all comes down to the choices we make. (I wrote about this in The Lounge)
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
No you can't sell your soul it belongs to Yahweh. Yahweh purchased your soul and everyone else's with the perfect blood of His Son Yahshua. Anything you do here will not change the will of Yahweh who provided payment in full for all souls. All means all.
DuWayne
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 01, 2013, 05:02:02 PM
Satan, is most likely the most misunderstood spirit ever. Likely more so than the Man, Judas.
Satan is the advesary, or devils advocate. He is no more evil or a liar than anyone of us.
If he was truly evil and truly apposed to the rule of Father, he would not "do" what he is told. The Bible has a number of proofs where Satan obeyed for the fulfilment of Scripture resulting the advancement of Fathers Plan.
Basically, Satan is used as a huge cop-out by any number of Churches. It is so easy to point the finger at Satan and blame him for everything. Why is it that there is only two accounts (to my knowledge) of Satan causing calmity? Job and Judas.
You see, with everything else, Satan just sows seeds of a different type. It is we who are so willing to water them, nuturing them until they form full disconcent. To say that Satan "Entered me" and made me do .......(fill in the blanks) is borderline childish.
In my mind, Satan is just the opposite polarity of Christ. Together they make the WHOLE. Seems to a lot of people profess who profess tofollow Christ have a harder time of that than following Satan.
It all comes down to the choices we make. (I wrote about this in The Lounge)
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
I'm flashing back to the Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil." I agree, Julie, that Satan is just God's messenger of evil. I believe Satan's just doing the job he was created for, and he is very effective. It's all part of God's plan which contains elements of contrast like darkness and light, evil and good, Satan and Christ, to ultimately demonstrate the power of God's love to overcome all.
I believe Satan is a real spirit being given the power by God to be the Adversary, but nothing is outside God's control including Satan.
"Satan" is Hebrew for "Adversary."
God created evil and Satan.
"Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
"I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens: it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it." (Ecclesiastes 1:13)
God gives Satan power to try us (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7), but Satan will eventually lose that power (1 Corinthians 15:24).
Then I believe Satan will be one of the "all" among "those on the earth or those in the heavens" that will be reconciled to God through Christ (Colossians 1:20).
But I believe Satan is what God created him to be, the Adversary. Despite the fact that church mythology says Satan is a "fallen" angel, all the verses of scripture used to promote the idea are misinterpretations.
Here are a few verses relevant to the so called "fall of Satan" that is not in the scriptures.
Ezekiel refers to the king of Tyre not Satan (Ezekiel 28:15). The king of Tyre is a man, and Satan is not a man (Ezekiel 28:2,9).
Isaiah refers to the King of Babylon in the future day of Israel's restoration not Satan's fall in the past (Isaiah 14:3-20). Then Satan will have been cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:9). The King of Babylon is a man (Isaiah 14:16), and Satan is not a man.
"Lucifer" is used once in the King James Version as a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "howl" (Isaiah 14:12). The same exact Hebrew word is used in (Zechariah 11:2). Variations of the word are in (Isaiah 14:31; 13:6; 15:2,3; 16:7; 23:1,6,14; 52:5; 65:14).
Luke refers to Satan's action in response to the casting out of demons in Christ's name not the so called "fall of Satan" (Luke 10:18).
"From the beginning is the Adversary sinning." (1 John 3:8)
"He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)
Satan's most effective deception is the church using corrupt translation of scripture and tradition of man to invalidate the word of God.
"You invalidate the word of God because of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)
"For such are false apostles, fraudulent workers, being transfigured into apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is being transfigured into a messenger of light. It is no great thing, then, if his servants also are being transfigured as dispensers of righteousness -- whose consummation shall be according to their acts." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
"Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the stratagems of the Adversary, for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials. Therefore take up the panoply of God that you may be enabled to withstand in the wicked day, and having effected all, to stand. Stand, then, girded about your loins with truth, with the cuirass of righteousness put on, and your feet sandaled with the readiness of the evangel of peace; with all taking up the large shield of faith, by which you will be able to extinguish all the fiery arrows of the wicked one. And receive the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is a declaration of God." (Ephesians 6:11-17)
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil001.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil004.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil005.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheProblemOfEvil/evil021.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/GodAndChrist/TheDeityOfGod6.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/HumanDestiny/allinall.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheSpiritWorld/index.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 01, 2013, 05:41:00 PM
No you can't sell your soul it belongs to Yahweh. Yahweh purchased your soul and everyone else's with the perfect blood of His Son Yahshua. Anything you do here will not change the will of Yahweh who provided payment in full for all souls. All means all.
DuWayne
Amen, brother.
"For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5,6)
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
......
Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
......
Tom you have such a beautiful way of putting things. Thank you Sir
:HeartThrob:
Believers in and of Love certainly have nothing to fear. Father knows as with Adam and Eve, so too with each of us. Satan just provides a choice and we choose. :gimmefive:
Love Julie :girlheart:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
"for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11)
In every translation I have ever read it actually says "... the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
The word "spirit" from the Greek "pneuma," literally meaning "blow-effect," by implication means the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
It literally means breath (or air) it is related to pneîn ( to blow, breathe).
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
But you said before:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen ...
Those are two vastly different statements, almost contradictory: aren't then?
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
"for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11)
In every translation I have ever read it actually says "... the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
The word "spirit" from the Greek "pneuma," literally meaning "blow-effect," by implication means the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
It literally means breath (or air) it is related to pneîn ( to blow, breathe).
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
But you said before:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen ...
Those are two vastly different statements, almost contradictory: aren't then?
I agree, that the transliteration of Lev 7:11 most commonly says "LIFE"
However, we must never assume that the popular consensus is correct until proven so.
Lev 17:11 [Darby] for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
'For the
soul נפש nephesh Strongs h5315
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 753
AV — soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9, body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3, themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, misc 47
Clearly in this case, we can see that the word "nephesh" has been translated to mean SOUL 4x as often as LIFE.
As for the comment on the "soul returning to the unseen"
I do no see these two statements by Tom as being mutually exclusive. I do not think that Tom was indicating that the soul returns on it's own accord or compunction.
Just the way I see it. Tom certainly doesn't need me to answer for him. :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
"for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11)
In every translation I have ever read it actually says "... the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
The word "spirit" from the Greek "pneuma," literally meaning "blow-effect," by implication means the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
It literally means breath (or air) it is related to pneîn ( to blow, breathe).
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
But you said before:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen ...
Those are two vastly different statements, almost contradictory: aren't then?
The soul is the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit.
"And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
Death is a return.
"I know that You are turning me back to death, To that house appointed for all the living." (Job 30:23)
The body returns to the soil.
"In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning." (Genesis 3:19)
The spirit returns to God. Spirit is by implication the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
"And the soil returns to the earth just as it was, And the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
"The wicked shall return to the unseen, All the nations, forgetful of Elohim." (Psalms 9:17)
"For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay." (Acts 2:27)
"perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay" (Acts 2:31)
Scripture says the soul dies.
"The soul that is sinning--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:4)
"The soul that does sin--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:20)
The following link shows how "in a multitude of instances nphsh has been translated by other English expressions," but a consistent translation renders it "soul."
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html
See the attached file.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 01, 2013, 08:17:17 PM
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
"for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11)
In every translation I have ever read it actually says "... the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
The word "spirit" from the Greek "pneuma," literally meaning "blow-effect," by implication means the imperceptible power of action, life, and intelligence.
It literally means breath (or air) it is related to pneîn ( to blow, breathe).
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
And the soul returns to the "unseen."
But you said before:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
So it is only God that can withdraw the spirit to cause the soul to become the state of "unperceived" or "unseen ...
Those are two vastly different statements, almost contradictory: aren't then?
I agree, that the transliteration of Lev 7:11 most commonly says "LIFE"
However, we must never assume that the popular consensus is correct until proven so.
Lev 17:11 [Darby] for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
'For the soul נפש nephesh Strongs h5315
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 753
AV — soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9, body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3, themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, misc 47
Clearly in this case, we can see that the word "nephesh" has been translated to mean SOUL 4x as often as LIFE.
As for the comment on the "soul returning to the unseen"
I do no see these two statements by Tom as being mutually exclusive. I do not think that Tom was indicating that the soul returns on it's own accord or compunction.
Just the way I see it. Tom certainly doesn't need me to answer for him. :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
Thanks for your support, Julie. I quit using the King James years ago when I became aware of all the inconsistencies. I realize lots of folks don't want to give it up because they enjoy it. What's important to me is knowing that what I'm reading is as close as possible to what the original text meant not what some theological scholar thinks it should say. The version of scripture I study is shunned by churchianity because it doesn't propagate its doctrine. I don't believe there is a perfect translation, but I think the Concordant Version is the best I've seen. Lots of folks are surprised when they see quotes from it though because they don't read like the King James Version. The Hebrew "nphsh" translated as "soul" is just one example. I don't know why the two quotes about the "unseen" were interpreted as contradictory because I always say God is the one operating all according to his will. The soul returns to the state of the "unseen" when God withdraws spirit from our bodies. We as living souls cease to be perceived when our spirit returns to God.
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 01, 2013, 08:17:17 PM
Lev 17:11 [Darby] for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
Okay Julie ... but be fair.
Darby's translation of Leviticus 17 verse 11 says "the soul of the flesh is the blood". The word he translates as soul is
nefesh. But, he translate Leviticus 17 verse 14 as, "for as to the life of all flesh, its blood is the life in it..." The word he translates as life is
nefesh. So Darby picked and chose when
nefesh would mean soul, and when
nefesh would mean life. That's not fair. It surely can't be used as source/data to prove a point if the translation can be so capricious in usage of a word so important to understanding a concept.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 10:49:18 PM
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 01, 2013, 08:17:17 PM
Lev 17:11 [Darby] for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
Okay Julie ... but be fair.
Darby's translation of Leviticus 17 verse 11 says "the soul of the flesh is the blood". The word he translates as soul is nefesh. But, he translate Leviticus 17 verse 14 as, "for as to the life of all flesh, its blood is the life in it..." The word he translates as life is nefesh. So Darby picked and chose when nefesh would mean soul, and when nefesh would mean life. That's not fair. It surely can't be used as source/data to prove a point if the translation can be so capricious in usage of a word so important to understanding a concept.
Look at the attached files, and you will see that the Concordant Version is consistent in the translation of the Hebrew word "nphsh" as "soul."
Access the link below, and you will see how inconsistent the King James Version is in the translation of the Hebrew word "nphsh."
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 10:49:18 PM
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 01, 2013, 08:17:17 PM
Lev 17:11 [Darby] for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
Okay Julie ... but be fair.
Darby's translation of Leviticus 17 verse 11 says "the soul of the flesh is the blood". The word he translates as soul is nefesh. But, he translate Leviticus 17 verse 14 as, "for as to the life of all flesh, its blood is the life in it..." The word he translates as life is nefesh. So Darby picked and chose when nefesh would mean soul, and when nefesh would mean life. That's not fair. It surely can't be used as source/data to prove a point if the translation can be so capricious in usage of a word so important to understanding a concept.
"Nevertheless, scripturally speaking, the human "soul" is simply the human experience. Soul is the sensation which results from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit (Gen.2:7; cp 1:21). Soul is connected with the blood (Lev.17:14; "life" AV), and is possessed not only by man but by all living creatures that move or "roam" (Lev.11:46).
The expression "living souls" speaks of the entire animate creation generally, "every animal of the field and every flyer of the heavens" (Gen.2:19; cp 1:24,30), even "the great sea monsters and all the moving living souls with which the waters swarm" (Gen.1:20,21).
Soul is a phenomenon; it is the perception of the senses. It encompasses all sensation, all that is experienced by means of the sentient faculties. By association, soul is the capacity for seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. In itself, soul consists in the sensation of these things themselves. Man, like the animals, is a "living soul" (Gen.1:21; 2:7). While both are living creatures, they are termed (by association) living "souls." This is because they are not only living creatures but are living creatures which possess soul, that is, sentient capacity. Both man and beast are termed living souls because they are living creatures which, through sentient faculties, are capable of experience.
"Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version. Soul is not life itself, though it is intimately connected with it. A man's "soul," speaks of a man's sensations or experiences. A man who is termed a "soul," speaks of a man from the standpoint of his sensations or experiences.
In Scripture, it is common to speak of men as "souls." Through this means man comes before us not simply as an organic entity such as a tree, but as a sentient creature partaking of experience. Literally, soul is not something that man is, but something that he partakes of.
When a man is spoken of as a "soul," the word is a figure of speech (metaphor [representation] and metonymy [association]). And, even when man is spoken of as possessing a soul, technically, this too is a figure of speech (ellipsis [omission]).
When man is spoken of as being a soul, he thus becomes representative of that with which he is closely associated. Yet when man is spoken of as possessing a soul, the evident thought in view, while understood, is not expressed. This is because it would be both tedious and needless to do so.
The inherent idea which is present though not expressed when man is spoken of as possessing "a" soul is, capacity of or means of experiencing. The full thought is that man has "a (capacity of] soul," or sensation. Strictly speaking, man does not have "a" soul but a capacity of soul, a means by which he engages in sentient activity, a facility by which he experiences life."
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/TheSoulAndTheUnseen.html
I was kinda prepared to go head to head on this. I find your use of English words and phrasing intriguing and would love to romp along with new ways of expression. I was finding this really interesting. I had already started trying to see how Darby and the AV differed. Then I was looking forward to how the NIV and NKJ would handle it.
So I started with:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Nevertheless, scripturally speaking, the human "soul" is simply the human experience. Soul is the sensation which results from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit (Gen.2:7; cp 1:21). Soul is connected with the blood (Lev.17:14; "life" AV), and is possessed not only by man but by all living creatures that move or "roam" (Lev.11:46).
It says living in the AV: "This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living [chay: alive] soul [nephesh] that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth ...". I took the liberty of quoting this verse from the Darby Bible. The AV translates nephesh as creature.
Then I came across this odious sentence ...
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version.
I will follow any dialogue where-in the scriptures are respected. To use 'incorrectly' means you have the definitive at your disposal. As long as this is a debate, I'm in there. But your words imply you are right and know the truth, and all that disagree are incorrect. Sorry Tom, as far as this debate is concerned, I quit you.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 12:47:04 AM
I was kinda prepared to go head to head on this. I find your use of English words and phrasing intriguing and would love to romp along with new ways of expression. I was finding this really interesting. I had already started trying to see how Darby and the AV differed. Then I was looking forward to how the NIV and NKJ would handle it.
So I started with:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Nevertheless, scripturally speaking, the human "soul" is simply the human experience. Soul is the sensation which results from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit (Gen.2:7; cp 1:21). Soul is connected with the blood (Lev.17:14; "life" AV), and is possessed not only by man but by all living creatures that move or "roam" (Lev.11:46).
It says living in the AV: "This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living [chay: alive] soul [nephesh] that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth ...". I took the liberty of quoting this verse from the Darby Bible. The AV translates nephesh as creature.
Then I came across this odious sentence ...
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version.
I will follow any dialogue where-in the scriptures are respected. To use 'incorrectly' means you have the definitive at your disposal. As long as this is a debate, I'm in there. But your words imply you are right and know the truth, and all that disagree are incorrect. Sorry Tom, as far as this debate is concerned, I quit you.
I'm not debating anything, bro. I've just been providing some information to clarify a few things according to what I've read. Those last quotes were from the Concordant site, but I understand what they mean when they say "incorrectly translated" because a word is supposed to represent something not be anything somebody wants it to be. That's why I study a concordant literal translation. I would like to know the closest idea to what the original text is saying. If a word means "soul," then I don't think it should be translated as a whole bunch of other words for whatever reason. I have nothing to debate or defend here, brother. I just want to know the truth of scripture. If a translation is inconsistent, I prefer not to rely on it. I understand that there are other things to consider about reading scripture, but I can't ignore the fact that a word means what it is not what somebody thinks it should be interpreted to mean in different contexts. I've said there's no perfect translation because something is always lost in translation, but when I see a list such as the one I showed you in the link about the soul that shows the same word is translated by so many different words, that tells me to avoid that translation because it is more of an interpretation than a translation. I prefer to know what the words actually are and let the power of the holy spirit of God interpret them for me. I have said I'm no authority. I'm just sharing what the scripture text says, and the translation I study does not agree with the King James Version because the Concordant Version's idea is to translate each word according to what it means in a concordance not according to what a theological scholar interprets that it should mean. I think that's the best way to get to the true meaning of a word. Words are symbols that represent something. If you can't rely on a consistent representation of a given word, then I don't see how you can really know what it means unless you're just willing to take somebody else's word for it that claims to be an authority, but I'm not willing to do that. I don't read Hebrew or Greek. So I have to depend on others to translate them for me, but I cross check different references to confirm what I read to make sure I have the best idea of what the text means. I don't have all the answers. That's why I study, but I refuse to rely on inconsistent translations. I know folks cherish their King James Bibles. I don't seek to offend anybody, but I think the comparison of the text speaks for itself. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer http://www.scripture4all.org/ which needs some editing in the so called Old Testament section of the CLV module, but I always check what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file. http://concordant.org/online/index.html It's hard to have a discussion about something if we're not using the same reference point. Either the Hebrew "nphsh" means "soul" or it doesn't. If it all depends on what somebody wants to say it should mean in different contexts, I don't think we can have a valid discussion about the word. It's not a debate, bro. Either the Hebrew "nphsh" means "soul" or it doesn't. I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't intend to do so, and my intention was also not to say I'm right and you're wrong. I simply presented a list of the many definitions of the same word by the King James Version and showed a comparison where the word was translated consistently in the Concordant Version. I'm not the author of the Concordant Version, and I don't own the Concordant Publishing Concern. I've just come to prefer their version after spending many years reading the King James Version until I became aware of its inconsistencies. I come in peace, brother, to share holy spirit through the word of God. God bless you.
http://concordant.org/version/how1.html
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 12:47:04 AM
I was kinda prepared to go head to head on this. I find your use of English words and phrasing intriguing and would love to romp along with new ways of expression. I was finding this really interesting. I had already started trying to see how Darby and the AV differed. Then I was looking forward to how the NIV and NKJ would handle it.
So I started with:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Nevertheless, scripturally speaking, the human "soul" is simply the human experience. Soul is the sensation which results from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit (Gen.2:7; cp 1:21). Soul is connected with the blood (Lev.17:14; "life" AV), and is possessed not only by man but by all living creatures that move or "roam" (Lev.11:46).
It says living in the AV: "This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living [chay: alive] soul [nephesh] that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth ...". I took the liberty of quoting this verse from the Darby Bible. The AV translates nephesh as creature.
Then I came across this odious sentence ...
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version.
I will follow any dialogue where-in the scriptures are respected. To use 'incorrectly' means you have the definitive at your disposal. As long as this is a debate, I'm in there. But your words imply you are right and know the truth, and all that disagree are incorrect. Sorry Tom, as far as this debate is concerned, I quit you.
Hi VB, me again :HeartThrob:
I can understand both sides here. Why is it that we feel comfortable in the translations (Bibles) that we use. Is it pride? Peace, Understandability or something else. I think it speaks to us concerning the truth we need to hear.
I myself use the NIV almost exclusively, but check it against Darby's and Young's Literal Translation. Even those two, do not always agree. I then pull out Strong's Concordance and a Greek or Hebrew Bible if needed. This is what works for me. You might say I have a healthy mistrust of all of the Bibles.
If Tom is stating that "His" Bible is the "Most" Correct and bests all others (something I do not believe he is doing) Then it MUST be understood that it is "ONLY" his opinion based on the truth that he has been given to know.
It would seem that the three of us here have a slightly different take on this. This is wonderful!!!! :dsunny:
Not because we can laud it over the others, or take our bat and ball and go home.
Sometimes all that can be achieved is understanding that we are on different paths leading ultimately to the same place. However, we have LOVE as our guide and mentor. Love is our common ground.
I hope Tom does not feel less of me because I do not share his Love for the Concordant version.
The closer to home we become, the clearer we will see; however, how do we know who is closest?
This has always been the question with no answer. Therefore, no understanding is ever truly wrong or right, because not even the beholder truly knows. :dontknow:
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 02, 2013, 01:44:19 AM
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 12:47:04 AM
I was kinda prepared to go head to head on this. I find your use of English words and phrasing intriguing and would love to romp along with new ways of expression. I was finding this really interesting. I had already started trying to see how Darby and the AV differed. Then I was looking forward to how the NIV and NKJ would handle it.
So I started with:
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Nevertheless, scripturally speaking, the human "soul" is simply the human experience. Soul is the sensation which results from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit (Gen.2:7; cp 1:21). Soul is connected with the blood (Lev.17:14; "life" AV), and is possessed not only by man but by all living creatures that move or "roam" (Lev.11:46).
It says living in the AV: "This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living [chay: alive] soul [nephesh] that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth ...". I took the liberty of quoting this verse from the Darby Bible. The AV translates nephesh as creature.
Then I came across this odious sentence ...
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 11:36:06 PM
"Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version.
I will follow any dialogue where-in the scriptures are respected. To use 'incorrectly' means you have the definitive at your disposal. As long as this is a debate, I'm in there. But your words imply you are right and know the truth, and all that disagree are incorrect. Sorry Tom, as far as this debate is concerned, I quit you.
Hi VB, me again :HeartThrob:
I can understand both sides here. Why is it that we feel comfortable in the translations (Bibles) that we use. Is it pride? Peace, Understandability or something else. I think it speaks to us concerning the truth we need to hear.
I myself use the NIV almost exclusively, but check it against Darby's and Young's Literal Translation. Even those two, do not always agree. I then pull out Strong's Concordance and a Greek or Hebrew Bible if needed. This is what works for me. You might say I have a healthy mistrust of all of the Bibles.
If Tom is stating that "His" Bible is the "Most" Correct and bests all others (something I do not believe he is doing) Then it MUST be understood that it is "ONLY" his opinion based on the truth that he has been given to know.
It would seem that the three of us here have a slightly different take on this. This is wonderful!!!! :dsunny:
Not because we can laud it over the others, or take our bat and ball and go home.
Sometimes all that can be achieved is understanding that we are on different paths leading ultimately to the same place. However, we have LOVE as our guide and mentor. Love is our common ground.
I hope Tom does not feel less of me because I do not share his Love for the Concordant version.
The closer to home we become, the clearer we will see; however, how do we know who is closest?
This has always been the question with no answer. Therefore, no understanding is ever truly wrong or right, because not even the beholder truly knows. :dontknow:
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
I don't put anybody down for not liking the Concordant Version. It's just my personal preference. I tried others including Young's Literal Translation. I only consult Strong's numbers occasionally out of curiosity as a comparison because it is the King James concordance. It would be good if we could all be sharing the original manuscripts so we could read the text in the ancient languages they were written, but they don't exist. We can't even read the copies because I for one only read U.S. English. So we compare our different versions to see what we can come up with. We're all depending on others to translate for us. So we can't really be absolutely sure what we're reading is right, but we do the best we can. I think the truth will be revealed if we diligently seek for it.
"Seek and you shall find." (Matthew 7:7)
As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/ (http://coyhwh.com/)
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 12:47:04 AM
finding this really interesting.
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 02, 2013, 01:44:19 AM
Then it MUST be understood that it is "ONLY" his opinion [understanding] based on the truth that he has been given to know.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 01:43:07 AM
I'm not debating anything, bro. I come in peace, brother, to share holy spirit through the word of God. God bless you.
:2thumbs:
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 03:02:49 AM
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/ (http://coyhwh.com/)
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website.
Sounds interesting, I'd like to check it out. :thumbsup:
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 03:02:49 AM
As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/ (http://coyhwh.com/)
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.
Thanks bro. I took a look at it. I was glad to see "Gehenna," but I was surprised to see "Hades" because I thought, since it was Aramaic that it wouldn't have the Greek word. I was disappointed to see "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever and ever" instead of "eonian." I was also disappointed to see "world" instead of "eon," but it uses "age" in some places which is a little better. It uses "forever and ever" for "eon of the eons." It also uses "course" instead of "eon." It also uses "forever" instead of "eon." It was good to see the proper names for Yahweh and Yeshuah even in the New Testament. I was glad to see 1 John 5:7 translated without the bogus addition from the Roman church.
I think I'm going to stick with the Concordant Version because I think it's important to translate the Greek "aion" and "aionion" as "eon" and "eonian" to establish the concept of time periods rather than eternity which I believe is the true intention of scripture.
I've checked out some other Aramaic versions. I thought some were better than others, but I didn't see any that convinced me to start reading them full time even though I saw some good points about them. I keep hearing about the example of the eye of the needle and the rope instead of a camel. I think it's good to compare versions to get different perspectives. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, and the Concordant Version. I've checked out e-Sword and theWord, but I prefer the ISA for now even though I know the Old Testament section of the CLV module needs some editing. There is supposed to be a new version coming, but the author hasn't gotten around to it yet because he has had to work on some money making projects instead. So I always compare what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file.
I think the good thing about this forum is we all share different perspectives. We're all seeking the truth in scripture which is good. No two people are going to agree on everything, but I think we all learn from each other. It's good to communicate with like minded folks even if we all see some things differently.
I'm returning the favor with these links.
http://concordant.org/online/index.html
http://www.scripture4all.org/
Quote from: JulieTang84 on September 02, 2013, 01:44:19 AM
I can understand both sides here. Why is it that we feel comfortable in the translations (Bibles) that we use. Is it pride? Peace, Understandability or something else. I think it speaks to us concerning the truth we need to hear.
No Julie that's not it. I personally don't have a favourite translation. I have come to regard the Jerusalem Bible translated into French to be the bear translation of Tanak. My Hebrew Professor turned me onto it many years ago, and it's still the one I personally think is the most accurate. What I am getting at is that when I joined here I read and agreed to the conditions for posting.
In the forum discussion titled
Expectations, FAQ, Admin Posts , under the discussion
Moderator/TM Expectations Regarding The Scriptures, it says: "Outright texual criticism is not an allowed topic or matter of discussion on the TM discussion forum. It is seen as a divisive tool within the body, and not helpful to others' growth in the faith of Jesus Christ. " It then goes on to say: "There are plenty of other places in the world today that are accepting to the deceit that the scriptures are either not reliable, not necessary, or that don't understand (or care) that the Father and Son, the Spirit, and the written scriptures work in tandem - that they don't cancel each other out, nor one make the other unnecessary. TM is not one of those places."
What I am saying is that by calling a named translation (in this case the AV) incorrect, one is entering into the exact divisive discussion referred to in the Expectations.
I am a little offended that you would associate that with a childish tantrum: taking my bat and going home.
I actually appreciate that there's generally been a focus of keeping your discussions within the scriptures. As far as scriptural expectations, I'd like to mention the following in there as well; "We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures...discuss within the scriptures." So my view on the recent posts is not that translations are being discussed, agree/disagreed with, but perhaps more so that we need to be sure and always post in the spirit of "as I understand", "I believe", "as I see it", etc. That often cuts down or eliminates the whole "so you're saying you're right and I'm wrong and I don't like it" deal. Also, helps keep things more of a discussion and exploring together rather than debate or argument. :2c:
I think you guys can probably get back on track and discuss the real topic of the OP productively if you choose. Blessings.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 03:02:49 AM
As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/ (http://coyhwh.com/)
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.
Thanks bro. I took a look at it. I was glad to see "Gehenna," but I was surprised to see "Hades" because I thought, since it was Aramaic that it wouldn't have the Greek word. I was disappointed to see "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever and ever" instead of "eonian." I was also disappointed to see "world" instead of "eon," but it uses "age" in some places which is a little better. It uses "forever and ever" for "eon of the eons." It also uses "course" instead of "eon." It also uses "forever" instead of "eon." It was good to see the proper names for Yahweh and Yeshuah even in the New Testament. I was glad to see 1 John 5:7 translated without the bogus addition from the Roman church.
I think I'm going to stick with the Concordant Version because I think it's important to translate the Greek "aion" and "aionion" as "eon" and "eonian" to establish the concept of time periods rather than eternity which I believe is the true intention of scripture.
I've checked out some other Aramaic versions. I thought some were better than others, but I didn't see any that convinced me to start reading them full time even though I saw some good points about them. I keep hearing about the example of the eye of the needle and the rope instead of a camel. I think it's good to compare versions to get different perspectives. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, and the Concordant Version. I've checked out e-Sword and theWord, but I prefer the ISA for now even though I know the Old Testament section of the CLV module needs some editing. There is supposed to be a new version coming, but the author hasn't gotten around to it yet because he has had to work on some money making projects instead. So I always compare what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file.
I think the good thing about this forum is we all share different perspectives. We're all seeking the truth in scripture which is good. No two people are going to agree on everything, but I think we all learn from each other. It's good to communicate with like minded folks even if we all see some things differently.
I'm returning the favor with these links.
http://concordant.org/online/index.html
http://www.scripture4all.org/
Thanks Tom I am converting the PDF Concordant to e-book right now and uploading it to my Kindle.
But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?
I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR. So, I pick a version which agrees with me. I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate. They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell. Why not just write our own bible? We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with. Then we could call it the only true version in English. Or we could all become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.
What I'm seeing here is the same old story. We are making ourselves the authorities. This started in the Garden. Is this really where we want to go? If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah. If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.
VB, that is very wise and informed. Theo(il)logical bias and feedback are what have got churchianity to where it is today, failing to believe what the Bible plainly teaches. We must get past dependence on particular translations, no matter how loved, "buffet theology" (taking a little bit here and there - to the wrong conclusion), and proof texts, which promote our theology to the exclusion of many other texts which do not.
Many years ago, Charles Fort collected bits of data which the Science of his day (still ongoing) swept under the rug, relegated to the circular file, ignored, or as he said, damned to oblivion. He called this dominant attitude Exclusionism, and proposed a new dominant he called Inclusionism, proposing that a theory MUST account for ALL (not just some) of the data available. Our theology must do the same, accounting for what is said in all scripture, not just in chosen proof texts, or translations-that-are-favorable-to-our-views. Scripture first, then understanding, and only then theology.
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 05:13:07 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 04:57:47 AM
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 03:02:49 AM
As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/ (http://coyhwh.com/)
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.
Thanks bro. I took a look at it. I was glad to see "Gehenna," but I was surprised to see "Hades" because I thought, since it was Aramaic that it wouldn't have the Greek word. I was disappointed to see "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever and ever" instead of "eonian." I was also disappointed to see "world" instead of "eon," but it uses "age" in some places which is a little better. It uses "forever and ever" for "eon of the eons." It also uses "course" instead of "eon." It also uses "forever" instead of "eon." It was good to see the proper names for Yahweh and Yeshuah even in the New Testament. I was glad to see 1 John 5:7 translated without the bogus addition from the Roman church.
I think I'm going to stick with the Concordant Version because I think it's important to translate the Greek "aion" and "aionion" as "eon" and "eonian" to establish the concept of time periods rather than eternity which I believe is the true intention of scripture.
I've checked out some other Aramaic versions. I thought some were better than others, but I didn't see any that convinced me to start reading them full time even though I saw some good points about them. I keep hearing about the example of the eye of the needle and the rope instead of a camel. I think it's good to compare versions to get different perspectives. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, and the Concordant Version. I've checked out e-Sword and theWord, but I prefer the ISA for now even though I know the Old Testament section of the CLV module needs some editing. There is supposed to be a new version coming, but the author hasn't gotten around to it yet because he has had to work on some money making projects instead. So I always compare what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file.
I think the good thing about this forum is we all share different perspectives. We're all seeking the truth in scripture which is good. No two people are going to agree on everything, but I think we all learn from each other. It's good to communicate with like minded folks even if we all see some things differently.
I'm returning the favor with these links.
http://concordant.org/online/index.html
http://www.scripture4all.org/
Thanks Tom I am converting the PDF Concordant to e-book right now and uploading it to my Kindle.
I thought Kindle did PDFs. Is e-book a more compressed format?
Tom,
Kindle uses something more like Word. I can use Word format also and it works almost perfect but Kindle does have their own format and it works even better than Word. The name for the format is (MOBI). PDF works also but the font size can't be controlled so I always convert to Word or MOBI.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 05:52:31 PM
But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?
I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR. So, I pick a version which agrees with me. I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate. They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell. Why not just write our own bible? We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with. Then we could call it the only true version in English. Or we could all become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.
What I'm seeing here is the same old story. We are making ourselves the authorities. This started in the Garden. Is this really where we want to go? If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah. If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.
Brother, I read the King James for many years until one day when I was on a die hard King James site I got mysteriously bounced to another site with information about universal reconciliation. I thought what I read was strange and had to be bogus because I never heard about it in church. So I read as much as I could online trying to disprove it, but the more I read the more I began to think it must be true. Then I became aware of inconsistencies in the King James translation. That's why I switched to Young's Literal Translation. I read it for awhile until I found out about it having the same 1 John 5:7 verse that's in the King James which has been discredited by modern scholars because it's not in earlier Greek manuscripts. Meanwhile I was still reading online about universal reconciliation, and I was mad that the church never told me about it. I finally realized though that's because the idea threatens the church's worldly power to control its followers by fear. After awhile I became aware of the Concordant Version, and I switched from Young's Literal Translation to it. I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is. I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression. All I was trying to do is establish a basis for understanding a word in scripture. If we are both looking at a word and disagree on what it means, and I use a reference to show my point of view, that doesn't mean I'm condemning your point of view. It just means I'm trying to clarify why I believe what I do. If we can't agree on what the word in question means, then we can't continue the discussion on the topic related to it. You need a common reference point. There are things about the Concordant Version that I would prefer to be different such as some of the funny words that sound like the old English of the King James which were used intentionally for that reason. I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance. They tell you there are a few exceptions that they had to make due to idiom. My opinion is that taking words straight from the concordance without being changed according to the view of some theological scholar who is sure to have preconceived ideas about doctrine is the best way to translate, but, as I've said, I don't put folks down for disagreeing. I use the Concordant Version because it seems to reveal scripture accurately. For example, the Greek "aion" and "aionion," literally translated "eon" and "eonian," mean an indefinitely usually long period of time and its adjective. So, if I'm reading a version of scripture that translates "aion" or "aionion" as "eternal, everlasting, forever, forever and ever," I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever." Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say. The word of God is the authority. There is only one master. I'm just a student of the word of God. I'm a truth seeker. So I refuse to study words that I believe are not true. I came to a better understanding of what I believe from reading the Concordant Version after reading the King James Version for many years. Did the Concordant Version distort what I believed from reading the King James? No, I think it corrected it by presenting a more accurate translation of the word of God. I'm sorry you misunderstand my intentions, brother. I'm just speaking what I believe to be true from scripture that I believe is the most accurate translation. You're free to read any version you prefer, but I think it's important to understand the true meaning of words in scripture to know the truth of scripture. That's harder to do when we're working from foreign languages and relying on other folks to translate for us, but I believe, if we seek the truth, we'll find it. God bless you.
Quote from: mplsfitter539 on September 02, 2013, 09:49:20 PM
Tom,
Kindle uses something more like Word. I can use Word format also and it works almost perfect but Kindle does have their own format and it works even better than Word. The name for the format is (MOBI). PDF works also but the font size can't be controlled so I always convert to Word or MOBI.
OK, thanks for the info.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is.
I get that but on what basis do you use the word 'best'? Best needs to be defined by criteria. It's a value term with all sorts of agendae attached to it.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression.
I got that impression because you called one of them 'incorrect'. This implies you know what is correct. Why not just give us truth and we don't have to wander around through these bible thingies, we can just call you when we want to know what is correct.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance.
Because you think ... not because it is absolutely correct? BTW if you've done any translation at all you must by now know that a word in one language can mean different things in the receiver language, it is not necessarily better that the same word in the source language always be translated as the same word in the receiver language. I respect that that is your bias, but there are different translation philosophies. Yours doesn't make your way correct.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever."
There you go "because I believe"... You believe one thing, and because of your belief you chose a particular version: or you rejected a particular version. That is not the same as saying one is correct and the other one isn't.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say.
But that's not how you phrased it before, in this post you have softened your language to include: I believe, I prefer, I think. That is more the phrasing I was looking for. But, this is different from the language you used to present your previous posts. If I were to translate this post into another language, I would have to use moods (modal words) and phrasing to represent your words accurately. If I were to translate one of you previous posts into that same language, I would use different words to represent the words you used because the mood and context have been changed. So, I wouldn't necessarily translate the same words the same way.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 03, 2013, 12:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is.
I get that but on what basis do you use the word 'best'? Best needs to be defined by criteria. It's a value term with all sorts of agendae attached to it.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression.
I got that impression because you called one of them 'incorrect'. This implies you know what is correct. Why not just give us truth and we don't have to wander around through these bible thingies, we can just call you when we want to know what is correct.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance.
Because you think ... not because it is absolutely correct? BTW if you've done any translation at all you must by now know that a word in one language can mean different things in the receiver language, it is not necessarily better that the same word in the source language always be translated as the same word in the receiver language. I respect that that is your bias, but there are different translation philosophies. Yours doesn't make your way correct.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever."
There you go "because I believe"... You believe one thing, and because of your belief you chose a particular version: or you rejected a particular version. That is not the same as saying one is correct and the other one isn't.
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 10:55:54 PM
Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say.
But that's not how you phrased it before, in this post you have softened your language to include: I believe, I prefer, I think. That is more the phrasing I was looking for. But, this is different from the language you used to present your previous posts. If I were to translate this post into another language, I would have to use moods (modal words) and phrasing to represent your words accurately. If I were to translate one of you previous posts into that same language, I would use different words to represent the words you used because the mood and context have been changed. So, I wouldn't necessarily translate the same words the same way.
I say "best" because it is my opinion that the concordant method is the most accurate since it determines consistent word usage from the concordance.
If you're talking about this, it is a quote from the Concordant site...
""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version. Soul is not life itself, though it is intimately connected with it. A man's "soul," speaks of a man's sensations or experiences. A man who is termed a "soul," speaks of a man from the standpoint of his sensations or experiences."
If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.
If you want to believe the Hebrew word "nphsh" means life, that's your thing, bro. Personally I think it means "soul" and corresponds to the Greek "psuche."
I think the problem is you're making a false assumption that I'm claiming absolute authority which I think is kind of funny really. Anything you ever see me post is my opinion unless I'm quoting scripture or something else, and I assume anything you post is your opinion also unless you're quoting scripture or something else. I don't consider either one of us to be an authority, but I do consider the word of God to be the authority. That's why I want to know what it really says.
The paragraph with the words "incorrectly translated" in it was part of a body of text that was in quotes from the Concordant site. It does seem that they're correct about that though if "nphsh" actually does mean "soul," but that's only my opinion from my limited knowledge of Hebrew. The real problem is the lack of consistency in the translation of the word "nphsh" in the King James Version. If you read the list on this page, you saw what I mean. http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html That's why I prefer the concordant method. It's easier to know what a word means if it means the same thing all the time, and I think it usually should.
So have I convinced you yet that I don't claim to be "absolutely correct" as you say? I think this is starting to get comical.
Quote from: Tom on September 03, 2013, 01:45:54 AM
If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.
But you didn't say you thought it was incorrect, you said it WAS incorrect. You said: ""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version." Why are you backpedaling? Just say you misspoke and let's move on.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 03, 2013, 04:37:14 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 03, 2013, 01:45:54 AM
If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.
But you didn't say you thought it was incorrect, you said it WAS incorrect. You said: ""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version." Why are you backpedaling? Just say you misspoke and let's move on.
You are ignoring the fact that I said it was a quote from the Concordant site.
This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV). Here's another quote you can accuse me of saying personally.
"THE "AUTHORIZED" RENDERINGS OF THE HEBREW
With two exceptions the word soul, as found in the Authorized Version, always represents the Hebrew word nphsh. Job 30:15 and Isaiah 57:16 have no reference to the soul. The latter should be rendered "breath." Apart from these, every occurrence of "soul" in the accepted version may be depended upon to be correct.
But in a multitude of instances nphsh has been translated by other English expressions. We give a list of these passages so that the student may correct them in his King James Bible. In all, there are about forty-four variations. These are grouped together where the meaning is allied.
THE TRANSLATIONS OF (nphsh) IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION except where rendered "soul"
any, Lev.2:1; 24:17; Num.19:11; Deut.24:7.
appetite, Prov.23:2; Ecc.6:7.
beast, Lev.24:18,18,18.
body, Lev.21:11; Num.6:6; 19:13; Haggai 2:13.
breath, Job 41:21.
creature, Gen.1:20,21,24; 2:19; 9:10,12,15,16; Lev.11:46,46.
dead, Lev.19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Num.5:2; 6:11.
dead body, Num.9:6,7,10.
deadly, Psa.17:9.
desire, Ecc.6:9; Jer.22:27; 44:14; Micah 7:3; Hab.2:5.
fish, Isa.19:10.
ghost, Job 11:20; Jer.15:9.
heart, Ex.23:9; Lev.26:16; Deut.24:15; 1 Sam.2:33; 2 Sam.3:21; Psa.10:3; Prov.23:7; 28:25; 31:6;
Jer.42:20; Lam.3:51; Ezek.25:6,15; 27:31; Hosea 4:8.
hearty, Prov.27:9.
him, Prov.6:16.
life, Gen.1:30; 9:4,5,5; 19:17,19; 32:30; 44:30,30; Ex.4:9; 21:23,23,30; Lev.17:11,14,14,14; Num.35:31; Deut.12:23,23;
19:21,21; 24:6; Josh.2:13,14; 9:24; Judges 5:18,9:17, 12:3, 18:25, 25; Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam.19:5,11; 20:1; 22:23,23;
23:15; 26:24,24; 28:9; 21;2; 2 Sam.1:9; 4:8; 14:7; 16:11; 18:13; 19:5,5,5,5; 23:17; 1 Kings 1:12,12; 2:23; 3:11;
19:2,2,3,4,10,14; 20:31; 39,39,42,42; 2 Kings 1:13,13,14; 7:7; 10:24,24; 1 Chron.11:19,19; 2 Chron.1:11;
Esther 7:3,7; 8:11; 9:16; Job 2:4,6; 6:11; 13:14; 13:39; Psa.31:13; 38:12; Prov.1:18,19; 6:26; 7:23; 12:10;
13:3,8; Isa.15:4; 43:4; Jer.4:30; 11:21; 19:7,9; 21:7,9; 22:25; 34:20,21; 38:2,16; 39:18; 44:30,30; 45:5;
46:26; 48:6; 49:37; Lam.2:19; 5:9; Ezek.32:10; Jonah 1:14; 4:3.
lust, Ex.15:9; Psa.78:18.
man, Ex.12:16; 2 Kings 12:4; 1 Chron.5:21; Isa.49:7.
me, Num.23:10; Judges 16:30; 1 Kings 20:32.
mind, Gen.23:8; Deut.18:6, 28:65; 1 Sam.2:35; 2 Sam.17:8; 2 Kings 9:15;
1 Chron.28:9; Jer.15:1; Ezek.23:17,18, 18,22,28; 24:25; 36:5.
mortally, Deut.19:11.
one, Lev.4:27.
person, Gen.14:21; 36:6; Ex.16:16; Lev.27:2; Num.5:6; 19:18; 31:19,35,40,40,46; 35:11,15,30,30; Deut.10:22; 27:25;
Josh.20:3,9; 1 Sam.22:22; 2 Sam.14:14; Prov.28:17; Jer.43:6; 52:29,30,30; Ezek.16:5; 17:17; 27:13; 33:6.
pleasure, at, Deut.23:24; Psa.105:22; Jer.34:16.
self, Lev.11:43,44; Deut.4:15; Josh.23:11; 1 Kings 19:4; Esther 4:13; 9:31; Job 18:4; 32:2; Psa.131:2;
Isa.5:14; 46:2; 47:14; Jer.3:11; 17:21; 37:9; 51:14; Amos 2:14,15; 6:8; Jonah 4:8.
they, Job 36:14.
thing, Lev.11:10; Ezek.47:9.
whither will, Deut.21:14.
will, Psa.27:12; 41:2; Ezek.16:27.
would have, Psa.35:25.
omitted entirely, Gen.37:21; Lev.24:17,18; Num.31:35; Deut.19:6; 22:26; Judges 18:25; 1 Sam.22:2;
1 Chron.5: 21; Isa.3:20; 56:11; Jer.2:24; 40:14,15]."
http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html
Quote from: VineBranch on September 02, 2013, 05:52:31 PM
But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?
I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR. So, I pick a version which agrees with me. I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate. They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell. Why not just write our own bible? We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with. Then we could call it the only true version in English. Or we could all become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.
What I'm seeing here is the same old story. We are making ourselves the authorities. This started in the Garden. Is this really where we want to go? If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah. If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.
People are going to speak from their perspectives. If they did not think they were in some measure correct- they would not speak(mostly :o). We may disagree about what is the correct translation for a particular verse, or one may feel a particular translation handles some things better than others. This is not setting ourselves as authorities. Setting ourselves as authorities is fruitless and circular ad infinitum. We are simply sharing our points of view. This site is not for setting up such authorities. The parameters are simple. Respectful discussion of opinions within the context of the scriptures and a simple acceptance that the scriptures are dependable with the exceptions of translation issues which can be discussed, again, as opinions among peers and friends in Christ. The same old story is that some people think they see a little more clearly than the rest and are very forward in stating their opinions as facts.
Their are some things we do accept as facts on TM.
The scriptures are divinely inspired, "God-breathed", and the foundation and medium of our discussions.
Jesus Christ is Lord and has secured the salvation of all men through His death burial and resurrection.
We are here to share our faith from various perspectives and hopefully edify one another without "biting and devouring" one another.
None of us is the final authority, all of us have something to offer, any of us can be incorrect -even when we are sure we are absolutely correct.
All of us can respect one another and recognize when "correctness" has become counterproductive because fellowship is the first foundation stone set upon the cornerstone of Christ.
"And you all, as living stones, fitly joined to the chief-cornerstone, are being built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit". :2c:
Quote from: Tom on September 03, 2013, 05:16:23 AM
This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV).
Well Tom, I think you are absolutely right. Nephish is a really flexible word in the AV. It is also, I believe a really flexible word in the original Hebrew. I admire the way you isolate the word. Personally I almost started pulling my hair out a while ago trying to see what all the Hebrew words translated as 'understanding' have in common. In my mind's eye I could myself in a small padded room mumbling to myself.
When I translate from one modern language into another modern language (both indo-european), I am often forced to choose between meanings of a word. That's just two modern languages.
One of my philosophy profs years ago spent an entire semester class studying the word logos.
So, I am willing to let it go as: we are brothers who have come to some conclusions through their Christian walk, and look differently at things. Personally I think your providing a link to a specific translation is an endorsement of that translation, but some would see it as something different: so be it.
So, I'm willing to go back to the OP and start again, if you are.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 03, 2013, 06:39:16 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 03, 2013, 05:16:23 AM
This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV).
Well Tom, I think you are absolutely right. Nephish is a really flexible word in the AV. It is also, I believe a really flexible word in the original Hebrew. I admire the way you isolate the word. Personally I almost started pulling my hair out a while ago trying to see what all the Hebrew words translated as 'understanding' have in common. In my mind's eye I could myself in a small padded room mumbling to myself.
When I translate from one modern language into another modern language (both indo-european), I am often forced to choose between meanings of a word. That's just two modern languages.
One of my philosophy profs years ago spent an entire semester class studying the word logos.
So, I am willing to let it go as: we are brothers who have come to some conclusions through their Christian walk, and look differently at things. Personally I think your providing a link to a specific translation is an endorsement of that translation, but some would see it as something different: so be it.
So, I'm willing to go back to the OP and start again, if you are.
Brother, I never claimed to be "absolutely right" as you say about anything. I was simply providing some information that I read online about a translation that is my personal preference. I also said I don't understand Hebrew or Greek. So I have to rely on other folks to translate. I don't see anything wrong with folks endorsing a translation. I like to check out any translation I haven't seen before. I'm always looking for the best way to understand the ancient languages of scripture. So since you're "willing to go back to the OP," what do you think about "selling your soul to the devil?"
Quote from: Tom on September 03, 2013, 02:27:27 PM
So since you're "willing to go back to the OP," what do you think about "selling your soul to the devil?"
I think firstly if we treat it like a Faustian scenario, or something Hollywood depicts as a possibility, it probably doesn't make any sense. King David tells us that where-ever we go, there is God; even in the remotest places he says we still see God there. Selling my soul to the devil would suggest that Satan then 'owns' it. He would then be able to do with it as he pleased. Everything in the universe belongs to God (even Satan) so ultimately my soul belongs to God. Therefore (1) I can't sell it, and (2) Satan can't buy it. From a UR perspective, even if God allowed it, it would only last until Christ drags me to Him, and there would be nothing Satan could do about it; so the soul doesn't belong to him because he could control what happened to it. So, it's just my opinion but I would say nah ah to that one.
Secondly, if we use that phrase metaphorically like I sold my soul the company to get a promotion, I love you so much you own my soul, I think it just becomes part of vernacular expression. It simply means I spend all my time at work, or I am trying to tell you how much I love you. I think it is an exaggeration used to present the idea of something have taken our time or concerns.
As a thought experiment what if the recipient of the soul were God. How would we make sense of the phrase: I sold me soul to God. Would anyone take us seriously unless we were talking about maybe becoming obsessed with theology, or spending a lot of time reading the word to the exclusion of anything else? Would we really thing I literally 'sold' God my soul? Personally, I don't think so.
I know that's not a very sophisticated answer, but it's the only way I can make sense of the question.
I'd say this is the most concise answer so far.
"No you can't sell your soul it belongs to Yahweh. Yahweh purchased your soul and everyone else's with the perfect blood of His Son Yahshua. Anything you do here will not change the will of Yahweh who provided payment in full for all souls. All means all.
DuWayne"
"For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5,6)
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
Rev 2:1-4 (AKJV)
RevAKJV
Rev 2
1 To the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things said he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars:
3 And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have labored, and have not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love.
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).
I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 04, 2013, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
Rev 2:1-4 (AKJV)
RevAKJV
Rev 2
1 To the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things said he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars:
3 And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have labored, and have not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love.
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).
I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.
I think "the elect" or "believers" can be deceived, but they still have no reason to fear Satan. I think some of "the elect" or "believers" are deceived by the church doctrine of torture forever in fire which I believe is a deception perpetrated by Satan, but they are still saved because they believe Christ died for their sins and was roused from the dead.
"if ever you should be avowing with your mouth the declaration that Jesus is Lord, and should be believing in your heart that God rouses Him from among the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9)
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheEvangel/BelievingAndUnderstanding.html
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 04, 2013, 05:44:08 PM
I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.
How do you make sense then of Matthew 24:24?
VB the verse does say "if possible even the elect". IMO it doesn't say that it is possible but IF possible. I am not saying that it is impossible but the verse you refer to says "IF". :2c:
For me the verse gives several bits of information.
The verse defines the elect as a group meaning there is at least one other group. Most certainly unbelievers are a group but I think saints are a group too.
Saints=body. Elect=bride
"IF possible" means "not possible" the way I read it. But even if I'm totally wrong about that it answers the original question/statement because satan tricks a part of the believers to follow the wide road (again)
QuoteDespite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
:2c:
Quote from: Tom on September 04, 2013, 06:08:49 PM
I think "the elect" or "believers" can be deceived, but they still have no reason to fear Satan. I think some of "the elect" or "believers" are deceived by the church doctrine of torture forever in fire which I believe is a deception perpetrated by Satan, but they are still saved because they believe Christ died for their sins and was roused from the dead.
With that sort of reasoning, which isn't strictly wrong, I can just as well state nobody has to fear satan because Jesus will be totally victorious. He was
also roused from the dead for unbelievers.
The "fear of satan" never was satan personally kills people. It was satan controlling (church) leaders to move people away from God/Jesus. Or in its most direct way let pagan kings attempt to wipe out believers.
So all that combined I think satan should be feared, but the type of fear can vary. For example missing out on the 1st and/or 2nd resurrection.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 05, 2013, 09:42:38 AM
For me the verse gives several bits of information.
The verse defines the elect as a group meaning there is at least one other group. Most certainly unbelievers are a group but I think saints are a group too.
Saints=body. Elect=bride
"IF possible" means "not possible" the way I read it. But even if I'm totally wrong about that it answers the original question/statement because satan tricks a part of the believers to follow the wide road (again)
QuoteDespite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
:2c:
The Concordant Version uses the word "chosen" rather than "elect." 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of "elect angels" (KJV) or "chosen messengers" (CLV). Paul refers to the chosen a few times in other epistles. So the chosen or elect as you say must include "the body of Christ." I think saints are believers of both. That leaves me wondering why you say, "Saints=body. Elect=bride." I know some folks think the "body" and "bride" are the same, but I don't.
http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreTheBrideAndBodyIdentical0.html
http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreWeTheBrideOfTheLamb.html
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 05, 2013, 09:56:29 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 04, 2013, 06:08:49 PM
I think "the elect" or "believers" can be deceived, but they still have no reason to fear Satan. I think some of "the elect" or "believers" are deceived by the church doctrine of torture forever in fire which I believe is a deception perpetrated by Satan, but they are still saved because they believe Christ died for their sins and was roused from the dead.
With that sort of reasoning, which isn't strictly wrong, I can just as well state nobody has to fear satan because Jesus will be totally victorious. He was also roused from the dead for unbelievers.
The "fear of satan" never was satan personally kills people. It was satan controlling (church) leaders to move people away from God/Jesus. Or in its most direct way let pagan kings attempt to wipe out believers.
So all that combined I think satan should be feared, but the type of fear can vary. For example missing out on the 1st and/or 2nd resurrection.
I agree when you say, "I can just as well state nobody has to fear satan because Jesus will be totally victorious. He was also roused from the dead for unbelievers."
I understand what you're saying about fearing Satan, but I prefer to think of it as being aware of his deceptive tactics and knowing how to counter them by using the word of God. That's what Christ did when he was confronted by him in the wilderness.
"10 For the rest, brethren mine, be invigorated in the Lord and in the might of His strength.
11 Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the stratagems of the Adversary,
12 for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.
13 Therefore take up the panoply of God that you may be enabled to withstand in the wicked day, and having effected all, to stand.
14 Stand, then, girded about your loins with truth, with the cuirass of righteousness put on,
15 and your feet sandaled with the readiness of the evangel of peace;
16 with all taking up the large shield of faith, by which you will be able to extinguish all the fiery arrows of the wicked one.
17 And receive the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is a declaration of God." (Ephesians 6:10-17)
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 05, 2013, 09:42:38 AM
For me the verse gives several bits of information.
The verse defines the elect as a group meaning there is at least one other group. Most certainly unbelievers are a group but I think saints are a group too.
Saints=body. Elect=bride
"IF possible" means "not possible" the way I read it. But even if I'm totally wrong about that it answers the original question/statement because satan tricks a part of the believers to follow the wide road (again)
QuoteDespite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.
:2c:
I think there is confusion of the ecclesia of the nations with Israel. It seems the ecclesia of the nations is the body of Christ Paul refers to while the bride of the lamb John refers to is the faithful of Israel.
"We may be rejoicing and exulting and will be giving glory to Him, for the wedding of the Lambkin came, and Its bride makes herself ready." (Revelation 19:7)
"And I perceived the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband." (Revelation 21:2)
Quote from: TomThat leaves me wondering why you say, "Saints=body. Elect=bride." I know some folks think the "body" and "bride" are the same, but I don't.
I'm just guessing a bit Tom. :winkgrin:
1st Adam = Adam
1st bride = Eve
1st bride's origin = Taken out of the 1st Adam's body (as a rib)
2nd Adam = Jesus
2nd bride = Elect
2nd bride's origin = Taken out of 2nd Adam's body (as a mystery)
Note that near His dead Jesus betrothed His bride. A bride was veiled during the whole betrothal period until a short moment before the consummation of the marriage.
Nobody saw the face of the bride so it was a mystery who she was. Same for the elect. Nobody/very few know them.
:2c:
it's the water aand the blood that flowed from His side,guys...that maake up the bride....the life is in the blood/spirit
the waters of life..that we drink..and will never thirst again...and from your belly[bride's will flow waters of life]
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 05, 2013, 11:24:11 PM
Quote from: TomThat leaves me wondering why you say, "Saints=body. Elect=bride." I know some folks think the "body" and "bride" are the same, but I don't.
I'm just guessing a bit Tom. :winkgrin:
1st Adam = Adam
1st bride = Eve
1st bride's origin = Taken out of the 1st Adam's body (as a rib)
2nd Adam = Jesus
2nd bride = Elect
2nd bride's origin = Taken out of 2nd Adam's body (as a mystery)
Note that near His dead Jesus betrothed His bride. A bride was veiled during the whole betrothal period until a short moment before the consummation of the marriage.
Nobody saw the face of the bride so it was a mystery who she was. Same for the elect. Nobody/very few know them.
:2c:
The Concordant Version translates the Hebrew a little differently with the idea explained in the attached file.
"Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human." (Genesis 2:22)
http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreTheBrideAndBodyIdentical0.htmlhttp://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreWeTheBrideOfTheLamb.html[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 05, 2013, 11:24:11 PM
Note that near His dead Jesus betrothed His bride.
How did He do that?
Quote from: sheila on September 05, 2013, 11:52:44 PM
it's the water aand the blood that flowed from His side,guys...that maake up the bride....the life is in the blood/spirit
the waters of life..that we drink..and will never thirst again...and from your belly[bride's will flow waters of life]
He was pierced at about the same spot the rib was taken out.
With so fantasy, well a lot of it :winkgrin: , skin can be seen as a veil.
Yahweh created good and evil.. evil "to humble mankind"..
I think things are explained in the most simple way.. so all can understand, from 'brilliant' to not so brilliant intellects.. (of course all of us here are in the former :laughing7: )
Someone could however, and I'm sure it's happened, read the verse that God created evil and could run with it, accusing Yahweh of "creating" evil for evil itself, like an entertainment to amuse Himself by.. Of course, this is not scriptural, being as (#1) "God is Love".
That's why a superficial reading of God's Word can fall far short of revealing truth (especially if what they are learning is from the lips and pens of men)..
Which to me is what Paul meant when he wrote of turning someone(s) over to Satan, the adversary and old serpent(rev12) - you can only try for so long to convince someone of Truth (which is also Life/Perfection/God!) then you simply leave off and 'abandon' them to the untruth they are clinging to (untruth also being Satan, father of the lie(s) and opposite of perfection/love/andLife)
Can someone make a deal with the devil? why not, but I sure wouldn't trust his side of the 'deal'! And of course the adversary gets no 'souls'/beings.. Nothing is his. Although he is "god of this world" / leading influence. (Imo, of course man, does not have inherent immortality/a soul, but is "a living soul"/being.
In a dialog about Satan, the adversary, it would be enlightening to talk to someone from one of the nations whose religion is of the darker side.. I've heard tales of possession which could turn a person's hair white. And we could dismiss those as only psychological, but then what of the possessions in the Bible?
Referring to the adversary, Jesus said "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." Jn 8:44
Titus 1:2 - Young's Literal Translation "upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages" [KJ - "in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.."
from Hebrews 6:18, "..it is impossible for God to lie.."
Thinking ability includes a degree of choice.
But if God is life and perfection, then to choose any teeny tiny thing other than how Yahweh chooses.. is to become imperfect, the opposite of life. What was Yahweh's other option?? (Other than to endow rationality??)
Why did He wait and only create the universe and man and woman after the 1st rebel thought not only occurred but had ripened into open hostility, trickery and sedition???
Hope all are well! :hiya: God bless..
Quote from: Tom on September 02, 2013, 02:00:55 AM
...I think the truth will be revealed if we diligently seek for it.
"Seek and you shall find." (Matthew 7:7)
Amen!
I think truth is simple.. uncomplicated, but humans make it complicated..
For instance, to 'us'/many "man became a living soul" (became alive!?) not "man was given a soul" seems easy to understand..
And the "life is in the blood".. well, just try draining away the blood from any living creature and see what happens.. I don't think this verse means the source of life is blood.. (is it an Islamic theory first man was formed from a blood clot? yu-uk!)
In the Hebrew concordance (Strong's) the very first reference (Strong's word #1) is "ab" - "Father"
- Father, 1st, source of all life.. (I just find that to be kool)
:girlheart:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 06, 2013, 09:50:51 AM
Quote from: sheila on September 05, 2013, 11:52:44 PM
it's the water aand the blood that flowed from His side,guys...that maake up the bride....the life is in the blood/spirit
the waters of life..that we drink..and will never thirst again...and from your belly[bride's will flow waters of life]
He was pierced at about the same spot the rib was taken out.
With so fantasy, well a lot of it :winkgrin: , skin can be seen as a veil.
I was thinking of that just yesterday.. and the verse which says "through the veil, that is, His flesh.."
..and this verse.. "the veil" (in the Temple separating us from the Holy of Holies/God's Presence/His Spirit(
imo)
...."the veil in the Temple was rent in half" at the moment of Jesus' in the flesh, death.. QUOTE: "betrothed His bride" - I love it!!
Factoid:
Water ran from Jesus' side. Body = temple.
The Temple of wood and stone had a small stream emerging from the Holy of Holies.
Ezekiel has a lengthy passage about that tiny stream becoming a river.
So out of the Temple with cut veil also ran a stream. It's also the river of life. And the fiery stream (that likely fills LoF)
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 06, 2013, 05:26:39 PM
Factoid:
Water ran from Jesus' side. Body = temple.
The Temple of wood and stone had a small stream emerging from the Holy of Holies.
Ezekiel has a lengthy passage about that tiny stream becoming a river.
So out of the Temple with cut veil also ran a stream. It's also the river of life. And the fiery stream (that likely fills LoF)
Living water, Fire, Light, Wind....all ways of expressing the being of God, the essence of His nature, His spirit.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 06, 2013, 05:26:39 PM
Factoid:
Water ran from Jesus' side. Body = temple.
The Temple of wood and stone had a small stream emerging from the Holy of Holies.
Ezekiel has a lengthy passage about that tiny stream becoming a river.
So out of the Temple with cut veil also ran a stream. It's also the river of life. And the fiery stream (that likely fills LoF)
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: eaglesway on September 06, 2013, 06:28:38 PM
Living water, Fire, Light, Wind....all ways of expressing the being of God, the essence of His nature, His spirit.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: