z88

Do I have these things concerning belief correct? All my sins were placed on Jesus and he died for those things (along with everybody else's sins). God killed him for these sins of mine and for everybody else's sins (Isaiah 53:10 KJV - "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him"). Belief in this and that he rose from the dead and that he is God and the Son of God means I believe on his name. Belief on his name constitutes salvation. 1 John 5:13 King James Version 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. My understanding would be that his name would be the things relevant to him that are true. So the things I laid out would constitute "his name".

Does someone just need to believe in Jesus to be saved according to John 3? I get caught up on what it says in John 3:18 because I don't have a great understanding of what his name is. Wouldn't people who knew Jesus in person "believe" in him no matter what because they knew he existed? I don't understand how belief in him would equate to salvation, I'm not questioning it, I just don't understand it.

Oh wow, do you have more details about this? I was told his name was that he died to take the penalty for our sins (if this is even correct, still figuring things out), that he raised himself from the dead, and that he is the Son of God, and so forth.

Does anyone know what this says in Isaiah 53 in the original manuscripts? I'm trying to figure out if Jesus took the punishment for our sins (I know he received the penalty for them -death, I THINK?-, but I would like to know if he was punished for them) and read the KJV, but I don't know what this phrasing means in the KJV.

To simply believe in him. John 3:18 seems to say you must believe in his name though, but since Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved I suppose his name might include that he is Lord and that God raised him from the dead (this is not clear from John afaik so I don't think this is what his name is) or that you must only believe in part of his name, or through his name, ie. believe in his name. This seems to be what things are saying, it also seems to be evidenced by that you must "believe on him" (John 3:18 KJV). Sorry if this was confusing.

Oh wait, does John 3:18 mean you only have to believe in him through his name?

Don't you have to believe on Jesus' name according to John 3:18 (KJV)? Does that mean Jesus' name is that he is Lord and that God raised him from the dead? I don't understand. I thought his name would be that he died to be the propitiation for our sins, but I guess this is not the case? I really don't understand. John 3:18 (KJV) 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I can't figure this out for the life of me. Could someone in their own words please explain to me what someone must believe in order to be saved along with the appropriate verses from the Bible? Thank you so much.

I don't understand. Is this a contradiction?

Unless children that die in the womb pass away there are going to be so many people in the first resurrection, billions perhaps from all the abortions, assuming everyone comes to belief in heaven. The place where everyone lives is going to be huge.

Yes, somewhat. If the newer translations are just translating the same text the KJV is translating doesn't it expose a bias against the original translation and the language it arrives at?

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

I'm Canadian and notice a lot of middle eastern people and likewise. It doesn't really bother me as they seem to be good natured, maybe even more so than white Canadians, to put it aptly. I don't know if it makes any difference because I think most of the "churches" here do not teach biblically so you're basically just seeing one people group instead of another, and they're friendly enough, so what's the difference? This is just here though.

I don't know how you can read the other Bibles since you're reading language other than the original attempt at translation determined (to the best of my knowledge since it is the earliest attempt). Other translation attempts might expose a bias against the original language and a corruption of the true language.