Search results

1. ESV study Bible. Good book introduction, helpful maps, great study notes and very helpful articles on things like textual criticism and christian ethics in the back. When you come accross verses that are debated in meaning, the study Bible often provides multiple interpretations. While this...

...other than the cults that do that very thing Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Surely you are not using these sources to suggest that μονογενης only means "only begotten"??? I am sure I have just missed something, but looking at Van's charge and your reply, that is how it seems. Perhaps your point is that the word "can " mean "only begotten". BDAG 1...to being the only...

You are heavily reading into the word. μονογενής never means "eternally begotten". You need the word αἰώνιος here and you do not have it. You only have "produced" or generated ". If you want μονογενης to mean "eternally begotten" then Issac is going cause you some problems in Hebrews 11:17...

That is not what it means. It means to generate or produce. I have never seen anyone claim the word "begotten" mean "not created.". Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Your logic here is off. "Begotten" is more likely to make people miss Jesus being Yahweh than "unique one". Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nicodemus thought it was about physical birth and was corrected. It is about salvation by God. A spiritual birth from above. Specifically executed by the unique one who has no one like Him...not even among the Godhead. Jesus' physical birth is not being stressed. His uniqueness as a whole is. I...

One could say based on the more immediate context, verse 13...the uniqueness of Jesus is on display...how he is the only one to do something...and accordingly unique is better. Plus the context of the first 3 chapters is showing how Jesus is unique not only among man, but also unique among the...

Yes, but this verse isn't talking about his flesh. If it was Adam would qualify as well. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That is exactly what it is. It is not a bad thing, but it ignores the gender form...and rightfully so. It conveys meaning over form. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I certainly believe so. The gender form of Greek should not always be brought into English. Just as calling αμαρτία (sin) a "she" would cloud the meaning, so does calling the Holy Spirit an "it". Greek gender does not always convey sex (male/female). Context is king. Sent from my SM-G965U...

As @rlvaughn as pointed out with John 1:32, this is not an embellishment. The KJV is actually more "formal" than others such as the NASB by using "it". The greek form is gender neuter which is conveyed by the KJV and ESV. However, based on the context of Scripture and how God has revealed...

I haven't seen anything other than 2 organizations represent on the EIT received Soros money. The EIT directly received no Soros money and the ERLC received no EIT money. Breitbart has not even offered a link...just guilt by association. The only person I see reall pushing hard on this is...

When ever I looked into..Soros gave 2% of total budget to the NIF. The NIF gave money to the EIT. The EIT has fans, support and leaders from the likes of Greer and Akin, but no money moved from either group to the ERLC. So, no EXPLAINER: ERLC, George Soros and Evangelical Immigration Table...

Paul Washer delivered what is perhaps the best sermon I have ever heard at the conference this weekend. Once it hits YouTube, I hope you all check it out. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I always translate ἁγίοις has "holy ones". It just made more sense to me since it was the plural of Άγιος (holy). Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What???? Not even close. The NIV is a much better product. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Just playing out the conclusion of one poster. If the poor are chosen because they are rich in faith....then they were also chosen because they were already heirs to the Kingdom. If we do not allow "to be" then the poor were already heirs before they were elected. If they were saved before...

Pohill(NAC)and Bock (Baker) are my go to commentaries for Acts. I recently acquired Marshal but have yet to read it. I prefer Bock over the ones listed. ***listed commentiares for Luke....fixed it :) Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well, the way too inclusive language is about 5 verses. So let's grant that the NIV 2011 botches 5 verses on gender language. Does that make it a bad translation? I would say no. Romans 16:7 is probably the worst, but that doesn't disqualify it has a viable translation. Overall the NIV2011 is...