King James Bible
King James Version (KJV)
Bible Discussion Thread
Viewing page: 1 of 2
1 2
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
i was raised a catholic in the 50s to 60s. i didn't like catholicism and what it taught about god and jesus especially because i had never heard of having a personal relationship with the lord. i was taught his name was to sacred to even mention except in special prayers we read from a cataclysm. when i was in my early twenties i had left catholicism and a few years later some friends were witnessing to tim (my husband) and i and we were saved and really started living for the lord, turing suddenly from living a worldly life to living a true christian life doesn't happen unless there is a true conversion experience; when you repent and give your heart to the lord and that's what we did. tim became a pastor but about 10 yrs later the cares of the world were heavy on our shoulders and we became complacent in our walk with the lord. we had 3 children by then and we let the world beset us. we didn't go to the lord for help. we started to ignore the bible and prayer. tim stopped pastoring and we moved and just stopped being christians. this kind of behavior can sneak up on you so be careful and be sure your relationship is in a good place with the lord. be diligent. for a couple of years of living for ourselves, tim left and divorced me. the kids, (4,6 and 8 yrs old) and i were devastated. i never thought that would ever happen to me, i went to the lord immediately and prayed and repented turning back to him. my. worldly life had become sickening to me and tim leaving was the final straw, so i turned back to the lord and he has been with me ever since then. that was 25 yrs ago and my walk with the lord has been upward and forward and i'm growing closer to him every day. i won't be walking away from him this time.
Thanks for sharing your testimony. I enjoyed reading that. I wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about you. I have been going through Matthew's gospel and once I finish with Matthew, I will begin sharing the differences I see between what the Greek text is saying verses our English Bibles.
I also wanted to ask if you have a spell-checker that might be changing your words. In one post you mentioned a "Masochistic Text" where it should be Masoretic Text. And in your testimony, you mentioned special prayers you read from a "cataclysm." I think the proper word be Catechism. Although, the word "cataclysm" would fit as a better descriptive word for that church!
Blessings in the Lord!
"You make a good point about people who use these versions not being true Christians and I agree with you for those you (typo, should be who) have been made to see the truth in this. If they ignore the warnings or just don't accept what is right in front of their eyes, then they will be held accountable, however, I do think that those who have not been made aware of the spiritual errors in these books they are innocent until they do know."
The reason I bring it up again is I want you to be totally sure that I am 100%, whole heartly not a liar or a deceiver. I don't believe in fibs or little white lies or anything like that, a lie is a lie, especially if you do it deceitfully. God Bless :)
I can assure you that in no way whatsoever do I consider you a liar or deceiver, so let's please put that to rest right now. I wish you would not have brought that post back up because it was a while back and if anyone that did not read the original discussion, they are going to think that the words you just sent in quotations were my words, and they were not my words, but yours. I do hope we can move away from that. But just so you know, I trust you to be an honest person. I am close to being done with Matthew and should begin posting on it soon.
God Bless!
God Bless:)
Beginnings
"In 1955, businessman Howard Long was convinced of the need for a contemporary English translation of the Bible while sharing the gospel with a business associate. He was unhappy with the King James Version that he used to communicate the gospel and was frustrated with its archaic language. Mr. Young thought, "Everywhere I go, in Canada, the U. S., anywhere, there are people who would like to read their Bible to their children at night. And they don't have something the children can grasp." He shared the frustration with his pastor, Reverend Peter DeJong. Inspired by the need for a Bible in contemporary English, the two men petitioned their denomination, Christian Reformed Church (CRC). After initial rejection and deferral, the CRC endorsed a committee to investigate the issue in 1957. The NIV began with the formation of a small committee to study the value of producing a translation in the common language of the American people and a project of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1957. In 1964, a joint committee of representatives from the Christian Reformed Church and National Association of Evangelicals issued invitations to a translation conference, which met in August 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois, and made two key decisions. The first was that "a contemporary English translation of the Bible should be undertaken as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars." The second was that a "continuing committee of fifteen" should be established to move the work forward. The "committee of fifteen" was ultimately named the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), and the
and the "Contemporary English Translation" became the NIV. In 1967, the New York Bible Society (now called Biblica) took responsibility for the project and hired a team of 15 scholars from various Evangelical Christian denominations and from various countries. The initial "Committee on Bible Translation" consisted of Leslie Carlson, Edmund Clowney, Ralph Earle, Jr., Burton L. Goddard, R. Laird Harris, Earl S. Kalland, Kenneth Kantzer, Robert H. Mounce, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Francis R. Steele, John H. Stek, J. C. Wenger, Stephen W. Paine, and Marten Woudstra. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978. Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the Themelios Journal review of the NIV 2011:............"If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, (of which I sorely disagree.) but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries."
"Part 3
'How Did The NIV Translation Philosophy Differ From Other Bible Translations Of The Time?
The New International Version (NIV) translation philosophy differed from other Bible translations of the time in several ways:
(I'm only listing one.)
Balancing Transparency and Clarity: The NIV pioneered a different approach by balancing transparency to the original text with clarity of meaning. This meant that the translation aimed to convey the original meaning of the text while also being easy to understand in contemporary English. (This might explain their use of different manuscripts but it really doesn't say clearly which original text were use. I did leave out some of the content of the articles I referenced. The original articles are available on " History of the NIV" and "How Did the NIV's Translation Philosophy Differ From Other Bible Translations of the Time" I use Brave as my search engine because it safer then Google and these are the articles that came up in my search. I hope this helps you understand that from the beginning their emphasis seems to be only to modernize the language. As I'm sure you know that Revelations 22: 18-20 says: "18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Some people believe this is just for the book of Revelations but that doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of prophecies and plagues through out the whole bible. God is ending the Word and I believe he is referring to the whole Bible. I really feel for the authors of any of these revisions.
God Bless :)"
The reason that some (including me) believe that this reference applies only to the Book of Revelation is that this message from Jesus to His Church (& of course to others, if they choose to hear it or read from it), is His final message & no more would be sent from Him from that time on till the close of the ages. If there should be anyone who would claim to have received a message that amplifies or adds to this Book (of Revelation), then they would do themselves great harm. And let's face it, what more could be added to that final Judgement Day where all sinners having loved sin & refused to turn to their Creator are dealt with; as those who have cleaved to the Lamb of God in spite of everything coming against them, will enjoy eternal bliss with their God & Savior. This alone tells us that God's Plans & Purposes for Heaven & Earth are now ended. Could there be anymore after that? God only would know & we are not to use our brains or supposed heavenly revelations to further prop up or add to this Book.
As well, the Bible as we have it now, was not put together at the time of the apostles (they only had the OT writings), & the Churches received their apostolic letters (both Church-specific & circular). So, the warning in Revelation 22:18,19 to those who want to distort this Word from the Lord, would be doing so only to THIS Book & not to the Bible as a whole. Yet, we still remain responsible & answerable as to how we treat the rest of God's Word, both in our understanding & teaching to others, always open to God's Spirit to help us learn & apply it correctly. GBU.
I don't believe that Momsage was directing that to me. She is aware that I do not read the NIV, so sending me the history of it would be of no benefit to me. I know she has mentioned that she's not very good at posting yet, so maybe she meant to begin a new thread? I don't know if that's the case, but I don't think what she posted was intended for me personally.
As for Revelation 22:18-19, I am also in the camp of those who believe John is referring to the book of Revelation. Going back to Chapter 1 where John is told to write the things he saw. John got to see prophecy unfold (as it was happening, I believe) and he was told to write what he saw. He ends with the warning not to add to the prophecy of the book he wrote.
What's interesting to note is that in Revelation 1:3, it says, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." Now here's something that I think is very important. The book of Revelation is called prophecy. Words is plural, but prophecy singular.
But this book is called prophecy. The book of Revelation is God's final prophecy, and final message to His church before He comes back. Revelation Chapter 22 says don't add to the prophecy of the book. It's the last book of the bible. That's why it is there. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Just think about all these "Modern day Prophets" proclaiming that God gave them "new" prophecy. We're not to even go there!
God Bless!!!
That should cause caution shouldn't it Brother Jesse.
I think that makes the Prophecy of this book all important!
God bless
Yes, I agree that it should cause caution. One has to wonder what caution these men today who claim to be prophets take. They will tell people that God gave them a prophetic message to give to them. There are actually people who fall for this because they believe these men are indeed prophets and that God actually speaks to them. My response to them would be, "Well, if God gave you a message of prophecy, then you need to add it to the bible." I mean, if it's God speaking, then it is His word, right? But I'm sure they're not willing to go that far. If anyone proclaims that God gave them a message, and it is something outside of the bible, it is to be rejected! Thanks for your comment on my other post, and you are welcome.
God Bless!!!
We know that the promises of dreams and prophecies from Joel chapter two are fulfilled in Acts as it says in Acts chapter two . 1st Corinthians chapter 13 tells us that these things will cease ! Why would they cease ? Because of the fact that God has provided the perfect means by which any one of us can get to know Him , through His Living Word ! The Bible . He has given us everything that we need to draw closer to Him , we have a mediator in heaven , Christ , who knows how it feels to be human , weak , vulnerable , afraid , he was in every way tempted as we are , he understands us perfectly because he has been where we are now . He has walked in the flesh , in our shoes , in these kingdoms of men and we can read all about it any time we choose .
The Bible truly is alive ! It is a living entity and the more we read it the more it fills us up with the Word of God and that becomes part of us so that even when we are not actually engaged in reading it it is still in us , growing and taking us over , it is the good seed !
This doesn't happen overnight , this takes time and effort and this time and effort on our part must be coupled with a desire , to learn and grow and for this we must have open eyes and ears and an open heart , we must be willing to grow and change , to allow the Living Word to take root in us and we must feed every day on it . Colossians chapter two verse 8 and chapter three verse 2 , this is not advice , it's instruction as relevant as thou shalt not kill .
We must feed to the full , every day and allow ourselves to be taken over by God's Truth which is , His love and forgiveness as epitomised in Christ .
Very well said! Those who claim to have "new revelations" or claim to have special powers and greater understanding need to be avoided. This wreaks of Gnosticism. I agree with you about what you shared on 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 about those things ceasing, although this would be another topic of discussion in and of itself as there are some who believe those things mentioned are still for today.
And yes, Christ is our only mediator, and he does sympathize with us in the human. He took on flesh and He experienced the same things we go through, even, as you mentioned, Him being tempted as we are, the only difference between Him and us is that it is impossible for Him to give in to temptation.
Also, as you say, the bible is truly alive (and powerful). And yes, the more we prayerfully read and study His word, God impresses it upon our hearts, even if we leave off for a short time. But not to leave off for very long because if we leave off for an extended period of time, we become dull of hearing. Spiritual growth cannot happen without the continuous study of God's word. And like you say that growth does not happen overnight. It is a lifelong process. Even being in the word every day is no guarantee because we can only grow spiritually if God permits. He knows our hearts and knows what we are ready to handle. He's only going to give us understanding and allow us to move forward when He knows we are ready to understand and move on (if that makes sense).
Blessings in Christ!
I also believe Revelation 22:18-19 is for Revelation only and Jaz said it well about Jesus being tempted as we are. I do not want to stir the pot and you don't have to reply. I know most on this site know my understanding of this through my discussing it, I just felt I needed to reply. I know many believe Jesus was tempted but Jesus couldn't give in to temptation, it was impossible for Jesus to sin.
We are told our Savior our priest and the only mediator between us, and God was tempted as we are tempted, would not this temptation only be valid if he could succumb to temptation and was able to sin? If Jesus' temptations were real, then he must have been able to sin, but He lived a perfect sinless life totally obedient to His Father's will not His in every way. Jesus lived a sinless life means that we can receive salvation through Him because He was a perfect spotless sacrifice. He was born under the law, and He fulfilled it perfectly, He died for us, and Jesus was the first who God His Father by His Spirit raised Him from death, and in Jesus is our only hope.
God bless,
RLW
Part 2.
Tempted of Satan.
Matthe 4:1. "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Here's my understanding.
In Matthew 3 we see Jesus being baptized by John the baptist.
Then, in verse 17it reads, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"
That brings us to Chapter 4 where we see the tempting of Satan in which the word for tempted is "peiraz" which means to to test (objectively) that is endeavor 6
scrutinize entice discipline: - assay examine go about to prove.
( Matthew 4:1-11)
Verse 1 says it was the Spirit which led Jesus up into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
What is Important to note in this section is that the DEVIL WASN'T BEING USED TO TEST TO SEE IF JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD. HE KNEW JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD!
In verse 3 where it says "if thou be the Son of God"
It should read "And when the tempter came to him, he said, "SINCE" thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Again, It was the Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to EXHIBIT this truth that was declared in Matthew 3:17.
That's my understanding on Christ being tempted.
Also; There is nowhere in scripture that says Christ had a inherited sin nature. .
I don't hold the view that Adam was created "Without" a sin nature. Adam was made a living soul;
Christ was made a Life giving spirit. Neither had to become that or hold on to it. Adam sinned and it proved he had that in him.
Christ proved he didn't.
HERE'S HOW THEY CONTRAST; "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:46-47.
Christ was ordained to be the Lamb that takes away the sins of the whole world before the world began! He didn't have to qualify.
God bless.
Thank you, brother, I know we have discussed it before and I think we both respect and care for each other as brothers. I will try not to rehash that discussion forgive me if there is some overlap, but could Christ have sinned your answer is no, I will just use this verse James 1:13, your answer, according to this verse He could not even have been tempted but Jesus was tempted or tested and Jesus stayed obedient to the Father. Temptation or testing is for an answer to whether someone will be obedient or disobedient, Romans 5:19.
1 Timothy 3:16 the word manifest is the Greek word phanero meaning to make visible, make clear. Jesus did that. In the flesh, I ask when did this happen? Did this happen when Mary conceived or when Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost and became the Messiah/Christ?
Hebrews 1:1-3 God spoke to us by His Son every word Jesus said was the word of God, not His. Jesus shunned Philip when he asked Jesus to show them the Father, John 14:9-10, every word Jesus said was the Father.
As I have said when God placed Adam in the garden he did not have a sinful nature but he sinned and was disobedient. Jesus was not conceived by man but by the Holy Ghost, Jesus did not have the sinful nature past down by the first Adam, but He was obedient and did not sin.
I did not say anything about the cross but after Jesus prayed in the garden asking the Father if there was any other way Jesus was obedient to the end, being beaten, nailed to the cross, and giving His life for us.
If the first Adam was created with a sinful nature could God say He saw everything He had made, and it was very good? This sinful nature has a sentence of death, and it was after Adam ate the fruit that it was applied, and it spread to all. Adam was the figure of him that was to come, Jesus, the last Adam who by His obedience we have hope. How can one be obedient if they cannot be disobedient? To say Jesus was sinless and obedient becomes a farce.
God bless,
RLW
Thanks for responding.
You said, "Temptation or testing is for an answer to whether someone will be obedient or disobedient,
Ronald here's a silly illustration. When a salesman at a car dealership let's you test drive a car, is he testing to see if the car is obedient? No. He's proving the car is what he say it is.
That's why the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to show Jesus is who the father said he was in the previous verse.
Here's how it's read straight through.
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 3:17 - Matthew 4:1.
You asked, How can one be obedient if they cannot be disobedient?
That would be a good question for you and I.
We have a rebellious nature.
Disobedience is our fleshly nature. That's not so with Christ.
If you have to resist sin, you have a sinful nature. That's not so with Christ.
You asked;
If the first Adam was created with a sinful nature could God say He saw everything.
Yes Ronald, Absolutely. He made Adam just the way he planned to make him, and Adam did exactly what was expected. Christ wasn't a afterthought. God knew Adam would sin before he made him.
That is the long answers I have for you Ronald.
Again, My short answer is, Jesus is God and God cannot sin.
Thanks Brother Ronald,
We both know we don't agree on this.
I just thought it was necessary to give my thoughts.
God bless.
Hebrews 2:14
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"
Hebrews 2:18
"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
Philippians 2:7
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
SUF'FERED, participle passive Borne; undergone; permitted; allowed.
TEMPT'ED, participle passive Enticed to evil; provoked; tried.
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."
1 John 3:5, KJV
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"
1 Peter 2:22, KJV
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Hebrews 9:28, KJV
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
Hebrews 4:15, KJV
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
2 Corinthians 5:21, KJV
I understand why some look at this differently, but I do feel if He could sin How could He be GOD ALMIGHTY? God cannot sin, has no part with sin... Tempts no man to sin. I do agree with you Brother so I hope I'm not coming off as I do not. Have a good day God Bless...
It appears I did it again!
I left out several consecutive words.
Here's what I meant to say midway through on my previous message.
You asked;
If the first Adam was created with a sinful nature could God say He saw everything was good?
Yes Ronald, Absolutely. He made Adam just the way he planned to make him, and Adam did exactly what was expected. Christ wasn't a afterthought. God knew Adam would sin before he made him.
Thanks again.
God bless.
Thanks, brother, I agree God knew all before it ever was and he knew Adam would do what he did, it was part of God's plan the same as Jesus was in His plan, but the sentence of surely die meaning die die was not put on mankind until Adam was disobedient and the sin nature entered him, remember Jesus was manifested to undo the works of the devil.
God bless,
RLW
I will share some of my far out thoughts on Adam at a later date..
Off to bed.
God bless you.
I was not ignoring you. I do agree that Jesus lived a perfect sinless life and that He was (and is) a Lamb without spot, or spotless. Jesus was tempted by Satan, but He did not give in to the temptation because it is impossible for Him to give in to Satan's temptations and commit sin. At no time did Jesus ever have a sin nature. Since Jesus did not come from a human father, His blood was pure with absolutely no stain of sin which we are born with. I am not completely sure if you believe Jesus was able to sin or not? It sounds like you believe He could have given in to temptation and sinned, but I could be misunderstanding you. If so, please forgive me. However, I do not believe that Jesus purposely avoided sin so He could go to the cross as a perfect sinless sacrifice for our sins in order that we might be saved.
May the Lord bless you also!
Yes, brother you understood correctly I believe Jesus if He chose, He could have given into a temptation and been disobedient to His Father. Hebrews 2:18 says He suffered being tempted and in Hebrews 4:15 Jesus was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Jesus did not have a sinful nature like we do, He was not from man but was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost, He was the second man the last Adam.
The first Adam was not formed with a sinful nature, but he sinned and was disobedient, Jesus was sinless and obedient to the end, Romans 5:19. He had to know how it feels to battle temptations to become our priest and mediator. If Jesus was incapable of giving in to temptation His perfect sinless life has no meaning and if He was not capable of being disobedient being obedient to the Father unto death has no meaning.
The miracles Jesus did were not by His power but by the power of the Holy Ghost that God the Father gave to Him without measure John 3:34-35 Acts 10:38 Jesus said many times it was not His will but the Father's will who sent Him, and He also said the words He spoke were not His but the Father, John12:49-50 That is why Jesus's name is called the Word of God, Revelation 19:13.
Now after God raised Jesus from death, He is at His Father's right hand on the throne of God and has been given power of the throne over all until the last enemy, death is under His feet, Ephesians 1:19-23 Revelation 20:14.
I know you may disagree but that is how I understand it.
God bless,
RLW
Thanks for sharing your understanding. We do disagree on this one. You mention John 3:34-35 which are very important verses. Literally, that second part of Verse 34 is that God has poured out His Spirit in its fullness upon Christ. He is all God! So, the principle is that He's the only one that has and speaks the words of God. In Colossians 2:9, Paul tells us that in Jesus is all of the Godhead in bodily form, everything there is of God and bodily form! God did not pour out His Spirit by measure but rather in His fullness. In order for me to believe that Jesus could have sinned, I would have to deny His deity. I would have to deny that He is God.
Now, in John 12:49-50 which you gave, I do agree that Jesus is saying these aren't my words. These are the Father's words. And the last half of Verse 50, Jesus says, "whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." Exact words! Not independent, not on His own, but they are the Father's words. When Jesus came, He didn't represent Himself. He represented God.
I'm sorry, but I do have to disagree with you on "why Jesus's name is called the Word of God." He was not called the word of God because He spoke God's word. There is no correlation between John 3:34-35 and Revelation 19:13.
The word "word" in Revelation 19:13 is the word LOGOS. It is the same word used in John 1:1, and also throughout the beginning of Chapter 1. LOGOS is the Greek word for the word "word." Jesus is called the word because He was the great thinker behind the universe and was already in existence at the time of physical creation. He was always in existence. He was the great thinker behind the universe, and He created all things.
Blessings!
Thank you, brother, for your reply I understand we may not agree but if you want to discuss it, I will get back to you tomorrow it is late.
I'm not sure if a continuation of this discussion will change either of our minds, so I'll leave it up to you if you want to continue!
May the Lord bless you always!
Thanks, brother, as you said I was just sharing my understanding that many do not agree, only if we, in prayer and study led by the Holy Spirit, can our understanding change. I know this doctrine has existed for 1600 years and to many, it is considered heresy to not agree. I am amazed at how many people have been killed because of it, even during the Reformation.
We can end this; I will only make one reply to Colossians 2:9. Do I deny the deity of Christ? No. Colossians was written about 30 years after Jesus was crucified, God raised Jesus from the sleep of death because death could not hold Him because Jesus was sinless, the man Jesus overcame the law by a perfect life, He fulfilled the law that was written for man that a man had to fulfill.
When God raised Jesus, He placed Him above all that is in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth, Ephesians 1:19-21 Philippians 2:9-11. This gave Jesus the full power of God's throne, but this did not happen until Jesus was victorious and resurrected, that is my understanding of Colossians 2:9. To me the word deity that was changed to Godhead is confusing and misleading.
Thanks for your discussion brother.
God bless,
RLW
To begin with, there is no evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, Hebrews 2:3 would indicate that it probably was not Paul. I can explain that if you wish. We are not told who wrote the book of Hebrews.
But to answer your question, we see Aaron mentioned, and we also see Melchisedec mentioned. But in both Hebrews Chapters 5 and 6, the writer giving us the superiority of Jesus Christ to Aaron.
The writer of Hebrews at the beginning is making a comparison and contrast between Christ and all of the people that the Jews and Hebrews hold to be "special" within the religious system.
Aaron was a family in the tribe of Levi. There were 12 tribes, and you probably know that God commanded that the tribe of Levi, and only the tribe of Levi, should serve in the temple. They are the only ones to serve as priests, and singers, and the attendance in the temple. But specifically, within the tribe of Levi was the family of Aaron. Only those from the family of Aaron directly could serve as high priest.
So, if you wanted to become a priest, if you were not from the tribe of Levi you could not become a priest. And you definitely could not become a high priest unless you were from the family of Aaron.
So, the writer of Hebrews is going to make a contrast between the superiority of Jesus Christ and Aaron, the Aaronic priesthood and the priesthood of Christ.
Sorry if this is not the answer you're looking for, but without knowing why you are asking me this, I'm just left guessing!
Blessings!
What is Jesus's victory if not the victory over sin ? Sin which is the powder of death , or rather sin which causes physical death ? The wages of sin is death as we know . Christ did not earn those wages . If it was impossible for him to do so then where is his victory ? He has won nothing he has accomplished nothing he didn't submit he didn't have any choice in the matter he didn't have to make any effort .
In the garden if Gethsemane his humanity is very evident . He is afraid . Afraid of the physical mental emotional and spiritual pain and humiliation . He asks that the cup might pass from him , that the crucifixion might not have to happen . Isn't there another way Father ? God says no , there is no other way , I want you to do it this way . Jesus submits but right up to the last second he is tempted . Come down and we will believe you ! He could have done that ! His human nature that was in agony , would want to do that . He resisted temptation because he knew that it was God's will and plan for him to do it this way , he is he lamb slain from the foundation of the world ! He had to do it willingly , he had to submit which means he had the choice not to submit . He learned obedience , those two words are so important , learned obedience . Dear Brother , your last sentence that explains what you don't believe , that's exactly what I do believe . With respect , we shall have to differ .
I see several question marks, but I'm not exactly sure if there is a specific question in your post that you are asking? Is there a specific question you are asking me?
If you don't mind my asking a few questions of you. Do you believe in the deity of Jesus Christ? Do you believe Jesus is God? Was He indeed God manifest in the flesh as the Bible says? I ask this because if you answer yes to these questions, then I must ask at what point in His existence did He have to learn obedience?
God Bless!!!
In Luke chapter 4 verses 1-13 we see the devil tempting Jesus , what would be the point of this exercise and the writing down of it and it's preservation for us , if Jesus was incapable of sinning ? Didn't the the devil know wether or not Jesus could have been tempted into sinning ? Verse 13 is very telling to me , it ends with the words : for a season . Christ was constantly tempted throughout his ministry .
If we believe that Jesus wanted everyone to believe in him , and that he has power to lay down his life and take it up again ( power that Jesus himself says was given to him by God ) , what about Matthew chapter 27 verses 39 through to 42 . If we read verse 42 very carefully we see that the chief priests are saying : come down from that cross and we will all believe that you are who you say you are ! What a sight that would have been ! That would have shut them up wouldn't it ? ! There is Jesus , in physical and emotion agony , full of the power of God , able to do anything that he wants to do . Would he not have been tempted to display such awesome power as to save himself from this agony and instantly convert potentially hundreds and hundreds of people by doing the most amazing thing ? Come down from the cross and we will believe him !
Go back to Matthew chapter 26 verses 36-44 . Jesus submits himself , his own desires his own fears , totally to the will of God . And it's this submission that gets him through the torture of the crucifixion . He knows that it's what God wants him to do . God is not forcing him to do it . He could , come down from the cross , and we will believe him . He subjugates himself , even though he didn't have to , he chooses to allow himself to go through the agony of crucifixion when he didn't have to , he could have given in to the temptation to take the easier path . This is why what he accomplished is so stunning to me
Thank you, I agree, it takes all four gospels, plus the entire Bible and the Holy Spirit. For every event that they were inspired to write about, we must let the Holy Spirit guide us through all four gospels to see the truth. The first Adam did not begin with a sinful nature, but he was not obedient to God, Adam sinned, and this sinful nature of disobedience we have was passed down from the first Adam to all humans born after Adam and Eve.
Jesus was born without this sinful nature same as the first Adam because Jesus was conceived in Mary of the Holy Ghost, not man, the Son of God. Jesus was a man as the first Adam that many disagree, Jesus was the second man and the last Adam, the first Adam was disobedient, but the last Adam/Jesus was obedient in every way to the will of the Father.
God bless,
RLW
I don't mind your picking through various parts of my comments to Jesse or anyone else, that's what this forum is all about. I understand what you are saying so I stand corrected and thank you. I just had it in mind as a warning for those who have published other versions of the bible that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and can lead people away from the Lord. But I'm sure they must have left their handywork in Revelations so it still applies. God Bless :)
Beginnings
"In 1955, businessman Howard Long was convinced of the need for a contemporary English translation of the Bible while sharing the gospel with a business associate. He was unhappy with the King James Version that he used to communicate the gospel and was frustrated with its archaic language. Mr. Young thought, "Everywhere I go, in Canada, the U. S., anywhere, there are people who would like to read their Bible to their children at night. And they don't have something the children can grasp." He shared the frustration with his pastor, Reverend Peter DeJong. Inspired by the need for a Bible in contemporary English, the two men petitioned their denomination, Christian Reformed Church (CRC). After initial rejection and deferral, the CRC endorsed a committee to investigate the issue in 1957. The NIV began with the formation of a small committee to study the value of producing a translation in the common language of the American people and a project of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1957. In 1964, a joint committee of representatives from the Christian Reformed Church and National Association of Evangelicals issued invitations to a translation
which met in August 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois, and made two key decisions. The first was that "a contemporary English translation of the Bible should be undertaken as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars." The second was that a "continuing committee of fifteen" should be established to move the work forward. The "committee of fifteen" was ultimately named the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), and the "Contemporary English Translation" became the NIV. In 1967, the New York Bible Society (now called Biblica) took responsibility for the project and hired a team of 15 scholars from various Evangelical Christian denominations and from various countries. The initial "Committee on Bible Translation" consisted of Leslie Carlson, Edmund Clowney, Ralph Earle, Jr., Burton L. Goddard, R. Laird Harris, Earl S. Kalland, Kenneth Kantzer, Robert H. Mounce, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Francis R. Steele, John H. Stek, J. C. Wenger, Stephen W. Paine, and Marten Woudstra. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978.
Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the Themelios Journal review of the NIV 2011:............"If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, (of which I sorely disagree.) but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries.
'How Did The NIV Translation Philosophy Differ From Other Bible Translations Of The Time?
The New International Version (NIV) translation philosophy differed from other Bible translations of the time in several ways:
(I'm only listing one.)
Balancing Transparency and Clarity: The NIV pioneered a different approach by balancing transparency to the original text with clarity of meaning. This meant that the translation aimed to convey the original meaning of the text while also being easy to understand in contemporary English. (This might explain their use of different manuscripts but it really doesn't say clearly which original text were use. I did leave out some of the content of the articles I referenced. The original articles are available on " History of the NIV" and "How Did the NIV's Translation Philosophy Differ From Other Bible Translations of the Time" I use Brave as my search engine because it safer then Google and these are the articles that came up in my search. I hope this helps you understand that from the beginning their emphasis seems to be only to modernize the language. As I'm sure you know that Revelations 22: 18-20 says: "18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Some people believe this is just for the book of Revelations but that doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of prophecies and plagues through out the whole bible. God is ending the Word and I believe he is referring to the whole Bible. I really feel for the authors of any of these revisions.
God Bless :)