-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I didnt say they dont exist. I ask what is their relevance? Ill answer for you NONE! THE ONLY ONE WE FOLLOW IS CHRIST. Through His Holy Spirit He leads us now. I dont follow calvin and i dont follow your sunday pastor. I follow Jesus Christ and the teachings of scripture. NOT MEN. I suggest you do the same sir.
Well, I consider the KJV as Scripture soooo.
Too bad you have nothing you can have that attitude towards. You can’t keep His words because you don’t have them. You do not tremble at His word, meditate on His word, rejoice over His word, because you believe you do not have it. Do you see how sad that is?
Too bad you have nothing you can have that attitude towards. You can’t keep His words because you don’t have them. You do not tremble at His word, meditate on His word, rejoice over His word, because you believe you do not have it. Do you see how sad that is?
Staying alive through the tribulation.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Your accusation that I have nothing is not only factually incorrect, but irrelevant to the wrongness of your position. It's fallacious in at least two different ways.
The problem with your position is that Scripture exists independently of the KJV. It existed before the KJV, and should the KJV ever cease to be, Scripture will still exist. The KJV at best is a translation of Scripture. As such, it is not alone in being Scripture, to the exclusion of anything else.
You continually claim that God is concerned about individual words. I have no problem with that statement by itself, but you imply that the words of the KJV are God's specific choice of words. That is indefensible historically, linguistically, and culturally. God did not inspire the KJV as He did the originals.
The problem with your position is that Scripture exists independently of the KJV. It existed before the KJV, and should the KJV ever cease to be, Scripture will still exist. The KJV at best is a translation of Scripture. As such, it is not alone in being Scripture, to the exclusion of anything else.
You continually claim that God is concerned about individual words. I have no problem with that statement by itself, but you imply that the words of the KJV are God's specific choice of words. That is indefensible historically, linguistically, and culturally. God did not inspire the KJV as He did the originals.
in Hebrew there is only one word for sacrifice/offering.
in Greek there is this word, meaning sacrifice, and another meaning gift/offering. in a couple places this word is used for non-bloody offerings, Phil. 4:18, Romans 12:1 -- which you could argue, are figurative, but then also Christ in Matthew 9:13 uses it in a way that refers to both grain & meat offerings, citing Hosea, and also in Mark 9:49, saying ever 'sacrifice' is salted, with reference to Leviticus 2:13 which is specifically grain offerings. also in Mark 12:33 Christ uses this word thysia differentiating it from burnt offerings, which are those that are consumed entirely by fire: so He refers to all other offerings with thysia, including grain & drink offerings, and including offerings for thanksgiving which could be either bloody or not-bloody.
in Hebrews 11, it is said Abel brought a "better thysia than Cain" - indicating they were both bringing a gift of the same type/purpose. this isn't necessarily an offering for sin; it could be a freewill or thanksgiving offering ((if we assume that what they do is a type of something that was to come much later in the law)). such sacrifices either could or could not include blood, in the law ((tho they are not doing this under the law - it was given much later))
the other word in Greek, doron, which is generally used for any offering, sacrifice, gift or present ((as the Hebrew word)) is also present in Hebrews 11:4 - "when God spoke well of his offerings" -- so Abel's gift is described with both of the Greek words, not just one. because of this, and because Cain's gift is also being referred to in this passage by way of contrast ((a better offering than Cain)), it is written as descriptive, not proscriptive. that is, Abel's gift is being described as an offering of blood ((tho i'd dispute that word can only mean blood sacrifice)) because that's what it was, an animal having been sacrificed. it's not being described as a blood sacrifice because he was keeping the law of Moses 2,500 years before the law of Moses was given. if you insist that these two Greek words represent an hard division between bloody/non-bloody offerings, then the fact that Abel's is described using both words in the very same verse tells us that the offering the brothers were bringing was one that could be either bloody or non-bloody.
for example a freewill offering or thanksgiving offering: i.e. an offering that was brought voluntarily apart from a command or requirement of law. this 'fits' because Genesis 1-4 provides no record of commandment to sacrifice whatsoever. we can insert opinions that they 'must have been given all the mitzvah' but the text itself never says that; it never says they had been given any set of laws at all, but only intimates that they knew what was right and what was wrong.
so you see bro, digging into the Greek does not tell me that what they were doing was something that required blood. even if it did, it wouldn't tell me that they were making an offering for atonement of their sin, because they could be just as well bringing blood sacrifices for a new moon festival or prefiguring the daily offering of the temple. thysia in Hebrews 11:4 is describing what Abel brought, not describing why he brought it - and doron is doing the same thing in the very same verse. "by faith" is describing why he brought what he brought.
also as i have mentioned a few times, that they brought these things 'in the course of time' doesn't jive with the idea that the two of them sinned and so they were seeking atonement. there's no such record in Genesis, and the record of Genesis is sufficient in itself to know what is going on here. that's all the author of Hebrews had in order to figure out that Abel was making a better gift by faith. there's no indication in Genesis 4 that they were doing this for their transgressions, and what transgression offering is made 'in the course of time' ?
in the course of time.
do you think this was the first time they brought such an offering? first offering they ever made?
how old are they? what are they wearing?
in Greek there is this word, meaning sacrifice, and another meaning gift/offering. in a couple places this word is used for non-bloody offerings, Phil. 4:18, Romans 12:1 -- which you could argue, are figurative, but then also Christ in Matthew 9:13 uses it in a way that refers to both grain & meat offerings, citing Hosea, and also in Mark 9:49, saying ever 'sacrifice' is salted, with reference to Leviticus 2:13 which is specifically grain offerings. also in Mark 12:33 Christ uses this word thysia differentiating it from burnt offerings, which are those that are consumed entirely by fire: so He refers to all other offerings with thysia, including grain & drink offerings, and including offerings for thanksgiving which could be either bloody or not-bloody.
in Hebrews 11, it is said Abel brought a "better thysia than Cain" - indicating they were both bringing a gift of the same type/purpose. this isn't necessarily an offering for sin; it could be a freewill or thanksgiving offering ((if we assume that what they do is a type of something that was to come much later in the law)). such sacrifices either could or could not include blood, in the law ((tho they are not doing this under the law - it was given much later))
the other word in Greek, doron, which is generally used for any offering, sacrifice, gift or present ((as the Hebrew word)) is also present in Hebrews 11:4 - "when God spoke well of his offerings" -- so Abel's gift is described with both of the Greek words, not just one. because of this, and because Cain's gift is also being referred to in this passage by way of contrast ((a better offering than Cain)), it is written as descriptive, not proscriptive. that is, Abel's gift is being described as an offering of blood ((tho i'd dispute that word can only mean blood sacrifice)) because that's what it was, an animal having been sacrificed. it's not being described as a blood sacrifice because he was keeping the law of Moses 2,500 years before the law of Moses was given. if you insist that these two Greek words represent an hard division between bloody/non-bloody offerings, then the fact that Abel's is described using both words in the very same verse tells us that the offering the brothers were bringing was one that could be either bloody or non-bloody.
for example a freewill offering or thanksgiving offering: i.e. an offering that was brought voluntarily apart from a command or requirement of law. this 'fits' because Genesis 1-4 provides no record of commandment to sacrifice whatsoever. we can insert opinions that they 'must have been given all the mitzvah' but the text itself never says that; it never says they had been given any set of laws at all, but only intimates that they knew what was right and what was wrong.
so you see bro, digging into the Greek does not tell me that what they were doing was something that required blood. even if it did, it wouldn't tell me that they were making an offering for atonement of their sin, because they could be just as well bringing blood sacrifices for a new moon festival or prefiguring the daily offering of the temple. thysia in Hebrews 11:4 is describing what Abel brought, not describing why he brought it - and doron is doing the same thing in the very same verse. "by faith" is describing why he brought what he brought.
also as i have mentioned a few times, that they brought these things 'in the course of time' doesn't jive with the idea that the two of them sinned and so they were seeking atonement. there's no such record in Genesis, and the record of Genesis is sufficient in itself to know what is going on here. that's all the author of Hebrews had in order to figure out that Abel was making a better gift by faith. there's no indication in Genesis 4 that they were doing this for their transgressions, and what transgression offering is made 'in the course of time' ?
in the course of time.
do you think this was the first time they brought such an offering? first offering they ever made?
how old are they? what are they wearing?
The end coming is the return of Jesus. Verse 14 says the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world and then the end shall come, then the Lord returns. The preaching of the earthly kingdom where Christ is King will happen during the tribulation.
Paul’s gospel, the gospel of grace, has gone out into all the world, been preached to all nations and every creature under heaven.
Two totally different dispensations.
Paul’s gospel, the gospel of grace, has gone out into all the world, been preached to all nations and every creature under heaven.
Two totally different dispensations.
.
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to move texts from one language to
another verbatim; especially when the text contains ambiguous words and
grammar that have more than one meaning to choose from.
Another fly in the ointment is punctuation. The old Greek manuscripts
contain none whatsoever, so all the punctuation seen in every translation
of the New Testament out there is entirely editorial; which can be very
misleading at times.
As to the KJV or any other version, they are not really translations of
Scripture, rather, they are translations of copies of Scripture; which may or
may not be faithful to the originals. Scribes sometimes revised and/or edited
their copies of previous copies in order to make them say what they think
the texts ought to be saying. What you assume to be a faithful copy might
actually be a paraphrase of older copies.
Catholics sincerely believe that their Church's version of the Scriptures is the
best on the market, but when comparing the old Douay Version with today's
Catholic version, it's readily seen that there have been quite a few changes.
When I was a kid, Catholics swore by the Douay, but today that would not
be wise.
Over time, Bibles become revisions of revisions of copies, which themselves
may be edited versions of the original manuscripts. All I can say is Caveat
Lector.
_
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to move texts from one language to
another verbatim; especially when the text contains ambiguous words and
grammar that have more than one meaning to choose from.
Another fly in the ointment is punctuation. The old Greek manuscripts
contain none whatsoever, so all the punctuation seen in every translation
of the New Testament out there is entirely editorial; which can be very
misleading at times.
As to the KJV or any other version, they are not really translations of
Scripture, rather, they are translations of copies of Scripture; which may or
may not be faithful to the originals. Scribes sometimes revised and/or edited
their copies of previous copies in order to make them say what they think
the texts ought to be saying. What you assume to be a faithful copy might
actually be a paraphrase of older copies.
Catholics sincerely believe that their Church's version of the Scriptures is the
best on the market, but when comparing the old Douay Version with today's
Catholic version, it's readily seen that there have been quite a few changes.
When I was a kid, Catholics swore by the Douay, but today that would not
be wise.
Over time, Bibles become revisions of revisions of copies, which themselves
may be edited versions of the original manuscripts. All I can say is Caveat
Lector.
_
-
1
- Show all
I always wondered about this...Could it be that there was an underlying sin that Cain had done beforehand, so that he wasn't right in heart when he came to offer? Maybe he was super proud of his offering and sneered at Abel's, or was very entitled thinking God HAD to favor him over his brother with this, OR he was expecting God to give him something for the sacrifice.
I'm thinking it was a heart thing.
I'm thinking it was a heart thing.
-
1
- Show all
I find it interesting what God does not tell us in Scripture and then what we do is argue about what God does not tell us.
God tells us that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground (Gen 4:3) and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (Gen 4:4).
God does not tell us that He had respect to Abel's offering because Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock.
God does not tell us that He did not have respect to Cain's offering because Cain brought of the fruit of the ground.
Nothing in what is recorded in Gen 4 tells us why God had respect to Abel and/or why God did not have respect to Cain's offering, nor does Scripture tell us the offerings were sin offerings or free-will offerings, or peace offerings, or _________________ [fill in the blank] offerings ...
It is not until Heb 11:4 that we find out why God had respect to Abel ... through faith Abel brought a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.
Abel's offering to God was through faith. And we further read in Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Cain had no faith when he offered to God. God not having respect to Cain had to do with how Cain offered.
God looks at our heart, discerns between the thoughts and intents of our hearts. It was a "faith" issue on the part of Abel and on the part of Cain.
God tells us that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground (Gen 4:3) and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (Gen 4:4).
God does not tell us that He had respect to Abel's offering because Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock.
God does not tell us that He did not have respect to Cain's offering because Cain brought of the fruit of the ground.
Nothing in what is recorded in Gen 4 tells us why God had respect to Abel and/or why God did not have respect to Cain's offering, nor does Scripture tell us the offerings were sin offerings or free-will offerings, or peace offerings, or _________________ [fill in the blank] offerings ...
It is not until Heb 11:4 that we find out why God had respect to Abel ... through faith Abel brought a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.
Abel's offering to God was through faith. And we further read in Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Cain had no faith when he offered to God. God not having respect to Cain had to do with how Cain offered.
God looks at our heart, discerns between the thoughts and intents of our hearts. It was a "faith" issue on the part of Abel and on the part of Cain.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, in the sense that "Scripture" itself is inspired - the God-breathed word, penned by about 40 men over about 1500 years in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. "Scripture", the word of God, exists because God led these men to write what they wrote. The recorded message is inspired Scripture in the originals, copies, and translations.
No, in the sense that the copy was not directly "God-breathed" AGAIN subsequent to the penning of the original. God inspired Luke to write his gospel and Acts, but God did not in the same way inspire Jerome to write Luke's gospel and Acts in Latin. Only the originals were inspired in this sense.
We must keep those two concepts distinct. Errors accompany their conflation.
No, in the sense that the copy was not directly "God-breathed" AGAIN subsequent to the penning of the original. God inspired Luke to write his gospel and Acts, but God did not in the same way inspire Jerome to write Luke's gospel and Acts in Latin. Only the originals were inspired in this sense.
We must keep those two concepts distinct. Errors accompany their conflation.
-
1
- Show all
No, meaning you believe that the KJV is THE ONLY THING ON EARTH that can rightly be called "Scripture".
So you believe that the so-called Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated is NOT Scripture, Tyndale's edition, which the KJV largely follows, is NOT Scripture, translations into German, Latin, French, and four thousand other languages are NOT Scripture, and the manuscripts in the original languages are NOT Scripture.
Have I got this correct?
So you believe that the so-called Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated is NOT Scripture, Tyndale's edition, which the KJV largely follows, is NOT Scripture, translations into German, Latin, French, and four thousand other languages are NOT Scripture, and the manuscripts in the original languages are NOT Scripture.
Have I got this correct?
4
i like to think Apollos wrote Hebrews. i know it's less likely but i just like to think so. just an off-topic comment.
again you just said, "because it had to do with shed blood" but how i get that assumption from the text anywhere? it's just by fiat.
there are many offerings in the law that did not contain blood but are not only accepted, in fact commanded. shewbread. wave offerings of firstruits. drink offerings. thanksgiving and freewill offerings do not require blood. it's incorrect ((not that you're saying this but to make my point)) to say all offerings must contain blood just as it's incorrect to say all offerings are for atonement.
what in Genesis 1-4 says that the offering Cain and Abel were bringing was a sin offering? what in Genesis 1-4 says they must offer blood sacrifice? is there anything at all? or is it the justification always just going to be 'because preachers say so' ??
i gotta say, don't be mad. i've been grilling you because it's important to be able to justify our answers from scripture. my pastor points to the same thing, blood, and i grilled him, too, because he didn't justify it either - and then the next sunday he did. and that's why i call him my pastor ♥
the answers are there, and i think it's important that we find them, because they teach us about Christ: this whole thing is a picture of Christ, and it's much more than 'there must be blood, because, blood' -- another thing he has taught me is that just giving people solutions to the problems they come up with isn't nearly as effectual as leading them to the solutions so they can find them on their own. we humans, we don't internalize things we have been told and memorize nearly as well as things we reason out for ourselves. so what i'm doing by pestering you about this question isn't trying to argue with you over the presence/absence of blood is significant or not; i'm trying to prod you to look deeper into it and figure out what Cain & Abel were doing, why they were doing it, why Abel's sacrifice showed faith and why Cain's was profoundly evil.
i do have a lot of respect for you bro. i'm not trying to start a fight, and i'm not trying to dispute the relevance of blood. i'm trying to get to the bottom of why Cain's sacrifice is wicked, and that takes more than the fact that it wasn't blood, because bloodless sacrifices can still be acceptable depending on the context. we have to understand the context and we have to be able to prove it's the context, not just say 'it's the context because i say it is the context' -- hope this makes sense?
thanks for your patience with me
again you just said, "because it had to do with shed blood" but how i get that assumption from the text anywhere? it's just by fiat.
there are many offerings in the law that did not contain blood but are not only accepted, in fact commanded. shewbread. wave offerings of firstruits. drink offerings. thanksgiving and freewill offerings do not require blood. it's incorrect ((not that you're saying this but to make my point)) to say all offerings must contain blood just as it's incorrect to say all offerings are for atonement.
what in Genesis 1-4 says that the offering Cain and Abel were bringing was a sin offering? what in Genesis 1-4 says they must offer blood sacrifice? is there anything at all? or is it the justification always just going to be 'because preachers say so' ??
i gotta say, don't be mad. i've been grilling you because it's important to be able to justify our answers from scripture. my pastor points to the same thing, blood, and i grilled him, too, because he didn't justify it either - and then the next sunday he did. and that's why i call him my pastor ♥
the answers are there, and i think it's important that we find them, because they teach us about Christ: this whole thing is a picture of Christ, and it's much more than 'there must be blood, because, blood' -- another thing he has taught me is that just giving people solutions to the problems they come up with isn't nearly as effectual as leading them to the solutions so they can find them on their own. we humans, we don't internalize things we have been told and memorize nearly as well as things we reason out for ourselves. so what i'm doing by pestering you about this question isn't trying to argue with you over the presence/absence of blood is significant or not; i'm trying to prod you to look deeper into it and figure out what Cain & Abel were doing, why they were doing it, why Abel's sacrifice showed faith and why Cain's was profoundly evil.
i do have a lot of respect for you bro. i'm not trying to start a fight, and i'm not trying to dispute the relevance of blood. i'm trying to get to the bottom of why Cain's sacrifice is wicked, and that takes more than the fact that it wasn't blood, because bloodless sacrifices can still be acceptable depending on the context. we have to understand the context and we have to be able to prove it's the context, not just say 'it's the context because i say it is the context' -- hope this makes sense?
thanks for your patience with me