MARK 1:4 JOHN'S BAPTISM

[Lady Crosstalk]

For anyone else, a google of "Jesus did not die for your sins" might have the odd whacko in it, but for the most part these witnesses are trying to illuminate a better perspective of Christ, and what's even better I am out of the equation!

B.S. They are not "witnesses".

Those who wrote the New Testament were or they knew people who were eye-witnesses to the revelations and events in the life of the Messiah. They spoke truth at the risk of martyrdom.

Your Johnny-come-latelys are making things up and are promoting the doctrines of demons.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

and no hard feelings I hope, LC. We have limited means for expression via typing at each other, and I understand that you are just seeking to make your points. Fwiw you might notice that I can get any of them in any mainline "church" in like one Solday, not saying that they are not a good place to start though ok.

Condescension? Gee whiz, how surprising.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

why assume? Assume, don't assume, doesn't matter, see, it is only Written in one place, and I am not asking you what it means, either. And I am not saying what it means, also, for pretty much the same reason; you can read, or you cannot

I had to make some assumptions if I was going to reply to you at all--since you refuse to engage the subject after posting your verses taken out of context. I can read--but, I can also reason and hold more than one or two bits of Scripture in my mind at the same time. No wonder you can't believe--you fill your mind with nonsense from unbelievers.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Once again, only Written in one place, and not asking your opinion wadr. Fwiw I don't see "and returned" anywhere, John 3:13 Lexicon: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man., and I would be finding where you are to become Elohim myself, or barring that maybe figure out where Enoch went at least, bc now you know he did not go up to heaven right

Technically, in Hebraic thought, Enoch and Elijah went to the Bosom of Abraham--Paradise. But, for all intents and purposes, Enoch was taken directly into heaven without dying. That is the reason why some feel that he will be one of the Two Witnesses--because Hebrews 9:27 tells us that we only die once and then the judgment.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It means it's made up crap, is what it means. Add to the Book all you like ok, subtract from it, move the pieces around like a puzzle, doesn't matter, "and returned" is not in There, and was not intended that I can discern, except by fakers trying to deceive seekers I guess

You have incredible arrogance for one who is so ignorant.

There are two kinds of Bible translations: Word-for-word, such as the New American Standard, which is considered to be one of the finest Greek to English translations. And there are dynamic translations which go for the meaning rather than the often awkward syntax of word-for-word translations. When studying a passage, it is wise to study a variety of translations. No one is adding to or taking away from the Bible--they are merely trying to make the Scriptures more accessible to more people. It is done with complete reverence for the word of God by many devoted scholars.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

and no hard feelings I hope, LC. We have limited means for expression via typing at each other, and I understand that you are just seeking to make your points. Fwiw you might notice that I can get any of them in any mainline "church" in like one Solday, not saying that they are not a good place to start though ok. Nothing wrong with Nehushtan worship nor seeking immortality and going up to heaven after you have died, obv I would love to go up to heaven myself, and to become an immortal myself!

Well, gee--why would I have "hard feelings" about being called a Mithraist and an idolator who worships a brass snake.

 

[Nancy]

Beliefnet is full of questionable theology.

It seems allot of these sites are...

 

[Nancy]

You have incredible arrogance for one who is so ignorant.

There are two kinds of Bible translations: Word-for-word, such as the New American Standard, which is considered to be one of the finest Greek to English translations. And there are dynamic translations which go for the meaning rather than the often awkward syntax of word-for-word translations. When studying a passage, it is wise to study a variety of translations. No one is adding to or taking away from the Bible--they are merely trying to make the Scriptures more accessible to more people. It is done with complete reverence for the word of God by many devoted scholars.

Mine are the NIV, KJV and the NASB. I used to have a paraphrased bible a long time ago I wish I still had, The Living Bible it was titled. Yes, I agree having more than one translation helps loads.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Mine are the NIV, KJV and the NASB. I used to have a paraphrased bible a long time ago I wish I still had, The Living Bible it was titled. Yes, I agree having more than one translation helps loads.

The NIV (the older one--the new NIV was NOT an improvement) is thought to be the best Hebrew to English for the OT. The KJV has a few problems but it is excellent for memorizing the commonly cited Scripture verses. The NASB is a word-for-word and is a very good translation of the Greek to English of the NT but is very awkward (and even confusing on the Paulian Epistles) when you try to read it aloud. The New Living Translation is one of my favorites for quoting because it is in plain English--much as we would speak. The scholars who did the translation, tried very hard to convey the intent of the words. Only real translations should be used--not paraphrases. Paraphrases usually do a fair bit of violence to the text of the Scriptures. One that is used a lot (and which I detest, because of the liberty Eugene Peterson took, in writing it) is The Message. I have done a test of many favorite passages and find The Message changes many verses in a fundamental way. I would stay away from it. Rick Warren loves The Message which should tell you why you should avoid it. I thank God that it seems to be falling out of favor.

 

[Nancy]

The NIV (the older one--the new NIV was NOT an improvement) is thought to be the best Hebrew to English for the OT. The KJV has a few problems but it is excellent for memorizing the commonly cited Scripture verses. The NASB is a word-for-word and is a very good translation of the Greek to English of the NT but is very awkward (and even confusing on the Paulian Epistles) when you try to read it aloud. The New Living Translation is one of my favorites for quoting because it is in plain English--much as we would speak. The scholars who did the translation, tried very hard to convey the intent of the words. Only real translations should be used--not paraphrases. Paraphrases usually do a fair bit of violence to the text of the Scriptures. One that is used a lot (and which I detest, because of the liberty Eugene Peterson took, in writing it) is The Message. I have done a test of many favorite passages and find The Message changes many verses in a fundamental way. I would stay away from it. Rick Warren loves The Message which should tell you why you should avoid it. I thank God that it seems to be falling out of favor.

Yes, they take many liberties with the paras. And, the Pauline Epistles acan be confusing to begin with! Lol.

 

[Enoch111]

The NIV (the older one--the new NIV was NOT an improvement) is thought to be the best Hebrew to English for the OT.

The NIV is one of the worst English translations out there.

 

[bbyrd009]

It seems allot of these sites are...

Then bam goto the estd ones, I haven't read the RCCs or CBNs versions, they might be great, I dunno

 

[Nancy]

Yes, they take many liberties with the paras. And, the Pauline Epistles acan be confusing to begin with! Lol.

As much as I do like the NIV, there were tons of corrections and full omissions that needed fixing. This site shows what was incorrect... Alan Horvath | The NIV Bible Clinic | Corrections for the New International Version of the Bible

 

[bbyrd009]

It seems allot of these sites are...

I'm curious if you read anything yet that you have a problem with, leaving the judgement by appearances aside for now?

 

[Nancy]

Then bam goto the estd ones, I haven't read the RCCs or CBNs versions, they might be great, I dunno

"estd" ??

 

[bbyrd009]

"estd" ??

established, sorry. Busy morning

 

[Nancy]

I'm curious if you read anything yet that you have a problem with, leaving the judgement by appearances aside for now?

I was only speaking in general about questionable sites, I did not say that one was and, I had no problem with that site. I find it interesting and making me think about these things that I've not given much thought to before.

 

[Nancy]

established, sorry. Busy morning

HA! That's what I had thought, dang it! I think I have Markspeak down pat then you come up with that one! Lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

I was only speaking in general about questionable sites, I did not say that one was and, I had no problem with that site. I find it interesting and making me think about these things that I've not given much thought to before.

ok now understand that to some fundie you are now a heretic, bound for hell, and prolly possessed too
lol

 

[bbyrd009]

HA! That's what I had thought, dang it! I think I have Markspeak down pat then you come up with that one! Lol.

I did it right, est'd, but iPad fixed it!