Search results

Calvinist believe that, too, that one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

But the (we) don't trust the WCF/LBCF over the bible. Everything that is stated in those two confessions of faith is backed up with Scripture references. Now, you might disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but wou shouldn't say that they trust the confessions above Scripture.

Not dure whose post your "No" refers to. JD731? 37818? Somebody else? Just the single word "No" doesn't make it clear.

True, but is he really making God's creation look so dismal? He is not really talking about Creation, but those sorrows, difficulties and troubles that afflict us in our lives - I note that his title was "Through Baca's Vale."

Why depressing? I too am in awe when I look at a sunset or the flight of a bird, but Philpott was comparing such passing things with the eternal reality of our glorious Saviour.

I don't think God tells us in His word when He created angels. How can you be so sure that they were "made before Day One?"

Greeks may say Happy Pascha" to mean "Happy Easter" now, but at the time the New Testament was written, there wasn't a festival called "Easter." "Pascha" in the New Testament means "Passover." Herod would have wanted to wait until after the Jewish feat of Passover before bringing Peter to...

But there is an issue. Why should the word "pascha" which means "Passover," be translated "Easter?" Just pointing to translation which do use "Easter" does not mean there is no issue. And as for Tyndale having "Easterlamb", even you say that it means "Passover Lamb."

I believe so, yes. That is how the Greek word in the original is translated every other time it occurs.

Two points: Firstly, the words "for all" are in italics in the KJV and in the NKJV, which means they have been added by the translators, and do not translate any particular Greek words fro the original. Secondly, "once for all," or "once and for all" is a phrase used in English to mean...

When Christians use the word "Easter" now, they mean the remembrance of the resurrection of the Saviour. Such an annual remembrance is not found in the bible. The early Christians met for worship on Sunday, because Jesus rose on the first day of the week. They didn't have an annual "Easter."...

That is one of my favourite hymns. I particularly like the verses you highlighted.

Baptist churches vary greatly in their beliefs and practices, so even if there was a Baptist church close by, I would want to check that it viewed the bible as its authority for faith and practice.

Thank you for your gracious response.

Thanks for that, Shawn. No, I don't think it can be right for any translation, new or old, to make it sound as though God is commanding divorce. I have looked at several translations. The Bible in Basic English has: For I am against the putting away of a wife, The CEV (Australia) has...

I do understand that, but this particular discussion started when you said in the OP: "God hateth divorce and its correctly translated." That is why I kept saying that neither Geneva nor the KJV say "divorce." It would have been clearer if you had said that Geneva was wrong to make it sound...

Thanks. I clearly didn't edit my post quite quickly enough! As for where the Latin translation got "book" rather than "tree", I don't know. I imagine that it was a translation into Latin of the original Greek, which I understand to be "biblos", or book.

No, it is not one saying "put away." Both the KJV and Geneva have it. The KJV says: For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously...

Sorry, but what does, "Where Latin get book?" mean? Do you mean, "Where did the Latin translation get the idea of 'book of life'?"

But you are still attempting to assert that when the bible mentions King Cyrus or King Darius, it really means (according to you) King James VI of Scotland, who became King James I of England. You are still saying, it seems to me, that Ezra is not really describing the rebuilding of Jerusalem...