Can anyone come play?

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:12 pm

I posted a couple of things, then started to read a little more on the board. I'm not part of any organized religion, but I am religious is a strange way. So can I still post even though I’m different?

I like to talk religion with folks. I don’t think anyone’s views are wrong, just different. And think goodness they are different or this would be a boring world. So anything I post don’t take it personal because I’d never attack someone’s personal belief, but I will ask lots of questions out of curiosity. Wink

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

HW,

Come play Smile

! I believe in good, thoughtful discussion. And I love questions. I am very opinionated and several who post here are too. I have required of myself, and all others, that we be respectful on this board. Ask away and I hope that others will chime in. My answers will always be (I hope) substantiated with/by Scripture and not personal opinion, unless the precepts are no where to be found, directly, in Scripture. It's at that point where you have to try to see if there is a Principle that governs the decision. For example, nowhere in Scripture does it tell you that you can't or shouldn't eat meat. So, if I am with you and you believe it is wrong to eat meat, I will ask you why. If you were to tell me that God commands it, I would ask you where? And so on, and so on. But, at the end of the day, if it still offends you, then in your presence I would not eat meat. The Apostle Paul actually did address this issue and summed it up with "If it offends my brother to eat meat then I will not eat meat".

Then again, if you would rather I stay out of these discussions, I will honor that too Wink

. I'm pretty flexible too Laughing

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:13 am

Great

So we are on the same page .. which version of the Bible do you read? I have 3 versions that are slightly different. The one I read the most is my Hebrew Bible. I read my Latin one when I was learning Latin ... and then I have my father's King James version.

I like my KJ version because all the chapters have referance dates that are in accordance with Ussher's Chronology, plus maps of the area that are spoken of in the book (even a map of the missionary journeys of the Apositle Paul)

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:43 am

KJV (1611) and the Scofield are my preferred translations/versions. As to the statements that the KJV has been revised many times before 1800, I subscribe to the "revisions" were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene. Now I am not an expert in this but men who I respect have laid out the facts concerning this. I recall doing some studying from a well respected Latin translation and it appeared to be truer to the Greek than any other. Most other languages are much more explicit than English. Take, for instance, the Grrek word "love". There are 4 Greek words for "love", making the context easily translated by the word itself and not guessing the type of love based on context. In English I would say "I LOVE you". Now, you don't esepcially know if I mean

I "love" (gr. phileo) you
I "love" (gr. eros) you
I "love" (gr. agape) you
I "love" (gr. stergo) you

Same in Latin although there may be more/less words.

In the Greek (borrowed):

Eros -- This is the word used for sensual or physical love. Eros was the Greek god of love. This word does not appear in the New Testament.

Stergo -- This word means to feel affection, especially the affection between parents and children. It is also used of the affection of a people for their king or a dog for his master. It does not appear in the New Testament, except in compound form in Romans 12:10 (philostorgos) where it is translated as "devoted." The negative form (astorgos) appears in Romans 1:31 ("heartless," "unloving") and 2 Timothy 3:3 ("without love," "unloving").

Philo -- This is the general word for love and affection. It is used for attraction of people to one another without regard for family relationships, such as philadelphia, the love of a friend or brother, 2 Pet 2:17. It is frequently used in compound forms and, as such, may be used for attraction to inanimate objects -- philosophia -- the love of knowledge, Col 2:8.

Agape (noun) and agapao (verb) -- This is the word of Godly love. This special significance really comes in the New Testament period. Agape is not found in secular literature, at least to any great extent, during the biblical period. The writers of the Septuagint use the noun some twenty times, but use the verb form over 250 times. In general terms, the Septuagint translators "invented" a new meaning for agape by using in to replace the Hebrew hesed, a word meaning loving-kindness.

The New Testament writers continued the use of agape. While there are situations where agape and philo seem to be used interchangeably, most notably in John’s writings, in general, agape has become the love of God shown to His creation. In more than one sense of the word, agape becomes grace in action.

The point of this is that agape is a verb or noun of action. Men must choose to exercise agape, the same as God has chosen. It is not an emotional or passive position, but one of deciding to love. This is how we can love our unsaved neighbors as well as our enemies. We choose to exercise the same agape towards them that God has shown us!

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:22 am

Raven wrote:

KJV (1611) and the Scofield are my preferred translations/versions. As to the statements that the KJV has been revised many times before 1800, I subscribe to the "revisions" were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments.

Great. I've always felt the "revisions" were to correct translation error. English is a hard language to translate into with all the grammer rules Smile

The meanings have never changed, just the order of words.

registered · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:08 pm

I use the New King James version in church.

I like using NASB for study.

I have an NIV but don't use it as much.

If I find a verse that is interesting to me I will read it in all the versions.

Probably my favorite version would have to be NASB.

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:31 am

TheosEleos wrote:

Probably my favorite version would have to be NASB.

Ok I haven't asked a question like this in years Wink

What does NASB stand for? Smile

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:33 am

New American Standard Bible