People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.

1/10/2017 1:21:07 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	There seems to be some confusion about the Greek word "genea" - some claim that the koine Greek "genea" does not mean the same thing that the modern word generation means. According to Strongs: G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) KJV --age, generation, nation, time. From Strong's we have: 1 - a generation, by implication (the period of the persons) 2 - The KJV - a nation, we could include a race such as the Jews Merriam-Webster definition for generation: Definition of generation: a : a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor b : a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously c : a group of individuals having contemporaneously a status (as that of students in a school) which each one holds only for a limited period ":a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor" - this could fit in with the Strong's definition of race or nation according to G1085 "a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously" - this would fit Strong's definition of "a generation, by implication (the period of the persons)" So there is no difference in the definition of the ancient Greek word "genea" definition and the modern definition as far as I can see. So that bogus claim is refuted In the new testament how do we decide what is being said in regards to the Greek word "genea" - how do we decide whether it is a race (stock) or the age/generation of the persons? Context is the best decider, and in some case presuppositional "theological" beliefs will be the deciding factor. Looking at Matt: (Mat 24:34 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Some claim that the events described by Jesus in his previous statements did not ALL happen, therefore he could not be referring to his current generation of hearers, but rather the race/stock of Jews will not pass until "ALL these things be fulfilled". It has also been claimed in their defense that Adam Clarke agrees with them: Adam Clarke's commentary on Matt 24:34: This generation shall not pass - (genea houtos), *this race; i.e. the Jews* shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled. *Some translate (genea houtos), this generation, meaning the persons who were then living, that they should not die* before these signs, etc., took place: but though this was true, as to the calamities that fell upon the Jews, and the destruction of their government, temple, etc. Yet as our Lord mentions Jerusalem's continuing to be under the power of the Gentiles till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, i.e. till all the nations of the world should receive the Gospel of Christ, after which the Jews themselves should be converted unto God, Romans 11:25, etc., I think it more proper not to restrain its meaning to the few years which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem; but to understand it of the care taken by Divine providence to preserve them as a distinct people, and yet to keep them out of their own land, and from their temple service. See on Mark 13:30; (note). But still it is literally true in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. John probably lived to see these things come to pass; compare Matthew 16:28, with John 21:22; and there were some rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these words who lived till the city was destroyed, viz. Rabban Simeon, who perished with the city; R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it; R. Zadoch, R. Ismael, and others We all due respect to Adam his choice of "this race, i.e. the Jews" is wrong. In this case it is based on his Methodist viewpoint/theology. Nonetheless I believe in most other areas he has written an excellent commentary. Mr. Adolph Knoch would also disagree with Adam Clarke as Knoch's comment (minimal though they are on Matt 24:34) show: 34 His coming to Israel should have taken place in that generation. Looking at other scriptures in regard to "genea": (Mat 12:41 KJV) The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. So what is the correct definition in the above "with this generation" - Jewish race/stock or the contemporary generation that heard Jesus speak? Did the whole Jewish race/stock hear Jesus preaching? Evidently not - it was the contemporary generation of Jews that heard him. Would the men of Nineveh rise up and condemn the whole Jewish race/stock? (Luke 11:29 KJV) And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, (This is an) evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Did Jesus say the whole Jewish stock/race seek a sign? Here is another use of "genea": (Mat 1:17 KJV) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. I don't think the above needs any explanation. (Heb 3:9 KJV) When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. (Heb 3:10 KJV) Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. Again I don't think the definition of "genea" needs any explanation. (Luke 1:50 KJV) And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. I don't think the definition of "genea" needs any explanation in the above either Act 14:16 (Young's Literal) who in the past generations did suffer all the nations to go on in their ways. I can't find any usage in the NT that uses the Greek "genea" to refer to a stock or race. Case dismythed. [Edited 1/10/2017 1:23:05 PM ] Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
1/10/2017 5:52:51 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Hi, this is really Kristy Klarke, Rich`s secret girl friend. Anyway,and my Uncle is Edam Klarke And he says Adam Clarke is a good guy, and I say vote for the sexist and best dressed Politician in Canada next election in BC, Christy Clark.
1/10/2017 6:26:35 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	I know that Edam guy, bit mild and cheesy with a tough exterior - soft in the middle though.
1/11/2017 7:41:51 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	bigV still talkin' 'bout this generation - the D must stand for dingbat... I already pointed how Adolph Knoch in his commentary translated the Greek word genea as generation - he obviously is using the English language to help his readers understand. He purposely translated genea as generation in the way modern readers would understand. Not only did he translate it as generation in the modern sense he commented on the verses in the same sense - Knoch is supposed to be a literal translator, so if he chose generation then that's exactly what it means in the verses he translated... Examples: (Acts 2:40 KJV) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Acts 2:40 (CLV) Besides, with more and different words, he conjures and entreated them, saying, "Be saved from this crooked generation!" From Knoch's commentary: Acts 2:40 The salvation was from the judgments about to visit that crooked generation (Mat 24:34 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mark 24:34 (CLV) "Verily, I am saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by till all these things should be occurring. From Knoch's commentary: Mark 24:34 His coming to Israel should have taken place in that generation. (Mark 13:30 KJV) Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mark 13:30 (CLV) Verily, I am saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by until the time when all these things may be occurring. From Knoch's commentary: Mark 13:30 These things should have occurred in that generation. This is from the Concordant site's Concordant Greek Text + sublinear and CLNT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/misc/Concordant+Greek+Text+sublinear%2C+and+CLNT.pdf No bible translates "genea" in any other way than generation including the Concordant Literal Version. It seems bigV can't read - his genea argument has turned to diarrhea... Case dismythed...
1/11/2017 9:10:45 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	bigV still talkin' 'bout this generation - the D must stand for dingbat... I already pointed how Adolph Knoch in his commentary translated the Greek word genea as generation - he obviously is using the English language to help his readers understand. He purposely translated genea as generation in the way modern readers would understand. Not only did he translate it as generation in the modern sense he commented on the verses in the same sense - Knoch is supposed to be a literal translator, so if he chose generation then that's exactly what it means in the verses he translated... lol, well he blocked me. He has some strange transference thing going on. He was going on about mu use of Strongs regarding the "short sword". I should check it out in the Knockers commentary, the one with the special Koine Greek! lol. Cannot recall what verse it was though, or what thread. Been a long week so far, will check it tomorrow.
1/11/2017 9:55:26 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from isna_la_wica: lol, well he blocked me. He has some strange transference thing going on. He was going on about mu use of Strongs regarding the "short sword". I should check it out in the Knockers commentary, the one with the special Koine Greek! lol. Cannot recall what verse it was though, or what thread. Been a long week so far, will check it tomorrow. Me blocked too.... I was gonna ask the lady to take the witness box to question why she would be calling me mindy? He obviously can't read Strong's: G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). KJV: age, generation, nation, time. It's only by implication that it means age - the direct definition in Strong's is a generation He's pulled this type of BS before with Strong's VS Strong's Plus - I only have Strong's, bought over 30 years ago along with a load of commentaries including Adam Clarke's. His claim about Strong's plus is bogus - as usual. This is typical BS from BigVD - I don't usually bother responding to the dink. Here he is on a Nitrous Oxide high commenting on the loss the of the word "kairos" from the textus receptus as against the "ancinet" text that he supposedly uses. He screen shots a pic with the Greek kairos in there and claims it's missing......... Thread "They Just Don't Get It" https://DateHookup.dating/thread-1435811.htm Oh, we get it bigVD: In his own words "Bad research. Bad breath." Quote from bigDV9832+: Textus Recepticius. What's a "Recepticius"... [Edited 1/11/2017 9:57:02 PM ]
1/11/2017 10:13:46 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	He's pulled this type of BS before with Strong's VS Strong's Plus - I only have Strong's, bought over 30 years ago along with a load of commentaries including Adam Clarke's. His claim about Strong's plus is bogus - as usual. This is typical BS from BigVD - I don't usually bother responding to the dink. The Strongs verse Strongs is a weird one. He keeps going on and on and on, about "special Koine Greek", Strongs. What's a "Recepticius".. Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera ... Textus Receptus - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus I am probably using the wrong Wikipedia though. I think it means : Text us- Receive us in Koine texting slang though.
1/11/2017 10:38:41 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	I've never heard of Strong's + unless it is this - from Amazon: The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: "The Best Bible Study Tool Available Only one concordance includes the best of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Hebrew and Greek dictionaries now have three times more word study information than any other edition. Plus additional cross-references from leading dictionaries make this the ultimate reference tool for pastors, teachers, and all students of the Bible." Nothing wrong with Vines, I've had one for nearly 30 years. Strong's is a Concordance tied with the KJV - not a full explanation of Greek meanings. The only reason it is well used is because the KJV was popular - there are better tools available that take into account usage in the bible and non-biblical sources. Oxford Dictionary: Definition of concordance in English: concordance NOUN 1 An alphabetical list of the words (especially the important ones) present in a text or texts, usually with citations of the passages concerned or with the context displayed on a computer screen: ‘a concordance to the Bible’ Strong's includes a definition of the Greek but is not the "end all" for definitions.
1/11/2017 11:01:16 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from mindya: I've never heard of Strong's + unless it is this - from Amazon: The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: "The Best Bible Study Tool Available Only one concordance includes the best of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Hebrew and Greek dictionaries now have three times more word study information than any other edition. Plus additional cross-references from leading dictionaries make this the ultimate reference tool for pastors, teachers, and all students of the Bible." Nothing wrong with Vines, I've had one for nearly 30 years. Strong's is a Concordance tied with the KJV - not a full explanation of Greek meanings. The only reason it is well used is because the KJV was popular - there are better tools available that take into account usage in the bible and non-biblical sources. Oxford Dictionary: Definition of concordance in English: concordance NOUN 1 An alphabetical list of the words (especially the important ones) present in a text or texts, usually with citations of the passages concerned or with the context displayed on a computer screen: ‘a concordance to the Bible’ Strong's includes a definition of the Greek but is not the "end all" for definitions. So you are not reliant on the KGV word used.Example : Colossians 2:1 Young's Literal Translation For I wish you to know how great a conflict I have for you and those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, But the KJV uses the word "contending So I will then go to the YLT: G1926 - epidechomai - Strong's Greek Lexicon (YLT) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=ylt&strongs=g1926 Click on the strongs number and look it up. But he insists only his CLV is the correct Bible.So because it uses a different word, his meanings from strongs changes form others. I tried to explain that to him once, but it was a lost cause.
1/11/2017 11:13:04 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Not sure you "clicked" on the right word there Rich. I have it as "agon" G73 agon ag-one' from G71; properly, a place of assembly (as if led), i.e. (by implication) a contest (held there); figuratively, an effort or anxiety. KJV: conflict, contention, fight, race. So YLT use of "conflict" would be acceptable [Edited 1/11/2017 11:15:35 PM ]
1/11/2017 11:19:13 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from mindya: Not sure you "clicked" on the right word there Rich. I have it as "agon" G73 agon ag-one' from G71; properly, a place of assembly (as if led), i.e. (by implication) a contest (held there); figuratively, an effort or anxiety. KJV: conflict, contention, fight, race. So YLT use of "conflict" would be acceptable Your right.
1/11/2017 11:26:38 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from isna_la_wica: So you are not reliant on the KJV word used: Not sure what you are asking here - I do use Strong's - but I also check lexicons.
1/11/2017 11:43:34 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Col 2:1 For I want you to perceive what the struggle amounts to which I am having for your sakes and for those in Laodicea, and whoever have not seen my face in flesh, Ol' Knocho used struggle - so how come he didn't use the base "interpretation" from the Greek: G73 agon ag-one' from G71; properly, a place of assembly. So the literal reading according to bigVD9832+ would be: Col 2:1 For I want you to perceive what the place of assembly amounts to which I am having for your sakes and for those in Laodicea, and whoever have not seen my face in flesh, See how that works? There is more behind the definition.
1/12/2017 9:07:16 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from mindya: Col 2:1 For I want you to perceive what the struggle amounts to which I am having for your sakes and for those in Laodicea, and whoever have not seen my face in flesh, Ol' Knocho used struggle - so how come he didn't use the base "interpretation" from the Greek: G73 agon ag-one' from G71; properly, a place of assembly. So the literal reading according to bigVD9832+ would be: Col 2:1 For I want you to perceive what the place of assembly amounts to which I am having for your sakes and for those in Laodicea, and whoever have not seen my face in flesh, See how that works? There is more behind the definition.
1/12/2017 9:44:22 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Can't stay busy
1/12/2017 10:06:56 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Thanks Rich We can see that the base word "place of assembly" has derivatives from usage by the populace of the time. Compilers of Greek concordances and lexicon etc. take into account usage from various sources to do so. Koine Greek did not develop out of no where. Here is the Liddel-Scott lexicon definition on "agon": Back to "my generation baby".. It is still being argued that the Greek word "genea" means race/nation or stock in such verses as: (Mat 24:34 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Adam Clarke uses race in his commentary, who I never claimed is a preterist according to some. This generation shall not pass - (genea houtos), this race; i.e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled. I said I didn't agree with this and neither did Adolph Knoch in his commentary on the new testament. "Genea" is according to Strongs "from (a presumed derivative of) G1085": G1085 genos ghen'-os from G1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective). KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock. A search on "genos" in the new testament yields some interesting results: Just a few examples to show that the writers of the gospels and letters chose to deferentiate between "genea" as a generation and "genos" when describing a nation. race or kin. (Mark 7:26 KJV) The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by *nation (Greek - genos); and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. (Gal 1:14 KJV) And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation (Greek - genos), being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (Acts 7:19 KJV) The same dealt subtly with our kindred (Greek - genos), and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. Adolph's CLV:* Acts 7:19 (CLV) This one, dealing astutely with our *race (Greek - genos), illtreats the fathers, causing their babes to be exposed that they should not live. Now: (Mat 24:34 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This race/nations* shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled; If that is what the writers of the gospels intended then they had a Greek word "genos" to use and rather than "genea". Which leads to the conclusion that in the use of "genea" the writers of the Gospels expected their readers to understand it as a generation of people in the same way we would do today: Generation X: The generation born after that of the baby boomers (roughly from the early 1960s to late 1970s. Writers attempting to make "genea" race, nation, kin or stock are doing so on presuppositional reasoning rather than solid exegesis. Adam Clarke although an excellent scholar is a Methodist therefore he is sticking to Amillennialism which some of his commentary reflects. Wiki: Amillennialism has been widely held in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, which generally embraces an Augustinian eschatology and which has deemed that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught." Amillennialism is also common among Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, many Messianic Jews, and Methodist Churches
1/13/2017 5:25:09 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Still talkin' 'bout my generation. This is from the LXX/Septuagint - we don't have the uncial text - but I'm assuming the guys that put this together knew how to use Greek "genea" (G1074) and "genos" (G1085) First we have a shot Deuteronomy and one from Exodus and then two from the book of Ester: (Deu 2:14 KJV) And the space in which we came from Kadeshbarnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Exo 17:16 KJV) For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They used "genea" to describe a generation NOT "genos" From Ester: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As can be see from the two examples in the book of Ester that they used "genos" for race/nation/stock NOT "genea" I'm sure there are more examples - but with the opposition desperately trying to deny this it really won't make any dent in the thinking - same with Lud. I'll need a bump to continue - thanks.
1/13/2017 5:37:02 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Carry on
1/13/2017 6:09:47 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Thanks Loop. Here is Adolph Knoch contradictimg scripture and boldly too: Hebrews 9:26 (CLV) since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, b]yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest. Adolph's Commentary: Hebrews 9:26 It is evident that Christ did not appear at "the end of the world", nor, indeed, at the conclusion of the eons. Neither has sin been completely eliminated. Such, however, is the efficacy of His sacrifice, that we know that sin must eventually be banished from the universe. And we know also that this will be at the conclusion of the eons. Hence this somewhat complicated sentence has been rendered to this effect. Heb 9:26 (Young's Literal) since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested. (Heb 9:26 KJV) For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Because of his Darbyist "theology" Knoch has to deny his own literal translation and contradict the letter to the Hebrews - unbelievable!! Adam Clarke at least only preferred the use of "race of Jews" when dealing with the Greek word "genea" in Matt 24:34 and commented accordingly. Not that I agree with him on that. Adam Clarke's commentary: Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered - In the counsel of God, Christ was considered the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8, so that all believers before his advent were equally interested in his sacrificial death with those who have lived since his coming. Humanly speaking, the virtue of the annual atonement could not last long, and must be repeated; Christ's sacrifice is ever the same; his life's blood is still considered as in the act of being continually poured out. See Revelation 5:6. The end of the world - The conclusion of the Jewish dispensation, the Christian dispensation being that which shall continue till the end of time. To put away sin - To abolish the sin-offerings; i.e. to put an end to the Mosaic economy by his one offering of himself. It is certain that, after Christ had offered himself, the typical sin-offerings of the law ceased; and this was expressly foretold by the Prophet Daniel, Daniel 9:24. Some think that the expression should be applied to the putting away the guilt, power, and being of sin from the souls of believers. When someone directly contradicts a biblical statement and tries to explain it away because of their "doctrinal" presupposition you know there is something not right.
1/13/2017 7:05:20 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from mindya: Thanks Loop. Here is Adolph Knoch contradictimg scripture and boldly too: Hebrews 9:26 (CLV) since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, b]yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest. Adolph's Commentary: Hebrews 9:26 It is evident that Christ did not appear at "the end of the world", nor, indeed, at the conclusion of the eons. Neither has sin been completely eliminated. Such, however, is the efficacy of His sacrifice, that we know that sin must eventually be banished from the universe. And we know also that this will be at the conclusion of the eons. Hence this somewhat complicated sentence has been rendered to this effect. Heb 9:26 (Young's Literal) since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested. (Heb 9:26 KJV) For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Because of his Darbyist "theology" Knoch has to deny his own literal translation and contradict the letter to the Hebrews - unbelievable!! Adam Clarke at least only preferred the use of "race of Jews" when dealing with the Greek word "genea" in Matt 24:34 and commented accordingly. Not that I agree with him on that. Adam Clarke's commentary: Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered - In the counsel of God, Christ was considered the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8, so that all believers before his advent were equally interested in his sacrificial death with those who have lived since his coming. Humanly speaking, the virtue of the annual atonement could not last long, and must be repeated; Christ's sacrifice is ever the same; his life's blood is still considered as in the act of being continually poured out. See Revelation 5:6. The end of the world - The conclusion of the Jewish dispensation, the Christian dispensation being that which shall continue till the end of time. To put away sin - To abolish the sin-offerings; i.e. to put an end to the Mosaic economy by his one offering of himself. It is certain that, after Christ had offered himself, the typical sin-offerings of the law ceased; and this was expressly foretold by the Prophet Daniel, Daniel 9:24. Some think that the expression should be applied to the putting away the guilt, power, and being of sin from the souls of believers. When someone directly contradicts a biblical statement and tries to explain it away because of their "doctrinal" presupposition you know there is something not right. Making scripture fit your doctrine. These "customize-rs", try and make God fit them, instead of vice versa. Sad.
1/13/2017 7:17:39 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Mindya, why do you think scripture is superior to Catholic doctrine, in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in the light of the fact that it is only by Catholic doctrine that we know which Books belong in the Bible?
1/13/2017 7:22:54 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from ludlowlowell: Mindya, why do you think scripture is superior to Catholic doctrine, in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in the light of the fact that it is only by Catholic doctrine that we know which Books belong in the Bible? mindya is one of the few around this place who is not buying the propaganda and lies about your church , being sold by the end times prophecy industry. And he is using Scripture to show their lies. And you want him to stop? Why?
1/13/2017 7:30:13 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Why don't you read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for yourself, Isna? Then you will see that sola scriptura is a false doctrine.
1/13/2017 7:47:48 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from ludlowlowell: Mindya, why do you think scripture is superior to Catholic doctrine, in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in the light of the fact that it is only by Catholic doctrine that we know which Books belong in the Bible? Quick answer then I'm heading out: (Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Those "searching the scriptures daily" didn't head to the local synagogue or seek the Sanhedrin to see if those things were "so". Se how they checked Paul's message against the OT scripture. Why should I not do the same with the RC doctrine? [Edited 1/13/2017 7:48:21 PM ]
1/13/2017 9:46:05 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Because not everything Jesus taught, or that the apostles taught, was written down in scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John say so. And because the New Testament scripture came from the Church, not the other way around. What is the New Testament, except a history of the early days of the Catholic Church?
1/14/2017 4:53:33 AM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Quote from ludlowlowell: Because not everything Jesus taught, or that the apostles taught, was written down in scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John say so. And because the New Testament scripture came from the Church, not the other way around. What is the New Testament, except a history of the early days of the Catholic Church? funny, I've not seen the Catholic Church mentioned in the new testament. So how could it be their history? Oh yea, it's not!!
1/14/2017 8:52:05 AM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from looptex1: funny, I've not seen the Catholic Church mentioned in the new testament. So how could it be their history? Oh yea, it's not!! What is ironic, is that Lud sides with the ones on here who say it is in scripture, and is the "whre", or beast". And this thread is in response to the dispensationl-r-us fan, that claims the Roman Catholic Church is in Scripture and is the "whre" etc. And Lud, is siding with the Knoch lies.
1/14/2017 3:42:55 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Quote from looptex1: funny, I've not seen the Catholic Church mentioned in the new testament. So how could it be their history? Oh yea, it's not!! You won't find the phrase "Catholic Church" in the Bible, but you won't find the word "Bible" there either. But the Catholic Church is the Church described in the New Testament. The Church then and now had/has a pope (Peter), bishops (the apostles), priests (elders), deacons, and the Mass (the Breaking of the Bread).
1/14/2017 6:07:17 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Quote from ludlowlowell: You won't find the phrase "Catholic Church" in the Bible, but you won't find the word "Bible" there either. But the Catholic Church is the Church described in the New Testament. The Church then and now had/has a pope (Peter), bishops (the apostles), priests (elders), deacons, and the Mass (the Breaking of the Bread). The reason you don't find the word bible in the bible is because there was no such thing. men put the letters written I to a book and called it the bible. It did not exsist prior to them being joined Just like the Catholic Church. It didn't exsist at the time these letters were written, orbit b would be mentioned and quite possibly would have received a message from Jesus in revelations just like the other 7 churches that were in existence.
1/14/2017 6:42:44 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	All those seven local churches were part of the larger Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. In the New Testament we see one, unified, visible, organized body, with the same doctrines taught everywhere---the Catholic Church. What we don't see are thousands of competing denominations, each one teaching a different set of doctrines than the other.
1/14/2017 8:43:05 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
mindya Vancouver, BC 64, joined Jan. 2009	Quote from ludlowlowell: Because not everything Jesus taught, or that the apostles taught, was written down in scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John say so. That's not what John said at all: (John 21:25 KJV) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. (2 Th 2:15 KJV) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. That only applies to the original messengers and most likely the epistles did not contain anything that was not taught by "word". And because the New Testament scripture came from the Church, not the other way around. What is the New Testament, except a history of the early days of the Catholic Church? The Berean's used the old testament to verify the message, the same way we use the NT to check out what any denomination or church says. If it ain't derived from or can be established from the bible it's not from there.
1/14/2017 8:52:42 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	First came the Church, THEN came the Bible, a.d. 33 a.d. respectively.
1/14/2017 9:18:16 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008	Quote from ludlowlowell: All those seven local churches were part of the larger Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. In the New Testament we see one, unified, visible, organized body, with the same doctrines taught everywhere---the Catholic Church. What we don't see are thousands of competing denominations, each one teaching a different set of doctrines than the other. really? Then why did Paul and peter have words? I dont think they were teaching the same doctrine. What about those who overthrew the faith of some? Surely they were teaching different for peter to warn about them. And why isn't this larger church mentioned? Because it didn't exsist.
1/14/2017 11:25:33 PM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Peter and Paul had words over what the correct doctrine should be, but once the argument was settled they believed and taught the same thing---namely, that circumcision, abstention from pork, and obedience to tge Levitical law was no longer necessary. What if Peter and Paul were like modern day Protestants? (Of course they couldn't have been, since Protestantism wasn't invented until 1516, but just suppose.) Paul would have gone and started his own denomination, then soon he and Luke would have squabbled over something, and Luke started his own denomination, then Luke and Barnabas disagreed, and Barnabus started his own denomination...meanwhile, out in Mesopotamia, Simon and Jude would have squabbled over something, and bang two MORE denominations, and so on. But we don't see that, do we? We see that the apostles, even if they disagreed with Pope Peter, they respected Peter's authority, and stayed united to the Church. In today's Church we have this cardinal named Raymond Burke who has disagreed with Pope Francis over marriage and homosexuality, but we don't see Cardinal Burke starting his own denomination, do we? The Church is the calling of God's people, so how could tgere ever be more than one Church?
1/15/2017 10:57:41 AM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	John 1 Amplified Bible (AMP) The Deity of Jesus Christ 1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it]. Speaks for its self. Pun intended. [Edited 1/15/2017 10:58:00 AM ]
2/3/2017 8:54:35 AM	People try to put me down, talkin' 'bout this generation.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010

philadelphia hookups

american hookup sites