Pamelasv

I got it. Great post.

Also, fear is used instead if timidity sometimes in other versions. Why? Timidity seems to bring on a more specific meaning than fear alone. A different result of being afraid of something specifically. Fear of the people. Bashful. When you're looking at translations, it's important to remember that there are various approaches to translating the scriptures and they fall somewhere on a continuum with ultra literal being at one end and very thought-for-thought on the other. Literal word-for-word translations seek to translate the scriptures word for word. The problem with this is that while the words are correct, they may not convey the same ideas or thoughts in English that the writers were trying to convey in the original language thousands of years removed from us in time and culture and idioms. Thought-for-thought translations seek to overcome this problem by not focusing so much on the literal words for word translation, but instead try to capture the intent better. The problem with this is in the process not all the nuances and shades of meaning contained in the original can always be captured in the translation, and also bias can more easily enter the translation process. Paraphrases are at the far end of this approach. In between these two extremes are all the translations that seek to be one or the other or a mixture of the two approaches. I like to use one from the word-for-word end, and one from the thought-for-thought end, and another from the middle when I am reading/studying scripture. This is why parallel bibles are such a good idea. I have a bible app that I can switch translations. I guess I should try out the thought for thought ones along side, assuming THEY agree. Lol. But when I think about, I have a hard time believing the writers of the literal translations didnt take this into consideration. Plus, it is a whole team of people making a consensis. It's not a matter of taking something into consideration. It's a matter of approach. A literal translation cannot be a thought-for-thought translation because of the approach. Reading up on the different approaches to bible translation might be of help. When you translate from one language family to another, there is no way you can accurately translate everything - the two language families express thoughts differently. For instance, where we say "a bird in hand is worth two in a bush" another culture very different from our own, with a language from a different language family would look at that, if literally translated, and scratch their heads and say "huh? what's that supposed to mean?" They would need it translated into a saying that carries the same meaning or else they would have to study our culture, language and figures of speech to be able to say "oh, THIS is what they mean." "a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush" is not to meant to be taken literally. It is a figure of speech. If it is only translated literally its meaning gets lost in the translation. So if the translator is going to stick to the literal meaning of the words, then the words will be translated correctly but the meaning will be lost in the language it was translated into. This is why a literal translation cannot capture all the meanings of words and phrases of the original language. There is just no way around this. This is a limitation of language. I am completely understanding your point. I believe it.

Also, fear is used instead if timidity sometimes in other versions. Why? Timidity seems to bring on a more specific meaning than fear alone. A different result of being afraid of something specifically. Fear of the people. Bashful. When you're looking at translations, it's important to remember that there are various approaches to translating the scriptures and they fall somewhere on a continuum with ultra literal being at one end and very thought-for-thought on the other. Literal word-for-word translations seek to translate the scriptures word for word. The problem with this is that while the words are correct, they may not convey the same ideas or thoughts in English that the writers were trying to convey in the original language thousands of years removed from us in time and culture and idioms. Thought-for-thought translations seek to overcome this problem by not focusing so much on the literal words for word translation, but instead try to capture the intent better. The problem with this is in the process not all the nuances and shades of meaning contained in the original can always be captured in the translation, and also bias can more easily enter the translation process. Paraphrases are at the far end of this approach. In between these two extremes are all the translations that seek to be one or the other or a mixture of the two approaches. I like to use one from the word-for-word end, and one from the thought-for-thought end, and another from the middle when I am reading/studying scripture. This is why parallel bibles are such a good idea. I have a bible app that I can switch translations. I guess I should try out the thought for thought ones along side, assuming THEY agree. Lol. But when I think about, I have a hard time believing the writers of the literal translations didnt take this into consideration. Plus, it is a whole team of people making a consensis.

This was a great explanation. Unfortunately Im not really grasping the first part between the similarity of the sound mind and discipline.

Good idea. Go for it. No seriously, I will probably take notes on that the next time I start from the beginning at Genisis, which I just did not all that long ago, and wondering also how they were sure what sin was at that time. Just the knowlege of it is in them as it says in Romans.

You can not have an answer to your question, which is in a deferent contex than the scripture you have quote, you must build the contex, then ask the question within that contex. Example the season of time, or the period of time frame, before the Cross, after Jesus birth and before the Cross, from the baptism of Jesus to his birth, and from the baptism to the Cross, from the resuraction to the taking up of Jesus, to the Penticost, from the Penticost of the Jews to the Penticost of the Gentiles, and from the Cross till the appearance of Jesus to the disciples. From Abraham to the sircumsision, from the sircumsision to the ten commandments, to the introduction of the Law of Moses and the beginning of practicing what is written in the Law in their new land. Diferent facets, diferent applications. Seemed pretty clear to me it was in reference to before the laws were given to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Just that scripture alone says that in itself because we know when the laws were given. When I post questions in here, I post assuming people who are going to answer already know the bible, so I don't have to go into a lot of detail.

What Paul was saying there is that sins were not clearly and specifically defined and presented to men as a violation of specific laws until the Ten Commandments were written down by the finger of God. Therefore they could not be "imputed" or charged as specific sins. Since then Israel (and all those exposed to the Torah among the Gentiles) knew exactly which of the commandments they had broken (or were breaking), which means they also knew which specific penalty would apply (which is in fact death). For example if there is no posted speed limit on a highway, then the driver must use his best judgement (which includes his conscience in terms of endangering others). But once a clearly deflned speed limit is posted, then exceeding that limit means breaking the law, and there is a specific penalty for that. Sounds good.

Funny I did not see this at all at first. Makes sense.

Right. So then..............what purpose does the scripture I quoted serve?

Some people are using phones, that does not work. You have to go to youtube to figure out how your phone works in such ways.

I guess my point was entirely missed. I was wondering about those nations God judged who didn't have the law. If sin is not imputed.... well, they were judged anyway. Can you give an example of such a nation sis ? Well, the land of Canaan for starters, so the Isrealites could enter. Just about the entire old testament talks about it. ?????????????? Good morning? I dont want to say anything more concerning other scripture because ifeel like I am blasphemin g God or something.

'The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.' Romans 14:17. Personally, I could care less what anybody else does or doesn't eat. That's their own personal decision. If anybody would ever take issue with me on the subject, which I doubt would ever happen, I would point out scripture. And I dont like blood anyway, so no concern there. So was the point of this post telling meat eaters they shouldn't be eating blood? As I doubt anybody would know if their meat was strangled.

I guess my point was entirely missed. I was wondering about those nations God judged who didn't have the law. If sin is not imputed.... well, they were judged anyway.

1 Romans 5:13 'for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.' Well, what do you think of this? I am thinking of God judging all those nations who didn't have the law. Not sure what he means by this.

Agreed, it think it's symbolizing rebirth. Gerbilgirl 1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. It just simply means "he is that one" That man "Jesus Christ" is "he" who came into the world "flesh" out of his "mother's womb". He didn't come into the world as a spirit, but as flesh. I've given birth 3 times, and when my babies came out there was a lot of water and blood. It's got nothing to do with a re-birth, because this was the first time Christ was "born". His "rebirth" would be at his resurrection. That water and blood that came out when Jesus was born bears witness that his birth really happened. The Spirit bears witness also on the earth.... the "spirit of truth". I have to disagree because of the way it is written 'He did not come by water only, but by the water and the blood' Since when does anything come by water only anyway? If nothing comes by water only, it would not have to be pointed out that He did not come by water only. Which can only then be shown to be by spirit. He was saying He did not come by spirit only(something else spiritual) only, but by spirit and by flesh. So two things spiritual and one thing flesh. ( not to confuse spirit with the Spirit)

Hi Pamela, gdemoss seems to be closer to the truth on this, however I would like to expand abit on what gdemoss has offered and perhaps this will finally make sense to you There are three witnesses who attest to Lord Jesus, The Spirit, Water and Blood. This concept can be found in the Book of Exodus, or in the Book of Leviticus, you will see that when a priest was ordained, three things were always used The High Priest was washed with water in every case, a sacrifice was brought, and his ear, his thumb, and his toe were touched with blood, and then he was anointed with oil, in token of that unction of the Spirit with which the coming High Priest would be anointed. So every High priest came by the anointing Spirit, by water, and by blood and all this was a matter of type for THE coming HIGH PRIEST Jesus Christ, and and if Jesus Christ be indeed the priest that was to come, he will be known by these three signs. Godly men in the olden times also well understood that there was no putting away of sin except with these three things. for example David, have a look at his prayer "Purge me with hyssop"—that is, the hyssop dipped in blood "and I shall be clean; wash me"—there is the water—"and I shall be whiter than snow;" and then, "Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit." - There is the spirit. ................................................................. Thus we can see the blood, the water, and the Spirit were recognized of old as necessary to cleanse from guilt, and if Jesus be indeed able to save his people from their sins, he must come with the triple gift—the Spirit, the water, and the blood. We know God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost We know Jesus whole doctrine is fitly comparable to purifying and life-giving water, and was baptized in water, it is also why you see water and blood came out of Jesus side when he was peirced We know Jesus came by blood" Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" "Now, the lamb which takes away sin is a slaughtered lamb, a bleeding lamb; It does seem, as stated towards the end of your post, that the water represents the cleansing and the life.

At the beginning of Epistles, the apostles great the readers with such words as 'May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.' Jude 1:2 Ok, here is my question: Does this really affect the people it is addressed to? Are ALL these believers going to get an extra measure of mercy, get more peace, and more love? Is that prayer from a righteous saint that can avail much? (James 5:16) what if the person is in a state of disobedience at the time. Will God still bless THEM? Do you think these words actually have an impact on the readers? Obviously there was a point to saying that then I suppose. ' Without any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater.'( Hebrews 7:7) So the apostles were greater of course. I always give a second thought when I read those. I assume the writer prayed that as he wrote it.

Maybe your pastor is just confusing people.

Why don't you ask your pastor? Or is your pride keeping you from doing so...:)

That one scripture comes to my mind. 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.' Since everything comes from Him, seems it is the only thing we can boast in. I find pride creeps in the more I read the bible, then sit at my church bible study among those who don't read it much and think I'm so smart and I hate that. I'd so prefer to be with those who are reading it the same or more than me so I can communicate better. But God has had my nose in the bible this year and a half, not me. He said, as I was pondering why, and He said 'so you'll be equipped for every good work.' But actually I love the concept of growing in love far more anyhow. Which is what I am working on. 'Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.' Who do WE the think WE are anyway?

A symbol of life? I am thinking of revelations towards the end of 'the water of life.' To support this, first, in 2 Peter he talks about how the unrighteous are 2:17 'These men are springs without water. Also the Samaritan women at the well, Jesus told her He would give her 'living' water. It has to do with spiritual life, and it is a spiritual water, but for the sake of us in the natural, it poured out of Jesus in the natural too, to bear witness. It was a sign.

'The Word' IS Jesus. The Word is alot of things by God! The Word is everything by God, actually. We refer the the bible as the Word. He created everything by His Word. He speaks and it comes into being. 'For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two edge sword...' I guess I'm not getting how it is Jesus, but a part of it.

I'm sorry, Ezra, but it must be the way you are writing, that the way you are explaining, just doesn't, in many parts, make any sense to me. And I am pretty good at making sense. First, at the beginning, you have two different bible quotes. Both saying they are kjv. The real one must be the first. Then your first Q:, you didn't answer about the son being capitalized or not, whether it mattered or why. If you did. It wasn"t clear. But I am VERY tired. So maybe it is just me. But also, if it really is the 'Father' and not the Spirit referring to the triune God, then it still doesn't explain the use of the word water through out the rest of scripture. One more thing. How does both blood AND water prove He had died at the cross? Is this a naturally occuring phenomenon?

A symbol of life? I am thinking of revelations towards the end of 'the water of life.'

I am aware that energy thru alternate means can be stored.