Massorite Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted January 27, 2009 There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise. Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.Seems to be a condition to me? just like salvation....... the only totally unconditional thing is the Love of God for us...... every thing else has conditions to it, including salvation, we have to accept it, receive it..... everything else that is a promise, God has already done His part, it is up to us to do our part, the condition lays on us.... not God..... mike No that is not true. There was a condition attached to the promises that God gave to Abraham. In Genesis 12:1 the very first word recorded in the bible that God spoke to Abraham were "Get thee/you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house unto a land that I will show you". In verse to God said "AND I will make of you a great nation and I will bless you, and make your name great and you shall be a blessing: (VERSE 3) And I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed". The condition of the promise was whether or not Abraham believed and had faith enough in God to pack up all of his people and belongings and headed out to a land he had never been to. So what if Abraham had rebelled against the command from God to pack up and move? If Abraham had refused to be obedient to the command of God. God would not have fulfilled the promises He gave Abraham in verses 2 & 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
being molded Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 62 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2009 Quote: Pearl in "N.I.V goofed" translation of Isa.14: 12. No, they didn't - Hebrew words refer to Morning Star - Latin translation = Lucifer because that's the ancient Latin name of the morning star. King of Babylon tried to rise above stars of God, but was brought low. Jesus rose above stars of God after He had been brought low (Rev.22: 16). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lampoilcan Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 9 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/27/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1954 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Hello Everyone While I agree that sometimes you need to focus on the most reliable translations for word studies and the Hebrew and Greek Meaning of a biblical word. I like different translations in order to get a more surround a sound view of what subject I am looking at. What I like about the NIV and the Living is that it simplifies the text and paraphrases it so as to get the intended meaning across. While there may be an inherent loss of exact or perfect translation, most of the time its accurate. If I am just reading about the Lord is my Shepherd, than paraphase is ok, if I want to study a specific word than I may look at the KJV, NKJV, Holman, Amplified, etc. I may go to the Blue Letter Bible online or Biblegateway for online studies. My name is Jim My Christian information website is called http://www.alloftheanswers.com If you want to know about me personally then http://www.myspace/lampoilcansladder.com Have a blessed day Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
being molded Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 62 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2009 Aww, shucks, Jim. We're just having fun on a discussion board pointing out the flaws of a version that claims in its foreword to use "the best and oldest manuscripts". Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Hello Everyone While I agree that sometimes you need to focus on the most reliable translations for word studies and the Hebrew and Greek Meaning of a biblical word. I like different translations in order to get a more surround a sound view of what subject I am looking at. What I like about the NIV and the Living is that it simplifies the text and paraphrases it so as to get the intended meaning across. While there may be an inherent loss of exact or perfect translation, most of the time its accurate. If I am just reading about the Lord is my Shepherd, than paraphase is ok, if I want to study a specific word than I may look at the KJV, NKJV, Holman, Amplified, etc. I may go to the Blue Letter Bible online or Biblegateway for online studies. My name is Jim My Christian information website is called http://www.alloftheanswers.com If you want to know about me personally then http://www.myspace/lampoilcansladder.com Have a blessed day Jim Hello Jim So what about Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together an all the Sons of God shouted for joy? Who do you think these morning stars are? Because this verse speaks of more then one and how they at one morning star time sang together. This verse also speaks once again about the Sons of God as in "all of the sons of God shouted for joy". Which would speak once again for the Sons of God being angels and not men. It is my belief since we have no idea as to what part of time God is talking about here. But we do know that God is asking where Job was when God did the many things long before Job was a even speck in the eye of God. It is my belief that these morning stars are Jesus and satan who would sing together long, Worshiping God before satan fell from Grace along with ALL of the Sons of God who were shouting for joy all together. The fact that the bible says or uses the word "all" tells me that this time God is talking about was before a third of the angels fell with satan. How is it that we can attribute something from earth to that which God is speaking about as heavenly perhaps even before man was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishcowboy Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,248 Content Per Day: 0.88 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2009 There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise. Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.Seems to be a condition to me? just like salvation....... the only totally unconditional thing is the Love of God for us...... every thing else has conditions to it, including salvation, we have to accept it, receive it..... everything else that is a promise, God has already done His part, it is up to us to do our part, the condition lays on us.... not God..... mike No that is not true. There was a condition attached to the promises that God gave to Abraham. In Genesis 12:1 the very first word recorded in the bible that God spoke to Abraham were "Get thee/you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house unto a land that I will show you". In verse to God said "AND I will make of you a great nation and I will bless you, and make your name great and you shall be a blessing: (VERSE 3) And I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed". The condition of the promise was whether or not Abraham believed and had faith enough in God to pack up all of his people and belongings and headed out to a land he had never been to. So what if Abraham had rebelled against the command from God to pack up and move? If Abraham had refused to be obedient to the command of God. God would not have fulfilled the promises He gave Abraham in verses 2 & 3. i see it as thus..... God stood by His end of the bargain..... if Abram had rebelled, that ended it, God's promise still stood, no matter what Abram did. Abram did follow through and God's promise was manifested. it was completed even before Abram started. just as salvation, it is made available in the present, but was given in the past...... Isa 53:7-10 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. in Is, it has already happened, yet Christ had yet to come. Abram had already received the promise,even though he had yet take hold of it. had Abram rejected the Lord, where would he have been left? the promise was there, Abram had to step out to receive it.... this would be no different then me saying to my kids...... you come for Christmas and there will be a gift here for you..... one out of five show up, and receives what was promised. the other four gifts are still here...... even though no one else has shown up..... being they have not stepped out, they have not received the gifts...... here is the deal.... how long do I hold on to these gifts that have not been claimed? how long do I hold on to the promise of the gifts being here for them????? God has provided us a Gift greater then any other. there are many that have rejected it. and one day, it will be too late, right now, the Gift is still on hand for the claiming, soon, it will not be there...... the promise God made with Abram, was conditional... Abram had to step out..... had he not.... hmmm well, we will never know, for Abram did step out..... and thus received the gift promised.... mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I was talking to my manager/preacher the other day, and he asked me to read a passage from Genesis about Adam needing a companion. I remember the NIV (which I always use) used the word "helper", and he asked me what translation I was using because his KJV used "help-meet". When I told him that I always use NIV, he told me that the NIV had over 3000 deletions from the KJV and that it was good only as a reference bible. Is there any truth to that or has anyone else ever heard anything similar? Shiloh62 I think the NIV is the best rendering of the Old Testament (headed up by Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible college) but I agree that the NEW Testament section is flawed as are all the other translations. My favorite is the NASB but I read all the translations when studying. It would be better to read the bible completely in hebrew. When I get someone who reads/understands hebrew to tell me what their bible says, it's always much deeper revelation than the english language can offer. what is your opinion of the "Complete Jewish Bible " an english version by David H. Stern, published by, Jewish New Testament Publications, copyright 1998 I loved the first version...the jewish New Testament. It brings out a lot of hebraic idioms that get lost in greek, latin, and english translations. It corrects many of the very bad ways life in 1st century Israel is portrayed by ALL the other translations. But the Complete Jewish Bible is a bit burdensome for me. Not saying it is a bad translation at all...but I find myself having to check my NASB to figure out the names that I would recognize in any other version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
being molded Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 62 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2009 Cobalt 1959, I agree with you. A molehill becomes a mountain. I have at home NIV, KJV, NKJV, NLT, KJV with Strong's Hebrew/Greek Dictionaries, English translation of Aramaic N.T (the Peshita), Complete Jewish Bible. More importantly, the Living Word in my heart and Head of my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
being molded Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 62 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2009 Right. I don't wanna push it but my chief reason for not holding the N.I.U in high esteem is all the verses it omits from the main body of the text and places instead in the footnotes with a comment like "some manuscripts include..." Sometimes doctrine can be affected, were it not for other translations. But that's just my opinion - I wouldn't like the N.I.V to be the only version! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted January 27, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted January 27, 2009 There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise. Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.Seems to be a condition to me? just like salvation....... the only totally unconditional thing is the Love of God for us...... every thing else has conditions to it, including salvation, we have to accept it, receive it..... everything else that is a promise, God has already done His part, it is up to us to do our part, the condition lays on us.... not God..... mike No that is not true. There was a condition attached to the promises that God gave to Abraham. In Genesis 12:1 the very first word recorded in the bible that God spoke to Abraham were "Get thee/you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house unto a land that I will show you". In verse to God said "AND I will make of you a great nation and I will bless you, and make your name great and you shall be a blessing: (VERSE 3) And I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed". The condition of the promise was whether or not Abraham believed and had faith enough in God to pack up all of his people and belongings and headed out to a land he had never been to. So what if Abraham had rebelled against the command from God to pack up and move? If Abraham had refused to be obedient to the command of God. God would not have fulfilled the promises He gave Abraham in verses 2 & 3. i see it as thus..... God stood by His end of the bargain..... if Abram had rebelled, that ended it, God's promise still stood, no matter what Abram did. Abram did follow through and God's promise was manifested. it was completed even before Abram started. just as salvation, it is made available in the present, but was given in the past...... Isa 53:7-10 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. in Is, it has already happened, yet Christ had yet to come. Abram had already received the promise,even though he had yet take hold of it. had Abram rejected the Lord, where would he have been left? the promise was there, Abram had to step out to receive it.... this would be no different then me saying to my kids...... you come for Christmas and there will be a gift here for you..... one out of five show up, and receives what was promised. the other four gifts are still here...... even though no one else has shown up..... being they have not stepped out, they have not received the gifts...... here is the deal.... how long do I hold on to these gifts that have not been claimed? how long do I hold on to the promise of the gifts being here for them????? God has provided us a Gift greater then any other. there are many that have rejected it. and one day, it will be too late, right now, the Gift is still on hand for the claiming, soon, it will not be there...... the promise God made with Abram, was conditional... Abram had to step out..... had he not.... hmmm well, we will never know, for Abram did step out..... and thus received the gift promised.... mike I agree. God would have found some body else to bless. Either way the plan of God would have been accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts