Search results

I have already quoted Ephesians 2:8-10, where Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus reminding them how they had been saved - by God's grace, through faith, not of works. Then verse 10 tells them that they were saved, not to carry on living as they had before they were saved, but "for good...

Yes, and except for well-known ones like "OT" and "KJV", it might be an idea to avoid acronyms. I didn't know what GES was until another poster explained it, and I don't know what dbr (an acronym used, not in the thread title, but in a post on this thread) means.

Sorry, I understand from another poster that GES is Grace Evangelical Society, but what is dbr?

He didn't say it was a condition. It is a result of having been saved. Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians:4 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in...

Yes, I did say in my posts that in the present time, most Baptists here in the UK are non-Calvinists. I have never heard the notion that historical Calvinism included Arminianism. The very 5 Points came about in order to answer the 5 Points of Arminianism. Same in the UK.

Well, I had to look up the Chalcedonian Creed. It says: "Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a...

I don't see any of those as being Baptist distinctives. Indeed they are all matters on which Baptists/Baptist churches differ. Some Baptists believe in open communion, some closed. Some have a single elder, others have a plurality of elders, some use the KJV, some use NKJV, some use ESV, and...

In that case, it is strange that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is firmly Calvinistic. "General Baptists" (non-Calvinistic) slipped into Unitarianism, and died out for a time. (Now, I would say the majority of Baptists here in the UK are non-Calvinistic).

No, believing that one particular translation of the bible into one particular language is perfect. That is what some of us say is not right. The bible, the word of God as He originally gave it in Hebrew and Greek, is perfect and totally without error.

Did what? Make a translation of a translation? Why didn't they do as the 1611 translators did and translate from the original languages?

Well, I would agree that the people mentioned in the chapter as doing evil would be under the temptation of Satan, so I suppose in that sense he is implied.

OK thanks!

The NKJV has: “The great God who formed everything Gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages.” (Pr 26:10 NKJV) The word translated "rewardeth" in the KJV means: 1) to hire 1a) (Qal) to hire 1b) (Niphal) to hire oneself out 1c) (Hithpael) to earn wages So the meaning, as far...

Well I have just read through that chapter. The characters I saw mentioned in the chapter are: The Lord, Ezekiel, the Prince of Tyre, Daniel, strangers, the King of Tyre, the inhabitants of Sidon, Israel, Jacob, and the Gentiles. I couldn't see any mention of Satan.

Do you mean translations of the KJV into other languages, like French, Mongolian, Icelandic, Turkish? If so, why do you believe that speakers of languages other than English should have to make do with a translation of a translation? Or do you mean translations of the Hebrew Old Testament and...

I did read the link. As to why the end of 1 John 2:23 is in italics, John Gill explains: [but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's...

But the word of God was originally given by God in Hebrew and Greek. Italics in English translations indicate that the words were inserted by the translators, usually in order to make sense in English, because when you translate from one language to another, if you just do it word for word, you...

In that case, why are the words in italics in the KJV? Italics are used when English words have been inserted by the translators which do not translate any word(s) in the original language. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the verse isn't referring to God's love. The context...

True, but autocorrect doesn't change ordinary print into italic, does it?

I don't understand what you mean. Computers aren't necessary to print in italics, and plenty of editions of the bible in English published before the computer age have words in italics. I think I may have misunderstood you.