Search results

I see the financial thing frequently. I always wonder just how official it needs to be. Does it really need the government's approval? How about the church's? What if the two people just stand in a living room in front of some friends and pledge themselves to each other? That good enough?

I always seem to start with King Jimmy's version, because that's what we memorized verses out of when I was a lad.

If that's what you think, then I don't think you understood what you read there. Takes a bit of hubris to think you have the thought of every Biblical writer all the time. I'm not in the King-James-Only camp. I'm not tearing down the NIV to prop up the KJV. I'm tearing down the NIV because...

So, the thing is, for several centuries, if you were Catholic and you participated in translating the Bible into the common language, the church ex-communicated you. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest... right up until he wasn't.

Pseudepigraphs don't try to undermine Scriptural authority. They try to co-opt its authority for themselves. Yes. Unlikely. Where these manuscripts diverge from orthodoxy, they don't promote core gnostic ideas. The issue is a defective Christology. You have these chronologically backwards...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/ That website has basically every mainstream translation, plus interlinear Hebrew/Greek to English, plus morphology for each original language word, plus the LXX and Vulgate, plus Strong's concordance linked by word, plus Thayer's lexicon, plus chain references...

Honestly just waiting for theology to catch up to the sciences on this. We have the Amorites and Canaanites record of their ancestors being Rephaim, which is one of the Biblical words translated giants.

Sola Scriptura wasn't an idea back then. Authority within the church was invested in apostles first, and then bishops. It is frequent within the early writings of the church for someone to seek to undermine a certain PERSON, but not THE BIBLE, which wasn't really canonized til the late 3rd or...

I'd go. He's my brother. His status as brother is not conditioned on his behaving the way he ought to, or the way I think he ought to.

That doesn't make much sense. Sola Scriptura wasn't even proposed til the 16th century. You want me to believe that translators who lived a thousand years before that were trying to undermine that idea?

I would encourage you (and him) to look at some theological positions that don't require that God either puts everyone in heaven or hell. Not every flavor of Christianity is that binary. Annihilationism is the belief that God causes some/many people to simply cease to exist after the judgment...

:facepalm:

Did you mean to reply to me? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said.

Memorization of the entire Torah (or more commonly just the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah) is definitely an ancient Jewish practice. We should talk about the timing of that. The Israelites of Moses' day installed a system of judges and clan leaders and tribal leaders to administrate justice. Those...

I disagree. He DEFINITELY endorsed the views of John... THE BAPTIST.. and built upon them.

No. WRONG. SO WRONG. AI is SO SO SO BAD at this. No, the pre-Nicene church did not consider the issue of canonicity. The 1st-century church did NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT consider the idea of canonicity. Canonicity wasn't a thing in the 1st -century. edit: Someone (@elonmusk) needs to update all...

The early church fathers didn't consider ANY books for canonicity AT ALL. That happened hundreds of years later. As for Enoch, nobody in the Roman tradition appears to have been well-acquainted with it. The only people who write about it are those from African churches - Egypt, Carthage, etc.

That's a perfectly reasonable explanation of the verses. Just one problem... it isn't how the Jews in the 1st century interpreted it. That isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but it isn't a point in your favor.

Grab your NIV. Open it to the introduction. You can read where the translators tell you themselves that they forsook accepted norms for translation and did something completely new. You can further read where they tell you that their new process severs the link between English grammar and the...

Why would anyone need to prove something that can simply be observed? Do you also want proof that the sky is blue? That grass grows when watered? What are we doing here?