Do we understand biblical truths

[rewriter]

The Bible does present truth to us. but do we understand what it says? The truth was originally expressed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek at time ranging from 3000+ years ago to as recently as about 1950 years ago. These truths were then translated into Lati, again over 1000 years ago, and later translated into English and other languages. But how much has been lost from the original meanings? Is it time to very carefully study and seek to update the language rather than simply repeat how the original message has been translated, trusting that nothing has changed in meaning? Poke carries at least two meanings, one not very commonly used in today's world. The meaning of "hell" has likewise changed over time. Salvation originally was associated with healing, but healing from what? Sin is a term applied to a few different ancient words, did all carry the same meaning do you think, and if so, why were different terms used.

God does not change and His message does not change, but God used three different ancient languages to present His message so that the people would hear it in the language of their day, updating terms as the ancient languages evolved. Should we not allow Him to guide us in updating the language we use to be as certain as possible that we are communicating His message in today's words?

 

[GWH]

The Bible does present truth to us. but do we understand what it says? The truth was originally expressed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek at time ranging from 3000+ years ago to as recently as about 1950 years ago. These truths were then translated into Lati, again over 1000 years ago, and later translated into English and other languages. But how much has been lost from the original meanings? Is it time to very carefully study and seek to update the language rather than simply repeat how the original message has been translated, trusting that nothing has changed in meaning? Poke carries at least two meanings, one not very commonly used in today's world. The meaning of "hell" has likewise changed over time. Salvation originally was associated with healing, but healing from what? Sin is a term applied to a few different ancient words, did all carry the same meaning do you think, and if so, why were different terms used.

God does not change and His message does not change, but God used three different ancient languages to present His message so that the people would hear it in the language of their day, updating terms as the ancient languages evolved. Should we not allow Him to guide us in updating the language we use to be as certain as possible that we are communicating His message in today's words?

Yes, we should not allow Him to guide us..., uh, I mean No, we should not allow Him to guide us... uh...

 

[rewriter]

Yes, we should not allow Him to guide us..., uh, I mean No, we should not allow Him to guide us... uh...

Since you saw fit to at least post something, would you care to try a simple example? The term salvation gets thrown around a lot, can you explain what it is in everyday language? Or if that is too hard, and that is quite possible, how about explaining what "sin" is without referencing God, yet keeping it simple enough for most people to understand.

Personally, I find either question fairly easy, but then I have been wrestling with the problem for over 50 years, approximately 40 years while following tradition and not really getting anywhere though, but once I got outside the box that tradition puts us in, things started getting easy.

 

[Dino246]

Since you saw fit to at least post something, would you care to try a simple example? The term salvation gets thrown around a lot, can you explain what it is in everyday language?

"Salvation", in the Christian context, is the state of being where a person's sin has been forgiven because the person has accepted that Jesus died for their sin. It is is coincidental with being justified, redeemed, ransomed, translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, adopted as a child of God, made part of the bride of Christ, grafted into Israel, made part of the Church universal, and set free from the power of sin.

Or if that is too hard, and that is quite possible, how about explaining what "sin" is without referencing God, yet keeping it simple enough for most people to understand.

"Sin" is meaningless without reference to God, because sin is the contravention of God's law. Without law (and therefore a Lawgiver) there is no such thing as sin.

 

[tablet123]

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Joe 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Jesus will deliver the saints from the temptation of Peace and safety.

When the nations come together to work for peace on earth.

The world and hypocrites have a choice to follow God, stay with God, or follow the world.

Hold fast to what you have for falsehood and deception is confusing people at that time.

And you will not learn too much truth from people.

We confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, believe the Gospel of Christ, and allow the Spirit to lead us.

If we hold on to that even if we do not know too much more it is good.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Sin is offending people and not obeying God.

Creation testifies there is a higher power and of His attributes.

Which one of them is love for He provided food, and the means to make food and shelter.

So the world is without excuse which testifies of the 2 greatest laws love God, and love people.

 

[rewriter]

"Salvation", in the Christian context, is the state of being where a person's sin has been forgiven because the person has accepted that Jesus died for their sin. It is is coincidental with being justified, redeemed, ransomed, translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, adopted as a child of God, made part of the bride of Christ, grafted into Israel, made part of the Church universal, and set free from the power of sin.


"Sin" is meaningless without reference to God, because sin is the contravention of God's law. Without law (and therefore a Lawgiver) there is no such thing as sin.

Salvation comes from a root that is linked to healing. So healing form what? According to Romans 1:25, which specifically references THE LIE leading to all the problems that get labeled as sins, so what is THE LIE? What lie leads to a violation of God's law? Essentially, can you deal with how a single lie being Sin, and causing such problems without invoking a medieval understanding of God's honor, which is not biblical, but is rather off by over 1000 years?

 

[Reddogs]

The Bible does present truth to us. but do we understand what it says? The truth was originally expressed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek at time ranging from 3000+ years ago to as recently as about 1950 years ago. These truths were then translated into Lati, again over 1000 years ago, and later translated into English and other languages. But how much has been lost from the original meanings? Is it time to very carefully study and seek to update the language rather than simply repeat how the original message has been translated, trusting that nothing has changed in meaning? Poke carries at least two meanings, one not very commonly used in today's world. The meaning of "hell" has likewise changed over time. Salvation originally was associated with healing, but healing from what? Sin is a term applied to a few different ancient words, did all carry the same meaning do you think, and if so, why were different terms used.

God does not change and His message does not change, but God used three different ancient languages to present His message so that the people would hear it in the language of their day, updating terms as the ancient languages evolved. Should we not allow Him to guide us in updating the language we use to be as certain as possible that we are communicating His message in today's words?

Well the modern versions that come out of the corrupted Alexandrian codices distort what it says and confuses many Christians. Here is a example, as we compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

 

[rewriter]

Well the modern versions that come out of the corrupted Alexandrian codices distort what it says and confuses many Christians. Here is a example, as we compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

I would question your assertion that the Alexandrian codices are more corrupt than any other ancient texts. What is your basis other than that they provide translation that differ from what you prefer?

Based on admissions by the translators, for example, indicate that the KJV is one of the poorest translations and based on the available ancient texts available to reference when making the translation, the KJV also falls towards the bottom of the list.

 

[Dino246]

Well the modern versions that come out of the corrupted Alexandrian codices distort what it says and confuses many Christians. Here is a example, as we compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

Your post is ridiculous and utterly devoid of intellectual integrity.

You have completely ignored the fact that all these versions state in the previous verse (which is the first part of the sentence!) the requirement that Jesus has come "in the flesh". Here is the full sentence from each version you quoted:

NIV: This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

RSV: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.

ASV: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

The KJV just happens to be redundant:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

There is absolutely no "swipe at the divinity of Christ"!

Do your homework, be fair-minded about non-essential differences, and don't poison others to God's word!

 

[Reddogs]

I would question your assertion that the Alexandrian codices are more corrupt than any other ancient texts. What is your basis other than that they provide translation that differ from what you prefer?

Based on admissions by the translators, for example, indicate that the KJV is one of the poorest translations and based on the available ancient texts available to reference when making the translation, the KJV also falls towards the bottom of the list.

You should go over the 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah' by: Alfred Edersheim
as he clearly shows the corruption, with many outright mistakes and misreading's and errors of translations to say the least..

 

[GWH]

Since you saw fit to at least post something, would you care to try a simple example? The term salvation gets thrown around a lot, can you explain what it is in everyday language? Or if that is too hard, and that is quite possible, how about explaining what "sin" is without referencing God, yet keeping it simple enough for most people to understand.

Personally, I find either question fairly easy, but then I have been wrestling with the problem for over 50 years, approximately 40 years while following tradition and not really getting anywhere though, but once I got outside the box that tradition puts us in, things started getting easy.

Salvation is from hell to heaven, ultimately.
Sin has no meaning without God/superhuman Judge.

 

[memberofthebride]

The Bible does present truth to us. but do we understand what it says? The truth was originally expressed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek at time ranging from 3000+ years ago to as recently as about 1950 years ago. These truths were then translated into Lati, again over 1000 years ago, and later translated into English and other languages. But how much has been lost from the original meanings? Is it time to very carefully study and seek to update the language rather than simply repeat how the original message has been translated, trusting that nothing has changed in meaning? Poke carries at least two meanings, one not very commonly used in today's world. The meaning of "hell" has likewise changed over time. Salvation originally was associated with healing, but healing from what? Sin is a term applied to a few different ancient words, did all carry the same meaning do you think, and if so, why were different terms used.

God does not change and His message does not change, but God used three different ancient languages to present His message so that the people would hear it in the language of their day, updating terms as the ancient languages evolved. Should we not allow Him to guide us in updating the language we use to be as certain as possible that we are communicating His message in today's words?

The Word of God was not written to be understood by the human mind.

Using the carnal human mind to understand God's Word resulted in 45,000 flavors of christian church

Isaiah 28

10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:


11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.


12 To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.


13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Matthew 13
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

[rewriter]

Salvation is from hell to heaven, ultimately.
Sin has no meaning without God/superhuman Judge.

Salvation is from a root meaning "to heal", implying a return to humanity's original state of being free from sin, but with a memory of the consequences of sin and thus a desire to avoid it. Christians appear to have followed other ancient religions in developing the concept of a terrible afterlife that one needed extraordinary relief from. The OT recognized an afterlife that could be either nasty or pleasant, but did not have a clear concept that the nasty afterlife was eternal, while the pleasant option was "forever".

As for sin, it is "missing the mark" among other potential definitions, but as a violation of God's law, remember that the law was made for humans, not humans for the law, a tricky but essential distinction.

 

[GWH]

Salvation is from a root meaning "to heal", implying a return to humanity's original state of being free from sin, but with a memory of the consequences of sin and thus a desire to avoid it. Christians appear to have followed other ancient religions in developing the concept of a terrible afterlife that one needed extraordinary relief from. The OT recognized an afterlife that could be either nasty or pleasant, but did not have a clear concept that the nasty afterlife was eternal, while the pleasant option was "forever".

As for sin, it is "missing the mark" among other potential definitions, but as a violation of God's law, remember that the law was made for humans, not humans for the law, a tricky but essential distinction.

Yes, in heaven saved souls will be free of sin and remember the earthly lessons learned,
so they will not reprise the sin of Satan's fall.

Missing the mark is meaningless if there is no Judge.
Atheism can only make pyrite suggestions, having no universal moral imperative.

 

[Dino246]

The Word of God was not written to be understood by the human mind.

That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve read all week.

Using the carnal human mind to understand God's Word resulted in 45,000 flavors of christian church

Isaiah 28:13

Using the carnal mind to take God’s word out of its context results in misunderstanding it badly.

 

[rewriter]

Yes, in heaven saved souls will be free of sin and remember the earthly lessons learned,
so they will not reprise the sin of Satan's fall.

Missing the mark is meaningless if there is no Judge.
Atheism can only make pyrite suggestions, having no universal moral imperative.

We agree, but also the Jewish law was given only to the Jews, not the Gentiles, thus the Ten Commandments (as they are commonly and incorrectly called) do not apply to the Gentiles as they were given to the Jews as God's chosen people.

 

[GWH]

We agree, but also the Jewish law was given only to the Jews, not the Gentiles, thus the Ten Commandments (as they are commonly and incorrectly called) do not apply to the Gentiles as they were given to the Jews as God's chosen people.

Agreed, but because all of the TCs except the 4th are moral, they overlap with the fruit of the HS,
so cooperating with the love of Christ (Rom. 5:5, Gal 5:6) is confused by some people with obeying the Law.

 

[rewriter]

Agreed, but because all of the TCs except the 4th are moral, they overlap with the fruit of the HS,
so cooperating with the love of Christ (Rom. 5:5, Gal 5:6) is confused by some people with obeying the Law.

But that still leave the question of, what are we being judged on? Is it fair to judge us on something we were never aware of or are we judged based on knowledge of reality that we choose to ignore and replace with a very specific lie as implied in Romans 1:25? The same "ho" in Greek (the) precedes both "truth" and "lie" but is often recognized only before "truth" ("the truth" but "a lie", not "the lie").

 

[GWH]

But that still leave the question of, what are we being judged on? Is it fair to judge us on something we were never aware of or are we judged based on knowledge of reality that we choose to ignore and replace with a very specific lie as implied in Romans 1:25? The same "ho" in Greek (the) precedes both "truth" and "lie" but is often recognized only before "truth" ("the truth" but "a lie", not "the lie").

God judges people on the basis of the opportunities they had to learn truth and repent of ignoring His Word.
The Parable of the Talents illustrates this truth, IMO, with one talent representing general revelation, five talents
representing the OT, and ten talents signifying the NT Gospel.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

The Bible does present truth to us. but do we understand what it says? The truth was originally expressed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek at time ranging from 3000+ years ago to as recently as about 1950 years ago. These truths were then translated into Lati, again over 1000 years ago, and later translated into English and other languages. But how much has been lost from the original meanings? Is it time to very carefully study and seek to update the language rather than simply repeat how the original message has been translated, trusting that nothing has changed in meaning? Poke carries at least two meanings, one not very commonly used in today's world. The meaning of "hell" has likewise changed over time. Salvation originally was associated with healing, but healing from what? Sin is a term applied to a few different ancient words, did all carry the same meaning do you think, and if so, why were different terms used.

God does not change and His message does not change, but God used three different ancient languages to present His message so that the people would hear it in the language of their day, updating terms as the ancient languages evolved. Should we not allow Him to guide us in updating the language we use to be as certain as possible that we are communicating His message in today's words?

Isn’t that how the Bible got into English and Spanish ect ect ? And probably an important reason that anyone who speaks English only or Spanish only today …. Was able to hear the gospel at all ?

Seems like it’s pretty much in all the languages now. Maybe when God commanded this

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭

Maybe he also had the plan and also power to get his word to everyone tbrough thier writings and preaching in the Bible to all creation . So even us alive today could hear the message in the language we speak and understand and can share with others