This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
Rather than Bibles such as Thompson' chain or the Amplified Bible, which offer leads,to other verses, that may or may not be related, but leave the way open, for the Holy Spirit to interpret to the individual believer as to what the Word has to say.
In my opinion, "study bibles" cause more harm than good to saints who have a desire from the Lord to gain knowledgeand seek the truth.
PS. there are many more, but I just mentioned two of each for thought purposes. :HeartThrob: :icon_king:
I completely agree!!!
Quote from: lomarah on December 18, 2011, 03:48:29 AM
I completely agree!!!
Thank you for the insight of agreement rather than advice. Glory!
I also agree.
I started reading the Amplified Bible cover to cover a few months ago, I'm now in Isaiah.
I've read another translation cover to cover twice over and didn't get half as much from it.
It truly is a wonderful edition of God's Word.
Next, I may read an Aramaic translation, from the small amount I've read so far there seems to
be a constant undertone of God's love in so many versus that's just not there in other translations.
I Agree;
Paul gave a demo of that in Galations 1;15 " But when God, WHo set me apart from my mothers womb and called me through His favour, was well-pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might announce the glad-message regarding Him among the nations,
Straightaway I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles befroe me, but I went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus."
He was not relying on others to teach him, but Christ alone.
Quote from: Ross on December 18, 2011, 05:29:53 AM
I Agree;
Paul gave a demo of that in Galations 1;15 " But when God, WHo set me apart from my mothers womb and called me through His favour, was well-pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might announce the glad-message regarding Him among the nations,
Straightaway I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles befroe me, but I went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus."
He was not relying on others to teach him, but Christ alone.
Yes amen!
One of those many amazing things that happens to us is that we are to be transformed to be like Him.
I like the image of the caterpillar that goes into the coccoon and comes out a moth. No similarity between before and after.
For such a massive change to occur to us there had to be a lot of prep work. Christ did all that to get us into conformity with His way of thinking.
Where is there any fear or negativity in that kind of work? The work is to such an incredible scale that we cannot even fathom the depth of His love.
Paul proclaimed a glad-message. People protested when that proclaimation cut out personal effort. The pharisees in particular gave a demo of personal endeavour being cut out of the picture was rubbing then up the wrong way.
Christ is awesome and immaculate and He teaches us ALL as individuals.
WOW
Glory! That was well said and I know you are blessed just with being able to testify it! Praise His Name!
Quote from: Ross on December 18, 2011, 05:29:53 AM
I Agree;
Paul gave a demo of that in Galations 1;15 " But when God, WHo set me apart from my mothers womb and called me through His favour, was well-pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might announce the glad-message regarding Him among the nations,
Straightaway I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles befroe me, but I went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus."
He was not relying on others to teach him, but Christ alone.
GLORY! Yes He is Good!
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 06:01:17 AM
Glory! That was well said and I know you are blessed just with being able to testify it! Praise His Name!
Amen.
Quote from: Ross on December 18, 2011, 05:41:20 AM
One of those many amazing things that happens to us is that we are to be transformed to be like Him.
I like the image of the caterpillar that goes into the coccoon and comes out a moth. No similarity between before and after.
For such a massive change to occur to us there had to be a lot of prep work. Christ did all that to get us into conformity with His way of thinking.
Where is there any fear or negativity in that kind of work? The work is to such an incredible scale that we cannot even fathom the depth of His love.
Paul proclaimed a glad-message. People protested when that proclaimation cut out personal effort. The pharisees in particular gave a demo of personal endeavour being cut out of the picture was rubbing then up the wrong way.
Christ is awesome and immaculate and He teaches us ALL as individuals.
WOW
Amen.
Quote from: Ross on December 18, 2011, 05:29:53 AM
I Agree;
Paul gave a demo of that in Galations 1;15 " But when God, WHo set me apart from my mothers womb and called me through His favour, was well-pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might announce the glad-message regarding Him among the nations,
Straightaway I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles befroe me, but I went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus."
He was not relying on others to teach him, but Christ alone.
Amen.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
In my opinion taking the "mind set" of the Jews(which one may think is the mindset to understand the writings of what Paul taught to the nations is off course.) The Holy Spirit is the "mind set" and that mind set is the MIND of Christ, which the Jews have absolutely no comprehension; so the Jews have no idea as to what the Word speaks after the Cross. The parables are for the born of the spirit saint to discern, no religion theologian of Jewish rabbi will understand them, for they will use the insight of common sense, which is useless. :2c: :HeartThrob:
In that case why do you even bother to ask about study Bibles?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 06:15:58 PM
In that case why do you even bother to ask about study Bibles?
Just for that reason...its a study Bible. For me it gives the impression that I will learn from the studies, but the only thing I, me personally have gotten out of study Bibles is the teaching and doctrine of the author of the "study" Bible, rather than a Bible that will aid my study through reference, rather than interpretation of the scriptures by the author. The Dake study Bible is a perfect example.
You simply can't have it both ways. Either you read a manmade book or not. :winkgrin:
I'll give an example how I study things.
Say I want to figure out if trinity is true or false.
I just read a few books that prove Trinity. Then I read a few books that debunk Trinity.
If it's about a OT concept you could also add Jewish scholars to the mix.
Then you have all the arguments and can draw your own conclusions.
That what works best for me.
With a Jewish mindset I don't mean you have to become a Jew you have to understand their society. I think that also will give better understanding. Or at least less bad understanding than the western view. A good example of that is tribulation. It's about farming. Farmers don't destroy 95% of their crop. They just process it.....
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/discussions_universal_salvation/harvests_god_5946.msg119963.html#msg119963
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
Rather than Bibles such as Thompson' chain or the Amplified Bible,
I don't prefer the "study" Bibles.
I believe they're absolutely doctrinally slanted - basically a presentation of that author's belief system - as are many translations, IMO.
I like much about the Christian Bible for instance, but some of the explanations within the verses I could do without. Again, seems to be
their point of view. I find the Amplified Bible to way overdo it with "their"
interpretations rather than simple
translation. Same with The Message - their interpretation, as opposed to a word-for-word (as much as possible) translation.
For me, just give me the very most literal translation that is the most readable. I even like looking at the Interlinear, "cutting through" the translation by going back to the closest to the Greek or Hebrew as possible, that I can undestand. I do like to see other's views and understandings about things, but leave the commentary/interpretation WITHIN THE TRANSLATION to the Holy Spirit.
Doctrinal view in translations is huge not done for me. Literal translations are great, but are no study Bibles.
Study Bibles are commentary. Commentary is just "as I understand it". You know you are reading the opinion of men.
The best stuff is a totally unbiased, in-depth error commentary. Please post a list with ISBN's James. WW waits for an extremely short list :winkgrin:
While waiting for that list what is the next best thing?
Scholars defending their positions quite often have so good points that are usable. One good thought every 50 pages and a book is a success for me...
My Bible study horizon is likely much wider than that for most people.
I for example study social life, pagan origins, marriage and if I would find one a book on farming in 2000-4000 years ago.
While many seem to be scared of anything Jewish because they didn't "see" Jesus I see great value in their thoughs.
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Quote from: jabcat on December 18, 2011, 10:02:14 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
Rather than Bibles such as Thompson' chain or the Amplified Bible,
I don't prefer the "study" Bibles.
I believe they're absolutely doctrinally slanted - basically a presentation of that author's belief system - as are many translations, IMO.
I like much about the Christian Bible for instance, but some of the explanations within the verses I could do without. Again, seems to be their point of view. I find the Amplified Bible to way overdo it with "their" interpretations rather than simple translation. Same with The Message - their interpretation, as opposed to a word-for-word (as much as possible) translation.
For me, just give me the very most literal translation that is the most readable. I even like looking at the Interlinear, "cutting through" the translation by going back to the closest to the Greek or Hebrew as possible, that I can undestand. I do like to see other's views and understandings about things, but leave the commentary/interpretation WITHIN THE TRANSLATION to the Holy Spirit.
I like that. :bigGrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Doctrinal view in translations is huge not done for me. Literal translations are great, but are no study Bibles.
Study Bibles are commentary. Commentary is just "as I understand it". You know you are reading the opinion of men.
The best stuff is a totally unbiased, in-depth error commentary. Please post a list with ISBN's James. WW waits for an extremely short list :winkgrin:
While waiting for that list what is the next best thing?
Scholars defending their positions quite often have so good points that are usable. One good thought every 50 pages and a book is a success for me...
My Bible study horizon is likely much wider than that for most people.
I for example study social life, pagan origins, marriage and if I would find one a book on farming in 2000-4000 years ago.
While many seem to be scared of anything Jewish because they didn't "see" Jesus I see great value in their thoughs.
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Excellent! :bigGrin:
This is a little off topic. If it brances out too much and for too long, I can move it.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
While many seem to be scared of anything Jewish because they didn't "see" Jesus I see great value in their thoughs.
I agree with this.
As far as this;
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Here are my thoughts; It's wonderful their veil has been lifted and they can see the Messiah. Praise God!
However, Peter and James taught Jewish believers who, although they experienced the Messiah, were not far removed from their lifetime of Jewish temple worship, so they maintained much of the culture, views, and even religious activities of the Old Covenant. Some of them were even still teaching one must be circumcised.
On the other hand, Paul taught [a mixture of Messianic Jews and pagans] that they no longer needed to observe the Jewish/OT customs, that those things were only a shadow of what they were now able to see and experience (Jesus), and that no one had the right to judge them for it.
So as I said, it's wonderful Messianic Jews experience Jesus, but I believe
some of them are as the ones that James and Peter taught; still not very far removed from their cultural and religious activities and observances, still participating in the "shadow" of the Old Covenant. I certainly don't believe they are to be judged for that at all, and some gentiles wish to participate in some of those activities (days, feasts, etc.) and have the freedom to do so. But I believe given time, as the personal relationship with Jesus increases, many of them will move away from those shadows, as they grow more and more into their realized freedom of "whom the SON makes free is free indeed".
I like the King James Bible plus E-sword as my favorite study Bible.
You can follow along with the Hebrew and Greek words and see what the translators did with the words.
I've found for myself that, with a few exceptions which we all know, King James is most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew words.
If there are problems understanding the text, then I can go to easier translations to help understand what the writer was saying, but I always return to King James as the most accurate and in depth treatment of the Word. That's why it's often so hard to understand at first. They don't care whether you can understand it or not; they are just being as faithful as possible to the Greek and Hebrew text, while at the same time using proper English.
Maybe it's an acquired taste. :icon_king:
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
I like the King James Bible plus E-sword as my favorite study Bible.
You can follow along with the Hebrew and Greek words and see what the translators did with the words.
I've found for myself that, with a few exceptions which we all know, King James is most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew words.
If there are problems understanding the text, then I can go to easier translations to help understand what the writer was saying, but I always return to King James as the most accurate and in depth treatment of the Word. That's why it's often so hard to understand at first. They don't care whether you can understand it or not; they are just being as faithful as possible to the Greek and Hebrew text, while at the same time using proper English.
Maybe it's an acquired taste. :icon_king:
Molly, the KJV and Esword are not "study" Bibles. I do the same as you as far as studying the Bible and I believe most on this forum. I will use some of the many translations of the Bible for reference, I will read commentaries but almost immediately see the "logic" in their words. The reason for my post was such Bibles as Dake, Schofied, Swaggart, and there maybe others; are "study" Bibles that index or note "their" interpretaiton" of what a verse means and teachs to be the Truth, this is where I find them in error.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 05:02:41 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
I like the King James Bible plus E-sword as my favorite study Bible.
You can follow along with the Hebrew and Greek words and see what the translators did with the words.
I've found for myself that, with a few exceptions which we all know, King James is most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew words.
If there are problems understanding the text, then I can go to easier translations to help understand what the writer was saying, but I always return to King James as the most accurate and in depth treatment of the Word. That's why it's often so hard to understand at first. They don't care whether you can understand it or not; they are just being as faithful as possible to the Greek and Hebrew text, while at the same time using proper English.
Maybe it's an acquired taste. :icon_king:
Molly, the KJV and Esword are not "study" Bibles. I do the same as you as far as studying the Bible and I believe most on this forum. I will use some of the many translations of the Bible for reference, I will read commentaries but almost immediately see the "logic" in their words. The reason for my post was such Bibles as Dake, Schofied, Swaggart, and there maybe others; are "study" Bibles that index or note "their" interpretaiton" of what a verse means and teachs to be the Truth, this is where I find them in error.
I understand. I don't really believe in using those kind of 'study' Bibles. I think a new Christian has to learn to develop their own 'ear' because the living word of God will be talking directly to them. So I have discouraged people from doing it
These days I will occasionally look at what others have to say about a verse or a topic [I mean professionals] because I feel more confident about my own foundation in scripture to agree or disagree with them.
:icon_joker:"professionals" :icon_jokercolor:
To use a term from Cardinal:
ROFLOL
Professionals are people who study the Bible for a living.
I do admit to some out there knowing more than I know.
JESUS AMAZED them AT TWELVE YEARS OLD!
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Mark 11:21
Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
I am the bread that comes down from heaven.
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
Those weren't my words. Why don't you go kick the dog.
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
Those weren't my words. Why don't you go kick the dog.
Kick the dog?
Nervous breakdown?
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 05:58:53 AM
Professionals are people who study the Bible for a living.
I do admit to some out there knowing more than I know.
But, you say you are ALWAYS RIGHT!
IF you are always right; whom can know more than YOU?
Micah, I hope you can scroll back through the debris to see my answer to your post.
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:33:06 AM
Micah, I hope you can scroll back through the debris to see my answer to your post.
Debris?
To WHOM do you refer?
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Why don't you go kick the dog.
He is only 6 months old!
It's still a puppy!
Thanks for the advice, but I won't do that.
Molly I had no need to scroll back, yet I enjoyed totally the comments of Beloved. To gather- to empty- to learn- to grow... such is our table, and I come with hunger and thanks; to have the whole loaf to myself would leave me as a fool, for it takes the many to discern and enjoy the energy, wholesomeness and luminous of the offering. Praise His Name :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :bigGrin: :happyclap: :happyclap:
Quote from: jabcat on December 19, 2011, 02:16:06 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Here are my thoughts; It's wonderful their veil has been lifted and they can see the Messiah. Praise God!
Not sure I agree with that. You make it sound they are sub-standard Christians.
QuoteHowever, Peter and James taught Jewish believers who, although they experienced the Messiah, were not far removed from their lifetime of Jewish temple worship, so they maintained much of the culture, views, and even religious activities of the Old Covenant. Some of them were even still teaching one must be circumcised.".
What do you prefer? A world filled with Peters or a world filled with Augustines?
QuoteOn the other hand, Paul taught [a mixture of Messianic Jews and pagans] that they no longer needed to observe the Jewish/OT customs, that those things were only a shadow of what they were now able to see and experience (Jesus), and that no one had the right to judge them for it.
So as I said, it's wonderful Messianic Jews experience Jesus, but I believe some of them are as the ones that James and Peter taught; still not very far removed from their cultural and religious activities and observances, still participating in the "shadow" of the Old Covenant. I certainly don't believe they are to be judged for that at all, and some gentiles wish to participate in some of those activities (days, feasts, etc.) and have the freedom to do so. But I believe given time, as the personal relationship with Jesus increases, many of them will move away from those shadows, as they grow more and more into their realized freedom of "whom the SON makes free is free indeed".
Firstly I wrote the messanics should be mixed with UR. Little more liberal. Not so strickt in regulations.
1] Messanic Jews.
2] Orthodox Jews.
3] Orthodox Christianity.
For me that's the order how I see it. Messanic Jews are closed to God and Jesus. Orthdox Christian are far of. Just a bunch of pagans. :spank: <- WW
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
I like the King James Bible plus E-sword as my favorite study Bible.
You can follow along with the Hebrew and Greek words and see what the translators did with the words.
I've found for myself that, with a few exceptions which we all know, King James is most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew words.
If there are problems understanding the text, then I can go to easier translations to help understand what the writer was saying, but I always return to King James as the most accurate and in depth treatment of the Word. That's why it's often so hard to understand at first. They don't care whether you can understand it or not; they are just being as faithful as possible to the Greek and Hebrew text, while at the same time using proper English.
Maybe it's an acquired taste. :icon_king:
Very bad taste :winkgrin:
It's totally beyond my comprehension that a UR believer values the KJV so high.
I think Salman Rushdie wrote a book about KJV :mblush:
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:27:22 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
I like the King James Bible plus E-sword as my favorite study Bible.
You can follow along with the Hebrew and Greek words and see what the translators did with the words.
I've found for myself that, with a few exceptions which we all know, King James is most faithful to the Greek and Hebrew words.
If there are problems understanding the text, then I can go to easier translations to help understand what the writer was saying, but I always return to King James as the most accurate and in depth treatment of the Word. That's why it's often so hard to understand at first. They don't care whether you can understand it or not; they are just being as faithful as possible to the Greek and Hebrew text, while at the same time using proper English.
Maybe it's an acquired taste. :icon_king:
Very bad taste :winkgrin:
It's totally beyond my comprehenion that a UR believe values teh KJV so high.
I think Salman Rushdie wrote a book about KJV :mblush:
Yes, I do love the King James Bible because I feel it's generally the closest and best translation--exceptions noted. But, those exceptions were probably forced on them.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:49:09 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Why don't you go kick the dog.
He is only 6 months old!
It's still a puppy!
Thanks for the advice, but I won't do that.
Pitty your dog has to live outside the gates :mblush:
(http://davidkiyokawa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/animated-dog-2.gif)
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:49:09 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Why don't you go kick the dog.
He is only 6 months old!
It's still a puppy!
Thanks for the advice, but I won't do that.
Pitty your dog has to live outside the gates :mblush:
Who would kick a puppy?
I don't understand that remark.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
I can understand that, but the debate would lead to a detour we are not to take.
BUT I found that more translations DO NOT have..."nor the Son"......just how or who decided that "nor the Son" be put in? Wycliffe 1395 does not have it in???
Quote from: MicahBUT I found that more translations DO NOT have..."nor the Son"......
Mark 13:32
New International Version (©1984)
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.
English Standard Version (©2001)
"But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
International Standard Version (©2008)
"No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But of that day and of that hour no man knows, neither the Angels of Heaven, neither The Son, but The Father only."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"No one knows when that day or hour will come. Even the angels in heaven and the Son don't know. Only the Father knows.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
American King James Version
But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
American Standard Version
But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
Darby Bible Translation
But of that day or of that hour no one knows, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
English Revised Version
But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Webster's Bible Translation
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Weymouth New Testament
"But as to that day or the exact time no one knows--not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
World English Bible
But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Young's Literal Translation
'And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers who are in the heaven, not even the Son -- except the Father.
In Isaiah,
Jesus is called the Everlasting Father.
Yeah I get it Beloved, I was just wondering "how it got in there?"
Mark 13:32
Amplified Bible (AMP)
32But of that day or that hour not a [single] person knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father
Common English Bible (CEB)
32 "But nobody knows when that day or hour will come, not the angels in heaven and not the Son. Only the Father knows.
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
English Standard Version (ESV)
32"But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
32 "Now concerning that day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son —except the Father.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 06:12:25 PM
Yeah I get it Beloved, I was just wondering "how it got in there?"
Maybe it's time to ask a study Bible, or a 'professional,' or wait for revelation.
Or you could ask me. But I wouldn't give my answer until after Christmas.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
The scriputure I've quoted is very clear.
About the forbidden question I'll just give two possibilties for you to discuss with your puppy :laughing7:
a] "Are one" = Same toughts. Same team. Same goals. Same character. Same ....
b] As part of His presence on earth the knowledge of Jesus was great but limited (for divine reasons).
Mat 24:36 But of thilke dai and our no man wote, nethir aungels of heuenes, but the fadir aloone. (John Wycliffe 1395)
Lamsa Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text. From the Aramaic of the Pecrapta "But concerning that day and hour, no man knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father alone."
Just wondering how and when "nor the Son," came about that's all my friend. I am able to accept either way with understanding.
"Maybe it's time to ask a study Bible, or a 'professional,' or wait for revelation.
Or you could ask me. But I wouldn't give my answer until after Christmas."( Molly)
No help from there.
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Mar 13:32 But of that dai or our no man woot, nether aungels in heuene,
nether the sone, but the fadir.
Also in the Lamsa it has "neither the Son"
Its the John Wycliffe 1395 translation of the Bible Molly.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
The scriputure I've quoted is very clear.
About the forbidden question I'll just give two possibilties for you to discuss with your puppy :laughing7:
a] "Are one" = Same toughts. Same team. Same goals. Same character. Same ....
b] As part of His presence on earth the knowledge of Jesus was great but limited (for divine reasons).
I don't know about "limited" but it was for divine reasons. :thumbsup:
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Mar 13:32 But of that dai or our no man woot, nether aungels in heuene, nether the sone, but the fadir.
Also in the Lamsa it has "neither the Son"
Its the John Wycliffe 1395 translation of the Bible Molly.
wow. Cool. That must be the oldest English translation. That's why it reads like Chaucer.
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taught; but first he folwed it himselve.
--G. Chaucer
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: jabcat on December 19, 2011, 02:16:06 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Here are my thoughts; It's wonderful their veil has been lifted and they can see the Messiah. Praise God!
Not sure I agree with that. You make it sound they are sub-standard Christians.
QuoteHowever, Peter and James taught Jewish believers who, although they experienced the Messiah, were not far removed from their lifetime of Jewish temple worship, so they maintained much of the culture, views, and even religious activities of the Old Covenant. Some of them were even still teaching one must be circumcised.".
What do you prefer? A world filled with Peters or a world filled with Augustines?
QuoteOn the other hand, Paul taught [a mixture of Messianic Jews and pagans] that they no longer needed to observe the Jewish/OT customs, that those things were only a shadow of what they were now able to see and experience (Jesus), and that no one had the right to judge them for it.
So as I said, it's wonderful Messianic Jews experience Jesus, but I believe some of them are as the ones that James and Peter taught; still not very far removed from their cultural and religious activities and observances, still participating in the "shadow" of the Old Covenant. I certainly don't believe they are to be judged for that at all, and some gentiles wish to participate in some of those activities (days, feasts, etc.) and have the freedom to do so. But I believe given time, as the personal relationship with Jesus increases, many of them will move away from those shadows, as they grow more and more into their realized freedom of "whom the SON makes free is free indeed".
Firstly I wrote the messanics should be mixed with UR. Little more liberal. Not so strickt in regulations.
1] Messanic Jews.
2] Orthodox Jews.
3] Orthodox Christianity.
For me that's the order how I see it. Messanic Jews are closed to God and Jesus. Orthdox Christian are far of. Just a bunch of pagans. :spank: <- WW
I'm glad they've seen the Light, but just like all of us, then they still have much growth to do. And to put it bluntly, why stay in the shadows when having been exposed to the Light? *Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Col. 2:16,17
I'm not talking about orthodox Christianity, nor a hierarchy of who's "substandard" or "the best". But IMO, one group following Augustine's beliefs, and the other holding to the Old Covenant customs and rituals, which Paul is clear are no longer required, doesn't make one "any better than the other". That's not what it's about according to my view. It's great Messianic Jews have been shown Jesus. Also, I've repeatedly said I consider believers on Christ who are also hell believers, my brothers and sisters, because they do believe in Jesus as their Savior - which the Bible says is what it takes to attain salvation -
not believing in UR or following OT religious customs.
So...you said "Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix." I personally don't believe in mixing the Old Covenant with grace, freedom, and the new "law" of love - and I don't believe the NT teaches to do so. Now, if I can live by it, my thought is, all are important to the body, the first will be last, the last will be first - and all saved only by grace. :dsunny:
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Mar 13:32 But of that dai or our no man woot, nether aungels in heuene, nether the sone, but the fadir.
Also in the Lamsa it has "neither the Son"
Its the John Wycliffe 1395 translation of the Bible Molly.
wow. Cool. That must be the oldest English translation. That's why it reads like Chaucer.
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taught; but first he folwed it himselve.
--G. Chaucer
Yeah abit hard to understand at times.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 07:08:23 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Mar 13:32 But of that dai or our no man woot, nether aungels in heuene, nether the sone, but the fadir.
Also in the Lamsa it has "neither the Son"
Its the John Wycliffe 1395 translation of the Bible Molly.
wow. Cool. That must be the oldest English translation. That's why it reads like Chaucer.
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taught; but first he folwed it himselve.
--G. Chaucer
Yeah abit hard to understand at times.
yeah. He's writing phonetically, with a very thick accent. :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
The scriputure I've quoted is very clear.
About the forbidden question I'll just give two possibilties for you to discuss with your puppy :laughing7:
a] "Are one" = Same toughts. Same team. Same goals. Same character. Same ....
b] As part of His presence on earth the knowledge of Jesus was great but limited (for divine reasons).
So, Jesus did not know "then," meaning while His Flesh walked the earth, but he does know "now."
Quote from: jabcat on December 19, 2011, 07:07:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: jabcat on December 19, 2011, 02:16:06 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 01:28:19 AM
Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix I think....
Here are my thoughts; It's wonderful their veil has been lifted and they can see the Messiah. Praise God!
Not sure I agree with that. You make it sound they are sub-standard Christians.
QuoteHowever, Peter and James taught Jewish believers who, although they experienced the Messiah, were not far removed from their lifetime of Jewish temple worship, so they maintained much of the culture, views, and even religious activities of the Old Covenant. Some of them were even still teaching one must be circumcised.".
What do you prefer? A world filled with Peters or a world filled with Augustines?
QuoteOn the other hand, Paul taught [a mixture of Messianic Jews and pagans] that they no longer needed to observe the Jewish/OT customs, that those things were only a shadow of what they were now able to see and experience (Jesus), and that no one had the right to judge them for it.
So as I said, it's wonderful Messianic Jews experience Jesus, but I believe some of them are as the ones that James and Peter taught; still not very far removed from their cultural and religious activities and observances, still participating in the "shadow" of the Old Covenant. I certainly don't believe they are to be judged for that at all, and some gentiles wish to participate in some of those activities (days, feasts, etc.) and have the freedom to do so. But I believe given time, as the personal relationship with Jesus increases, many of them will move away from those shadows, as they grow more and more into their realized freedom of "whom the SON makes free is free indeed".
Firstly I wrote the messanics should be mixed with UR. Little more liberal. Not so strickt in regulations.
1] Messanic Jews.
2] Orthodox Jews.
3] Orthodox Christianity.
For me that's the order how I see it. Messanic Jews are closed to God and Jesus. Orthdox Christian are far of. Just a bunch of pagans. :spank: <- WW
I'm glad they've seen the Light, but just like all of us, then they still have much growth to do. And to put it bluntly, why stay in the shadows when having been exposed to the Light? *Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Col. 2:16,17
I'm not talking about orthodox Christianity, nor a hierarchy of who's "substandard" or "the best". But IMO, one group following Augustine's beliefs, and the other holding to the Old Covenant customs and rituals, which Paul is clear are no longer required, doesn't make one "any better than the other". That's not what it's about according to my view. It's great Messianic Jews have been shown Jesus. Also, I've repeatedly said I consider believers on Christ who are also hell believers, my brothers and sisters, because they do believe in Jesus as their Savior - which the Bible says is what it takes to attain salvation - not believing in UR or following OT religious customs.
So...you said "Mix UR with Messanic Jews and you are close to the ideal mix." I personally don't believe in mixing the Old Covenant with grace, freedom, and the new "law" of love - and I don't believe the NT teaches to do so. Now, if I can live by it, my thought is, all are important to the body, the first will be last, the last will be first - and all saved only by grace. :dsunny:
But I didn't write: Be a orthodox Jew in all your ways and add believe in Jesus. Let's just say that many Christians take "nailed to the cross" a few steps to far.
I'm many Christains have very shallow knoledge of the ancient Jewish society. That limits their growth I think.
Likely their are Messanic is all sorts ranging from 99% Jew/1% Christian to 1% Jew/99% Christian.
I think 50/50 would be a nice balance.
Obviously the Christian part should be UR Christian.
Synergy is teh key word James.
:2c:
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 07:08:23 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 19, 2011, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Take a look at the Mark 13:32 in your wycliff 1395 Bible [whatever that is], Micah. What does it say?
Mar 13:32 But of that dai or our no man woot, nether aungels in heuene, nether the sone, but the fadir.
Also in the Lamsa it has "neither the Son"
Its the John Wycliffe 1395 translation of the Bible Molly.
wow. Cool. That must be the oldest English translation. That's why it reads like Chaucer.
But Cristes lore, and his apostles twelve,
He taught; but first he folwed it himselve.
--G. Chaucer
Yeah abit hard to understand at times.
Looks a bit like ancient Dutch at times.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 07:26:45 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 19, 2011, 09:40:46 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 19, 2011, 06:13:19 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:01:26 AM
Jesus knew a lot. That's why people called him, Rabbi [meaning [professional] teacher].
Yeah, ummm, OK!
He knew a lot.
Not everything — but — a lot!
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I know that Scripture but —
How can that be if He and the Father are One?
The scriputure I've quoted is very clear.
About the forbidden question I'll just give two possibilties for you to discuss with your puppy :laughing7:
a] "Are one" = Same toughts. Same team. Same goals. Same character. Same ....
b] As part of His presence on earth the knowledge of Jesus was great but limited (for divine reasons).
So, Jesus did not know "then," meaning while His Flesh walked the earth, but he does know "now."
If my only choice of answers would be yes or no I would say no. But I reserve the right to change that view 5 times a day :winkgrin:
At the Last Supper Jesus seemed to limit Himself by saying He wouldn't drink the fruit of the grape until His marriage.
I think the Last Supper was a betrothel ceremony.
The man (Jesus) asks the hand of the girl (Christians) in the presence of the father (God) and if she agrees they discuss a price (cross). The man (Jesus) goes home (heaven) and starts building a room (many mansions in my fathers house). When the father (God) is satisfied with the bridal suite he (God) gives his son (Jesus) permission to get his (Jesus) bride (church).
Because the father decides when the room looks good enough the son doesn't know when he gets married because only the father knows when teh room is good enough.
:2c:
When, if not now, is Jesus called Everlasting Father.
One, United, Harmonious, In Agreement, In Love
I pray that you may become one, even as I and the Father are one, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me....
It amazes me that Christians will assault one anothers faith over the definitions of what it means that the Father and the son are "one"..... all the while unable to notice that Jesus prayed that we would BE one(that our joy be fulfilled).
The definition of gnosticism is that knowledge becomes the mode of believing while apprehending the reality of things believed becomes secondary or is disregarded entirely. In such a paradigm the priorities get switched and camels get swallowed as gnats get strained.
I would add that, if we can't discuss certain questions of our faith because we are unable to control the flesh in the process, we ought to add the disclaimer to our endeavors "OBSERVERS TAKE NOTICE, THESE ARE MOSTLY THE RANTINGS OF IMMATURE BELIEVERS, TAKE WITH AN APPROPRIATE GRAIN OF SALT".
Or maybe, "WE EAT FROM THE WRONG TREE IN HERE"
Or even, "WHAT I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LOVE OF GOD BETWEEN US -SO THERE......" :laughing7:
Just trying to reconcile Scriptures.
If Jesus and the Father are One, if Jesus is called The Everlasting Father, then how could he not know that day or hour?
If a servant cannot be greater than his master, how could we do even greater works than Jesus did?
So,
He does know that day and hour!
The Son doesn't, the Father does.
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 11:41:32 PM
The Son doesn't, the Father does.
Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier:
"If a servant cannot be greater than his master, how could we do even greater works than Jesus did?"
It's all scripture, so nothing is contradicting.
although it might appear that way at first glance.
It's all about patterns and snapshots in time.
That does not reconcile those scriptures for me.
Jesus can not fulfill Isaiah's prophecy of being titled Everlasting Father and then be ignorant of His own doings.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 20, 2011, 05:57:33 AM
That does not reconcile those scriptures for me.
Jesus can not fulfill Isaiah's prophecy of being titled Everlasting Father and then be ignorant of His own doings.
You are correct Beloved, don't falter.
Every paradox is the entrance to a greater paradigm. The scriptures have been reconciled within the Logos. We just have to get the mind of Christ......an it ain't easy :o)
I notice in 1 Corinthians 15, it is written that all things will be subjected unto Jesus- with the exception(of course) of the One(the Father) who subjected all things unto him(Jesus).
I see this prophesied in the second Psalm,
Psa 2:6-8 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain." (7) "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. (8) 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
and Psalm 110
Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD(Yahweh) says to my Lord(Adonai): "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
Sometimes we try to reconcile all the scriptures around one particular perspective from one particular verse, but there can be no reconciliation that does not include all the scriptures on the subject at hand.
I would also note that when Jesus said ".....no one knows but the Father not even the Son knows"- He had not yet been glorified..... "The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified"(Jn 7). Jesus did not receive the "Holy Spirit without measure" until he sat down at the right hand of the Father.(For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in him and to reconcile all things to Himself) IMO, He was not the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form until He was glorified.
Act 2:30-36 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, (35) UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' (36) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."
It was the Father who exalted Jesus to His right hand, and is subjecting the adversaries by the Spirit
When God becomes all in all, it will be because Jesus has yielded the last throne to the Father- no throne being any longer necessary because of the final victory of the love of God. No authority, just being, everyone in harmonious joy within the I AM.
1Co 15:22-28 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (23) But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, (24) then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. (25) For He (Jesus)must reign until He(the Father) has put all His enemies under His (Jesus')feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. (27) For HE(the Father) HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS(Jesus) FEET. But when He (the Spirit thru David) says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He(the Father) is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him(Jesus). (28) When all things are subjected to Him(Jesus), then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One(the Father) who subjected all things to Him(Jesus), so that God may be all in all.
The perspective of this verse presents toward the salvation of all is overwhelmingly glorious. The implications towards the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son are also glorious, as we see the "WORD" of God, I AM speaks in His Son, who is uniquely one with His Father(The radiance(apaugasma-outflowing) of the Fathers glory(doxa) and the exact representation(charakter) of His nature(hupostasis )(Heb 1).
It is too beautiful for the doctrines of man, two dimensional pictographs of mani-faceted spiritual realities.
Php 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
My :2c: so :duck:
a] Everlasting has a beginning. If that beginning is in the future it means His fatherhood hasn't started yet.
b] Being a father or everlasting doesn't equal unlimited powers. Ordinary people will also live everlasting. Does that mean they become equal to God Himself?
c] Jesus had a very important role in creation. That simply means He is father of creation. No matter how small His power may be. Abraham is also called Father of nations/billions.
d] It gives you some knowledge about the Biblicalness of the t-word.
e] Everlasting is translated from the Hebrew word "ad". It simply doesn't mean everlasting.
Isa 9:6) For a Boy is born to us; a Son is given to us, and the chieftainship shall come to be on His shoulder, and His name is called "Marvelous.Counsel to the master shall He bring, to the chief of the future, welfare."
==> In the future doesn't bt defenition means without end.
Exodus 15:18 Yahweh, He shall reign for the eon and further (ad).
==> Jesus hands over His kingdom to father. So it's not everlasting
Ps 9:5 (ACV)
5) Thou have rebuked the nations. Thou have destroyed the wicked. Thou have blotted out their name forever and ever.
==> Blotting out was only 30 years. (That's even how Scribes did it with mentioning Jesus in their parable)
Hab 3:6 (ACV)
6) He stood, and measured the earth. He beheld, and drove apart the nations. And the eternal(ad) mountains were scattered. The everlasting hills bowed. His goings were [as] of old.
==> The "ad" mountains are scattered, so they are not really everlasting.
18) The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.
9) And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
3) And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
11) Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:
6) He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.
20) And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.
24) And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever.
24) That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
4) Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon earth,
19) The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.
14) The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.
5) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
18) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
4) Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:
8) Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
17) But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
15) For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
9) Be not wroth very sore, O LORD, neither remember iniquity for ever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.
18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
5) Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.
18) For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.
16) The LORD is King for ever and ever: the heathen are perished out of his land.
9) The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
4) He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.
6) For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance.
26) The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
29) The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
6) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
17) I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.
14) For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.
8) But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever.
8) So will I sing praise unto thy name for ever, that I may daily perform my vows.
17) Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
29) His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
7) When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:
5) Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
3) His work is honourable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever.
8) They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.
10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
3) Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever.
9) He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour.
44) So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.
12) If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
14) This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
Ps 145
1) David's Psalm of praise. I will extol thee, my God, O king; and I will bless thy name for ever and ever.
2) Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever.
21) My mouth shall speak the praise of the LORD: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever.
6) He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
:cloud9: Amen. We have the Gentile commentators, among others, to thank for Helenizing the church in the first place. They were anti-Semitics like Luther, and tried to stamp out every trace of the Jewish content from the New Testament. That first page of the book, "The New Testament", WAS NOT inspired, neither did God or the apostles ever utter those words, so the first page is a man-given lie, in the first place. My :2c:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 20, 2011, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
:cloud9: Amen. We have the Gentile commentators, among others, to thank for Helenizing the church in the first place. They were anti-Semitics like Luther, and tried to stamp out every trace of the Jewish content from the New Testament. That first page of the book, "The New Testament", WAS NOT inspired, neither did God or the apostles ever utter those words, so the first page is a man-given lie, in the first place. My :2c:
And, it's not even the 'Jewish" mindset. Judah is only one of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the Hebrew mindset. 'Hebrew' meaning 'to cross over to the other side' from Eber 'the other side' [of the Jordan], and abar 'to cross over.' We are the second circumcision, that of the heart, who have crossed over from death to life.
:cloud9: Yes, to me it's the same thing, but you're right.....
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
Rather than Bibles such as Thompson' chain or the Amplified Bible, which offer leads,to other verses, that may or may not be related, but leave the way open, for the Holy Spirit to interpret to the individual believer as to what the Word has to say.
In my opinion, "study bibles" cause more harm than good to saints who have a desire from the Lord to gain knowledgeand seek the truth.
PS. there are many more, but I just mentioned two of each for thought purposes. :HeartThrob: :icon_king:
:cloud9: I had/have a Nave's Topical Study bible, but I let the LORD teach me......my :2c:
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on December 20, 2011, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
:cloud9: Amen. We have the Gentile commentators, among others, to thank for Helenizing the church in the first place. They were anti-Semitics like Luther, and tried to stamp out every trace of the Jewish content from the New Testament. That first page of the book, "The New Testament", WAS NOT inspired, neither did God or the apostles ever utter those words, so the first page is a man-given lie, in the first place. My :2c:
And, it's not even the 'Jewish" mindset. Judah is only one of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the Hebrew mindset. 'Hebrew' meaning 'to cross over to the other side' from Eber 'the other side' [of the Jordan], and abar 'to cross over.' We are the second circumcision, that of the heart, who have crossed over from death to life.
The Hebrew mindset obstructed the vision as did the Helenized mind set. Thank God we have the mind of Christ, and are becoming the ONE NEW MAN, speaking mysteries in a language taught by the Spirit, because translations will always, in some measure, reflect the prejudices of the translators. :2c:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 20, 2011, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
Rather than Bibles such as Thompson' chain or the Amplified Bible, which offer leads,to other verses, that may or may not be related, but leave the way open, for the Holy Spirit to interpret to the individual believer as to what the Word has to say.
In my opinion, "study bibles" cause more harm than good to saints who have a desire from the Lord to gain knowledgeand seek the truth.
PS. there are many more, but I just mentioned two of each for thought purposes. :HeartThrob: :icon_king:
:cloud9: I had/have a Nave's Topical Study bible, but I let the LORD teach me......my :2c:
It presents a balance for/with ones intellect.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 22, 2011, 02:31:39 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on December 20, 2011, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 18, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 18, 2011, 02:22:35 AM
This is my question, are "study" Bibles such as Scofield's study bible, Swaggarts "Expository" bible, or any study bible; are they not "doctrine/teaching bibles?"
I think there is almost no material that isn't doctrinal. If you read one you also must read others to get a balanced view,
Just my :2c: but the best commentaries are from Jews or about Jews. In such books you will find doctrine too, but the advantage is that you learn to understand the Jewish mindset. Most commentaries only teach you a western/Hellenized mindset.
Understanding the Jewish mind is the best foundation for understanding all sorts of parables. And that what unlocks a lot of insight.
:cloud9: Amen. We have the Gentile commentators, among others, to thank for Helenizing the church in the first place. They were anti-Semitics like Luther, and tried to stamp out every trace of the Jewish content from the New Testament. That first page of the book, "The New Testament", WAS NOT inspired, neither did God or the apostles ever utter those words, so the first page is a man-given lie, in the first place. My :2c:
And, it's not even the 'Jewish" mindset. Judah is only one of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the Hebrew mindset. 'Hebrew' meaning 'to cross over to the other side' from Eber 'the other side' [of the Jordan], and abar 'to cross over.' We are the second circumcision, that of the heart, who have crossed over from death to life.
The Hebrew mindset obstructed the vision as did the Helenized mind set. Thank God we have the mind of Christ, and are becoming the ONE NEW MAN, speaking mysteries in a language taught by the Spirit, because translations will always, in some measure, reflect the prejudices of the translators. :2c:
:cloud9: Yes, I can see that to be true to a certain extent, because it takes the Spirit to interpret the natural. But at least the Hebrew "stones" contain the Spirit in the first place. I believe all of creation was formed from the impartation of the Spirit in the letters; sort of a "code" He breathed into place, like our DNA on a lesser scale. The letters themselves are as the left hand of God (one forms all of them), the Spirit is what moves that hand. My :2c:
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Why don't you go kick the dog.
Why would anyone want to do this?
I dunno, at least a person can kick back. Poor dog, he got no feets.
Quote from: Molly on December 22, 2011, 06:22:36 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 22, 2011, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 19, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
Why don't you go kick the dog.
Why would anyone want to do this?
Because it's an improvement on kicking a person.
I still don't understand.
Are you calling some people, dogs?
Quoteb] Being a father or everlasting doesn't equal unlimited powers. Ordinary people will also live everlasting. Does that mean they become equal to God Himself?
Phillipians 2
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
John 13
16Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
Doesn't say a servant cannot be equal with his master. I think we will be equal with Jesus, not the Father.