Considering Repentance

[claude]

There is huge Biblical evidence of the need for repentance, which means basically to have a change of heart, or to turn around and go a different way.

Do you believe there is forgiveness without repentance? I'm aware of the 7X70 teaching, yet believe that repentance is required for forgiveness, even to 490 times a day, and that simple confession is left wanting.

[Thundarstick]

One of the things I believe Christians fail to name is works. There are so many things we take for granted yet fail to realize they are works. The scriptures plainly teach we are saved by grace through faith, yet faith without works is a dead faith. Anything that requires my action is a work and this includes repentance. You can believe, yet take no action, and that is exactly what James means when he says the devils believe and trimble, yet don't obey! Faith with out works is dead. A living faith requires action on my part!

[Wayne Smith]

Part of the problem is understanding the difference in how the Greek and the Hebrew assumed the language worked. For the Greek I am what I think. For the Hebrew I am what I do. The early Hebrew had a very literal approach to language. If you swore to an early Hebrew he would duck - so that the words would miss him. It was as if they had a physical presence.

So for a Hebrew the assumption is that repentance is action - there is no other way to do it. We tend to be very Greek in our assumptions!

[claude]

We tend to be very Greek in our assumptions!

Translates to? Were you Hebrew, your answer is clear, but saying you think much like the Greek, your answer is lacking.

I'm just an old redneck, when I think, it is action, ponderous at times, but action none the less. Therefore, changing the way I think is a work, turning my mind to think a different way is work, regretting is an act of will, it too is work. I speak only for myself, YMMV.

[GhostHawk]

It is my belief that to be forgiven of all your sins, you must repent.

You must be heartsick over each. And you must make a real effort to not repeat any of those sin's again. Jesus was quick to heal and to forgive, and quick to say "go forth and sin no more".

Repent yes, and stand on that. Hold fast to it. Keep yourself on the path, stay in God's will. Sin no more, and then start seeing where you can lend a hand.

Simplistic perhaps, I am no scholar or theologian.
But when my Lord called me, on the third day I threw myself on the floor and begged for forgiveness. Tears streaming down my face. I believe I repented of every evil thing I ever did. Many of them went flashing through my mind. I continue to repent for the small thoughtless ways I have inflicted pain.

But how do we know? We are men, imperfect beings that fail and fall and stumble every single day. Until we stand before our maker how can we know what it is we will hear?

In my opinion, we can not "Know" we can only keep "trying" to be better. To be more like our Lord. More loving, less judging. More forgiving, more tolerant.

[claude]

I don't feel you're simplistic at all.


But how do we know?

Faith

[Parson]

Luke 13:3&5

[Thundarstick]

But how do we know? We are men, imperfect beings that fail and fall and stumble every single day. Until we stand before our maker how can we know what it is we will hear?



1Jo 1:5-10
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

[Ickisrulz]

It is my belief that to be forgiven of all your sins, you must repent.

You must be heartsick over each. And you must make a real effort to not repeat any of those sin's again. Jesus was quick to heal and to forgive, and quick to say "go forth and sin no more".

Repent yes, and stand on that. Hold fast to it. Keep yourself on the path, stay in God's will. Sin no more, and then start seeing where you can lend a hand.

Simplistic perhaps, I am no scholar or theologian.
But when my Lord called me, on the third day I threw myself on the floor and begged for forgiveness. Tears streaming down my face. I believe I repented of every evil thing I ever did. Many of them went flashing through my mind. I continue to repent for the small thoughtless ways I have inflicted pain.

But how do we know? We are men, imperfect beings that fail and fall and stumble every single day. Until we stand before our maker how can we know what it is we will hear?

In my opinion, we can not "Know" we can only keep "trying" to be better. To be more like our Lord. More loving, less judging. More forgiving, more tolerant.

Not everyone is the same emotionally. If "heartsick" over sin is required to be forgiven...I guess I am lost. There are plenty of things I have done that are sinful that I am not particularly all that broken up about. In fact, some have given me pretty good memories. I wouldn't repeat them if given the chance, but this is based on intellect rather than emotion. I try not to live a life characterized by sin.

[wv109323]

I really don't understand the definition of the word repentance We use it today as a change of heart,turn in a different direction or confession of sin (most think repentance equals obtaining salvation).
But my study reveals that the word repent was not in the English language until Tyndale translated the Bible into English. The root word was pentence which means penalty or fine or punishment. The "re" was the prefix added which made repentance the opposite meaning of pentence.
I think repent is the recognition of a sin against God but confession is the act of asking God to forgive us.
The Bible says Judas repented but I do not think he obtained salvation.

[Ickisrulz]

I really don't understand the definition of the word repentance We use it today as a change of heart,turn in a different direction or confession of sin (most think repentance equals obtaining salvation).
But my study reveals that the word repent was not in the English language until Tyndale translated the Bible into English. The root word was pentence which means penalty or fine or punishment. The "re" was the prefix added which made repentance the opposite meaning of pentence.
I think repent is the recognition of a sin against God but confession is the act of asking God to forgive us.
The Bible says Judas repented but I do not think he obtained salvation.

In the Bible "repent" means most simply "to change one's mind" ideally followed by a change in behavior.

In Judas' case he changed his mind on what he should have done, but killed himself rather than changing his behavior or seeking forgiveness

[claude]

but killed himself rather than changing his behavior or seeking forgiveness

I seriously question that, acts 1:18 indicates his bowels gushed out, it takes a large wound to let ones bowels gush out.

(Acts 1:18) "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

I Matt 27:5 The word hanged can be to choke oneself with grief,

(Matthew 27:5) "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

If we are going to speculate, it is more likely that the same people who paid him off for the tip about Jesus, likely killed him when they saw his repentance and could no longer count on his secrecy.


The Bible says Judas repented but I do not think he obtained salvation.

Isn't this is the very sort of judgement we are warned against, who are we, worms that we are, to decide who is or isn't saved? Just a thought.

[Ickisrulz]

I don't think there is much room in scripture to arrive at the conclusion that everything worked out OK in the end for Judas.

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Matt 26:24

Judas hanged himself. After the dead body had hung in the hot sun for a while, the rope broke and the bloated body came apart when it hit the ground spilling his guts.

[claude]

Judas hanged himself. After the dead body had hung in the hot sun for a while, the rope broke and the bloated body came apart when it hit the ground spilling his guts.

I see we are at an impasse, interesting statement though.

[Ickisrulz]

I see we are at an impasse, interesting statement though.

Do you really think every English translation committee mistranslated this verse? Do you really think Matthew would not have recorded Judas' murder if that had been the case?

The explanation I gave is one of a couple possible scenarios that reconcile Matthew and Luke's account of Judas' death. The other is that the rope broke in the process of the act and he hit some rocks causing severe injuries.

Most times the simplest way of reading something is the most correct. Lots of errors occur when people start fixating on Greek words without a comprehensive understanding of the entire language.

[wv109323]

I don't think I am judging Judas's soul. If Judas was repentant and forgiven by God, why would he hang himself. Does God forgive and we still have guilt to the point of suicide? Jesus himself called Judas a devil. Also Mat. 24:26

[claude]

wv109323, I don't believe you are either, however Judas gave back the money, a sure sign of repentance, as I said, just a thought.

[claude]

The explanation I gave is one of a couple possible scenarios that reconcile Matthew and Luke's account of Judas' death. The other is that the rope broke in the process of the act and he hit some rocks causing severe injuries.

As I said, we are at an impasse. However, how long do you believe a body has to hang before it becomes deteriorated enough to burst asunder upon hitting the floor, or rot the rope holding it up?? Additionally, the law required a body to be taken down before sundown and not hang overnight, Deut. 21:23-23

So if we are offering scenarios, mine works for me, yours works for you.


Do you really think every English translation committee mistranslated this verse? Do you really think Matthew would not have recorded Judas' murder if that had been the case?

I think that you discount the efforts of the scribes, and are possibly ignorant of who they are 1 Chron. 2:55, I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts. So yes, I do believe there are mistakes made. I also really think that every "new improved" translation loses information critical to proper understanding.

Have you read the preface to the King James bible where in the translators warn us to be aware that there are possibly mistakes made?

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000817.htm

If that is not enough information for you to confirm in your mind that we are probably never going to reach a same page status in this discussion, I'm at a loss to add anything further. I rest my case.

[Char-Gar]

Judas was a very interesting person. He was the only Judean in the Apostolic band, the rest being from Galilee. Galilee which translates "The District" was an area where Jews and Gentiles lived side by side and hence were considered to be an inferior type of Jew. Judas kept the common purse and paid the bills and there were rumors he was light fingered.

What motivated Judas is a matter of speculation and not fact. We do know he accepted 30 pieces of silver which was about a working man's yearly earnings. At some point in time, he regretted his part in the capture of Jesus and threw the money back at those who had given it to him.

There are two versions of the demise of Judas as mentioned above. One version has him falling down and bursting open and the other version has him hanging himself. The rotting corpse and breaking rope is an attempt to harmonize the two accounts. This montage was incorporated into movie "The Passion of Christ".

There are some things we know about Judas and many things we do not know. Speculation is fun, but never give it the weight of fact.

[claude]

There are some things we know about Judas and many things we do not know. Speculation is fun, but never give it the weight of fact.

Thank you Char-Gar, your entire comment is timely indeed.

[Ickisrulz]

As I said, we are at an impasse. However, how long do you believe a body has to hang before it becomes deteriorated enough to burst asunder upon hitting the floor, or rot the rope holding it up?? Additionally, the law required a body to be taken down before sundown and not hang overnight, Deut. 21:23-23

So if we are offering scenarios, mine works for me, yours works for you.



I think that you discount the efforts of the scribes, and are possibly ignorant of who they are 1 Chron. 2:55, I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts. So yes, I do believe there are mistakes made. I also really think that every "new improved" translation loses information critical to proper understanding.

Have you read the preface to the King James bible where in the translators warn us to be aware that there are possibly mistakes made?

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000817.htm

If that is not enough information for you to confirm in your mind that we are probably never going to reach a same page status in this discussion, I'm at a loss to add anything further. I rest my case.

I don't know of any translation or commentator dealing in the original languages that claims Judas did not physically hang himself. Do you?

Judas' body was not treated to the customary Jewish handling for whatever reason. His body was desecrated. That is the very point of Luke's description.

[claude]

I'm sorry, I have finished, this is going nowhere.

[Ickisrulz]

I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts.


Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4.

[Char-Gar]

A caveat about the use of "commentaries". The writer of every commentary comes at it with a point of view, a theology if you will. These theologies range from religious humanism that denies the divinity of Jesus to the most strident fundamentalist and every things in between.

Every stripe of theology, has it's scholars, professors, gurus knowing ones and all write commentaries.

When you pick up a biblical commentary, never think you are getting some colorless, odorless, neutral scholarship for you are not. You are getting one person's interpretation of a biblical book or passage, filtered through his own particular brand of Christian theology.

There are times when commentaries can be useful. But when you pick one up, know what your are picking up and digest them all with a grain of salt. You can find a scholarly commentary that will take any and every interpretation you can imagine.

[Char-Gar]

A word about vernacular translations of the Bible. There is not one translation that does not, in places, make presumptions about the meaning of original words. How words are translated often depends on the context.

Example: This morning my wife asked me how to tell the cleaning lady that something was "broken in Spanish. I asked her what was broken and how it it was broken for that made all the difference. If something like a glass is fractured/broken, it would be "quebrada". If a machine of some kind was not working, it would be "discompuesto". However depending on the level of the conversation, whatever is was could just be "roto".

The value of a translation is dependent on the accuracy of manuscript in the original languages and the understanding of the translator/translators of the times, customs, and type of conversation. They are at best a sort of paraphrase of the original language.

In my days as a lawyer down here on the border, I have seen the various attorneys, judges, and court translators almost come to blows over the translation from Spanish to English of a witnesses testimony. When all parties in the courtroom speak Spanish some real heated argument over the English meaning of testimony in Spanish. But, I digress.....

When the KJV was translated, the manuscripts were inferior to what we have now, in terms of number and age. Today we have found much older manuscripts than the ones used to translate the kJV. In fact there were at least one NT book for which not one Greek manuscript was extant. That book was translated from the Vulgate (Latin) into Greek and then from Greek into English.

The translation work of the KJV was outstanding, but it remains a very excellent translation of some inferior manuscripts.

Anyway when discussions are held about what the English Bible says and position are staked out, these are some important facts and factoids to recall.

[DoubleAdobe]

I really enjoy Charles' posts, and especially when he throws in some stuff about the Spanish language.
I can relate to the translation thing, both ways. What I know about the finer points of the Bible, I will leave to you guys, but it is interesting being a fly on the wall.

[Char-Gar]

Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4.

The Passover is a Jewish holiday that begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan and continues on for some seven or eight days. The Seder or Passover meal begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan. It celebrates the liberation and flight of the Jewish people from Egyptian bondage.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. It is also know as "Resurrection Sunday".

The Christian holiday Easter occurs during the Jewish holiday of Passover, but are quite distinctive, celebrating quite different events.

[Ickisrulz]

The Passover is a Jewish holiday that begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan and continues on for some seven or eight days. The Seder or Passover mean begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. It is also know as "Resurrection Sunday".

The Christian holiday Easter occurs during the Jewish holiday of Passover, but are quite distinctive celebrating quite different events.

Do you have any idea why the translators of the Authorized Version went with "Easter" rather than the correct word, "Passover?" Was there pressure from the King as there had been with "Baptism" vs "immersion?" Or is this a myth?

[Char-Gar]

Do you have any idea why the translators of the Authorized Version went with "Easter" rather than the correct word, "Passover?" Was there pressure from the King as there had been with "Baptism" vs "immersion?" Or is this a myth?

I really don't know. I have to "assume" that the translators knew the difference between "Easter" and "Passover" and chose the best word to express their intent.

The Baptism v. Immersion thingie could prove interesting, particularly where there are "deep water Baptists" or Church of Christ people involved. The earliest surviving ritual/teaching about baptism is found in a work called the Didache which means teaching and is the teaching of the Apostles on such matters. This work goes back to the 1st. Century AD so could very well be Apostolic in origin.

The Didache tells us that baptism should be by immersion in running water. If there is no running water available than by immersion in still water. If there is no still water available for immersion, then baptism could be done by dipping or pouring.

The bottom line is the apostolic church was not hung up on manner of baptism like the moderns seem to be.

[Thundarstick]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

[Ickisrulz]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

Baptizo= dip, immerse, wash. The transliteration opens up the possibility for "sprinkling."

It would seem that the 1st Century Church did not always immerse though.

[Char-Gar]

Baptizo= dip, immerse, wash. The transliteration opens up the possibility for "sprinkling."

It would seem that the 1st Century Church did not always immerse though.

The Methodist have all their bases covered. We will immerse, pour, sprinkle and some say spit or squirt. :-)

[Char-Gar]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

You and I agree on this subject. However, there are some Christians groups, most notably the Roman Catholic church that believe in "sacramental grace". This means the God's grace flows to people though/by means of the Sacraments. In this scenario, the grace of God comes through the act of baptism, regardless of what the folks receiving it understand or not.

It is always difficult to talk about Roman Catholic theology, because there are many different expressions of that in various parts of the world. They have a very diverse belief systems within the same group. Lots of conflict within the same church. Most churches that have diverse belief systems have lots of internal conflict.

[Blackwater]

This is a question I wresteled with for a very long time. All sorts of theological points of view vary quite widely on this. I've finally decided, at least tentatively and until I get better info, that forgiveness is pretty much "free for the asking," but to achieve true salvation, in the full meaning of it, repentance IS necessary. So many of our squabbles over theology are rooted VERY deeply in the semantics we choose, and what we make in our minds of the words we use. I've seen way too many theological discussions turn into arguments simply because the two sides were using very different meanings for the same words, and therefore, were arguing basically against a misunderstanding. Neither side was completely right nor wrong, but they sure can manage to make a lot of noise in the process of their misundeerstandings!

When we use words too losely, or don't qualify them so as to indicate more specifically what we mean by what we say, we'll always be misunderstood, and even our best efforts can't guarantee we won't be misunderstood. Human communication will always be difficult, no matter how rich one's vocabulary might be. Mostly, we just have to have the simple WILL to understand, and be determined to do so. Given that, words hardly matter, really and ultimately. Not all thoughts are easily captured fully by simple words. Some thoughts are like trees. They have a main trunk, but many, many branches, and it's really easy to argue the branches, and wind up talking
about a different branch than the one we're arguing with.

Ain't it fun bein' human??? :)

[shoot-n-lead]

I've finally decided, at least tentatively and until I get better info, that forgiveness is pretty much "free for the asking," but to achieve true salvation, in the full meaning of it, repentance IS necessary.

Not to be argumentative...but "salvation"...is salvation...no such thing in Christianity as "true salvation". Salvation or no salvation...there are no degrees of salvation.

[shoot-n-lead]

Most churches that have diverse belief systems have lots of internal conflict.

This seems to be descriptive of Christians in general...not just churches.

In all honesty, I am not really sure that discussions of Christianity really accomplish a lot other than to define the lines of battle among the practitioners of each group. JMO

[Blackwater]

Not to be argumentative...but "salvation"...is salvation...no such thing in Christianity as "true salvation". Salvation or no salvation...there are no degrees of salvation.

Point well taken. I just used "true" to ensure, as much as I could, that what I meant was the "real thing" and not some pretension or aspiration or tentative commitment. So we're on the same page, really. Thanks.

[1hole]

I don't think there is much room in scripture to arrive at the conclusion that everything worked out OK in the end for Judas.
-------------------
Judas hanged himself. After the dead body had hung in the hot sun for a while, the rope broke and the bloated body came apart when it hit the ground spilling his guts.

I agree in principle. It's the only scenario I've ever been able to imagine that reconciles what we do know about Judas' end.

IF Judas tied himself to a tree above a cliff and dropped to his death he is unlikely to have done it in a well traveled place so his body could easily have hung there for days without notice. As hot as that country can get, the body would have quickly started to rot and become bloated. His slimy neck would have been the most stressed part. His head would have been the first to pull off, letting him go. Dropping a bloated, rotting body down even a short cliff is a sure way to get a busted belly and sprayed guts.

The apparent "field of blood" conflict between his end and the Sanhedrin's land purchase means nothing. My best guess is there were probably many "fields of blood" back then just as we have plenty of "dead man's curves" on our local roads today.

That sequence is not only possible but ties up all the scriptual loose ends so none are left unaccounted for. Thus, I believe it's probably the true account. But ...

Whatever the true story, and like so many other trivial things we like to chew on, the details of Judas' end don't affect any Christian doctrine. So, it's interesting speculation to some of us but it doesn't really doesn't matter.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

One of the things I believe Christians fail to name is works. There are so many things we take for granted yet fail to realize they are works. The scriptures plainly teach we are saved by grace through faith, yet faith without works is a dead faith. Anything that requires my action is a work and this includes repentance. You can believe, yet take no action, and that is exactly what James means when he says the devils believe and trimble, yet don't obey! Faith with out works is dead. A living faith requires action on my part!

Well put!

Another way I've heard it explained is that faith can be better translated as "trust". Some people translate faith as "belief" (to their peril I suppose). You can stand on the tarmac and believe the airplane can fly. But to board it and take off requires more than belief, it requires faith (trust would work here too). And of course, boarding the plane would be a "work".

[1hole]

Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4

I believe you're correct. BUT, the KJV translators worked from several existing English texts AND the (Catholic) Latin Bible. They had none of the old texts available to them and few of them would have been competent to translate old Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek if they did. Working from Jerome's Latin translation gave them "Easter" instead of the more correct "passover" because they were all RCC trained and so was the English speaking world at that time. It was best for them to leave Easter in place because that was what the people who would read their new version called it.

I grew up with the KJV, it's what I know best and love it, but I know it's probably the least accurately translated mainstream English Version available and, contrary to what some of my deeply committed Christian friend's seem to think, the KJV is NOT the Bible used by Peter, Paul and John!

(Understand that I do not accept the various elaborately corrupted religious books provided by cults preaching a Satanic works based "gospel" like those of the Jehovah Witness, Mormons, 7th Day, Universalists, Christian Science [which is neither Christian nor science], etc., say they say are "correctly translated" bibles. Everyone needs to know those are corrupted printings, neither God inspired nor translations at all.)

[sniper]

I think this discussion has departed from the original question.
I am no scriptorian or Bible expert, but I believe the Bible is the word of God, insofar as it has been correctly translated. Therein lies the question...shall we believe...word for word..."Kiver to Kiver"...that whichever version of the Bible we love is the final, exact word as it was handed down? Of COURSE the KJV is not "the" Bible "used by Peter, Paul and John"! There wasn't a KJV Bible until some 1,000+ years after the fact. The scholars of those days gave the best translations their sources and education allowed.

Now: The fact is that the Old and New Testaments contain principles of righteousness...the Old Testament pointing to and prophesying of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the New Testament documenting his birth as the LITERAL Son of God, and ministry. Through several millennia, have errors crept in? Certainly! But...the principles are still there, and living by them will lead to better lives.

Repentance? Absolutely, but it is a PROCESS, not something that happens only once, and then Done! After the first recognition we have done something against God's will, or Commandments, then comes the change...in life, in thinking and acting...the life-long task or conforming our little lives to God's wishes. We go from one principle to another, improving one, while keeping the others in check as well as we can. We will all sin, and sin again, but, if we truly repent, then God's Mercy and Grace take over, providing what we, as human, earthly beings cannot. That is why Christ came..."To pay a debt HE did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay." as a human, through his Mother, he could be tempted like all of us, but also being divine, his statement that No man takes my life...I give it freely, to fulfill HIS Father's will, and made it possible for all mankind to enjoy the presence of both the Father and the Son forever. It has been truly said that repentance and a good life are WORKS, (HARD work, sometimes) but we know that despite all we can do, it will be by HIS Grace that we will ultimately be saved. And that is the message of the Old and New Testaments. I know God loves his children today even as much as he did in the "olden days", and he gives knowledge and direction to us here on Earth.

[Dieselhorses]

As I said, we are at an impasse. However, how long do you believe a body has to hang before it becomes deteriorated enough to burst asunder upon hitting the floor, or rot the rope holding it up?? Additionally, the law required a body to be taken down before sundown and not hang overnight, Deut. 21:23-23

So if we are offering scenarios, mine works for me, yours works for you.



I think that you discount the efforts of the scribes, and are possibly ignorant of who they are 1 Chron. 2:55, I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts. So yes, I do believe there are mistakes made. I also really think that every "new improved" translation loses information critical to proper understanding.

Have you read the preface to the King James bible where in the translators warn us to be aware that there are possibly mistakes made?

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000817.htm

If that is not enough information for you to confirm in your mind that we are probably never going to reach a same page status in this discussion, I'm at a loss to add anything further. I rest my case.

There are no mistakes in the word of God. Whoever came up with that idea is misguided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1hole]

There are no mistakes in the word of God. Whoever came up with that idea is misguided.

You're absolutely correct in that the original authors were inspired by God to perfectly write as they did, covering human time from about 2,500 BC to about 100 AD.

Sadly, we don't have any originals of those writings, all we have are handwritten copies and translations that do vary a bit. We KNOW there are some word and grammar variations in those works, at least in the translations.

For instance, we know the 1611 KJV has the most specific word errors but it's meaningless, none of those errors have any effect on any Christian doctrine so they don't matter. There are some current English Bible versions I personally like better than others but that doesn't mean my favorites are somehow better or more accurate than the others.

Some folk ask, "Why so many versions of the Bible?" Answer is, any translation of anything is a version of the original; it has to be, if the original remained exactly the same it would not be a translation at all! Since we don't have and can't read the original texts, our concern has to be, "How accurately does the translated version present the original message?" Bottom line, I believe all of the dozen or more versions I have read are all good but probably not perfect.

I mean it seems that all major (orthodox) Bible versions get the spiritual message correct so we accomplish nothing useful by arguing amongst ourselves over which English version is "right" or "wrong"; THAT'S JUST OUR OPINION! I believe we actually damage the cause of Jesus when we publically argue about it in anger and the Bible says that's a sin (2 Tim 2:14).

IMHO. :)

[1hole]

I am no scriptorian or Bible expert, but I believe the Bible is the word of God, insofar as it has been correctly translated.

What makes me nervous about saying inerrant EXCEPT as it's "correctly translated" without clarification is because it opens the door to blasphemy by religious groups such as Mormon and Jehovah Witness who claim their transparent fabrications are "correct translations"; they are not.

I believe all orthodox translations are as accurate as we can expect because their trivial differences don't challenge any Christian doctrines and they teach the gospel of salvation by grace, through being born again believers trusting in the blood bought and totally finished work of Lord Jesus. The false bible versions are deliberate corruptions designed to support false doctrines of salvation by works and total faith in their Satanic leaders, not Jesus; that's some bad juju.


Of COURSE the KJV is not "the" Bible "used by Peter, Paul and John"! There wasn't a KJV Bible until some 1,000+ years after the fact.

Well, there was no KJV until 1611 but that comment was just a gentle jibe at my beloved "KJV Only" (and it with a black cover?) brothers who seem to think the KJV was indeed the Bible used by the disciples; after all, only the KJV has the THEEs and THOUs and only it is the "Authorised" version! :)


Through several millennia, have errors crept in? Certainly! But...the principles are still there, and living by them will lead to better lives.

Exactly so. And that was my point.

[Dieselhorses]

You're absolutely correct in that the original authors were inspired by God to perfectly write as they did, covering human time from about 2,500 BC to about 100 AD.

Sadly, we don't have any originals of those writings, all we have are handwritten copies and translations that do vary a bit. We KNOW there are some word and grammar variations in those works, at least in the translations.

For instance, we know the 1611 KJV has the most specific word errors but it's meaningless, none of those errors have any effect on any Christian doctrine so they don't matter. There are some current English Bible versions I personally like better than others but that doesn't mean my favorites are somehow better or more accurate than the others.

Some folk ask, "Why so many versions of the Bible?" Answer is, any translation of anything is a version of the original; it has to be, if the original remained exactly the same it would not be a translation at all! Since we don't have and can't read the original texts, our concern has to be, "How accurately does the translated version present the original message?" Bottom line, I believe all of the dozen or more versions I have read are all good but probably not perfect.

I mean it seems that all major (orthodox) Bible versions get the spiritual message correct so we accomplish nothing useful by arguing amongst ourselves over which English version is "right" or "wrong"; THAT'S JUST OUR OPINION! I believe we actually damage the cause of Jesus when we publically argue about it in anger and the Bible says that's a sin (2 Tim 2:14).

IMHO. :)

I agree. I just have to trust the Holy Spirit to speak to me through the scriptures. If I read the Bible as though it were a magazine or a newspaper it won't make any sense to me unless I say a small prayer ask God to put my heart and mind into a receptive state. But no, we shouldn't argue the word of God, but we should work on having the ability to discern the spirits. It's one thing to stand up for Him but yet another to point fingers.

[1hole]

But no, we shouldn't argue the word of God, but we should work on having the ability to discern the spirits. It's one thing to stand up for Him but yet another to point fingers.

Well said.

I am old. But, I was young once and made all the assured assertions young people make, perhaps especially so about theology. Maybe I should have written a book on theology back when I still "knew it all." Now it's too late for that because I've learned enough more to KNOW I still don't know a lot. And a good part of what I have learned drives me to recognise that a lot of what I do know may be wrong - again; that makes me far more humble and more forgiving of other people's "errors."

There are core points of Christianity that are critical and I hope I would die before renouncing those points. BUT, I won't kill anyone, even the cults, because they miss the boat even on core doctrines, nor would I die to defend religious trivia such as how deep baptism water must be nor how wrong Catholics, etc, are. Jesus said, "by your love for each other people will know you are my followers" (slight paraphrase of John 13:35).

Average fourth grade children can read the Bible and know the words. No child and too few adults actually grasp much of what is written actually means but there's where and angry attacks over differences in religious trivia begins. Thoughtful discussions on different denominational understandings are certainly good and interesting but immature anger and vindictive attacks are neither good for Christ nor interesting to adults. I wish we who claim the name of Jesus would never drop into that level of non-love.

We can, we may strongly disagree about what some scripture passages mean but we don't have to be discourteous when doing it; we are told we can (rightly) judge a tree by the fruit it bears and good trees just don't bear bad fruit!

Bottom line: If any individual Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Charismatic, etc, gets to heaven it will only be by faith in Jesus as Lord. Their saving faith will be in spite of, not because of any denominational affiliation or works so we shouldn't fight amongst ourselves over non-essentials.

[sniper]

there are core points of christianity that are critical and i hope i would die before renouncing those points. But, i won't kill anyone, even the cults, because they miss the boat even on core doctrines,... Jesus said, "by your love for each other people will know you are my followers" (slight paraphrase of john 13:35).

Average fourth grade children can read the bible and know the words. Thoughtful discussions on different denominational understandings are certainly good and interesting but immature anger and vindictive attacks are neither good for christ nor interesting to adults. I wish we who claim the name of jesus would never drop into that level of non-love.

We can, we may strongly disagree about what some scripture passages mean but we don't have to be discourteous when doing it; we are told we can (rightly) judge a tree by the fruit it bears and good trees just don't bear bad fruit!

Bottom line: If any individual baptist, methodist, presbyterian, roman catholic, charismatic, etc, gets to heaven it will only be by faith in jesus as lord. Their saving faith will be in spite of, not because of any denominational affiliation or works so we shouldn't fight amongst ourselves over non-essentials.

exactly!

[dtknowles]

To achieve salvation you must keep faith with Jesus and his teachings. If you know you have sinned then you must confess and repent. If you are truly repentant then you will do your best to make amends. If you don't do those things then you have broken faith with Jesus and will not be saved. If you believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior then you will do these things even if it will cause you suffering. Repent and you will be saved. Confession is not enough because all you achieve with a confession is acknowledged that you have sinned not that you have reformed. If you stole $10 from a coworker and you confess just to Jesus but not to the coworker do you think you will be forgiven? Wouldn't you have to give them their money back and admit you took it?

Consider how hard it would be to be forgiven for rape or murder. Wouldn't you have to turn yourself in to the authorities and confess? Getting away with a sin means no forgiveness. Confessing to Jesus but continuing to live the lie that you are innocent cannot be forgiven because you would be an unrepentant liar.


Doesn't keeping faith with Jesus require that you accept the consequences of your actions and you make amends to the limits of your ability even if it costs you your life?

Tim

[Ickisrulz]

To achieve salvation you must keep faith with Jesus and his teachings. If you know you have sinned then you must confess and repent. If you are truly repentant then you will do your best to make amends. If you don't do those things then you have broken faith with Jesus and will not be saved. If you believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior then you will do these things even if it will cause you suffering. Repent and you will be saved. Confession is not enough because all you achieve with a confession is acknowledged that you have sinned not that you have reformed. If you stole $10 from a coworker and you confess just to Jesus but not to the coworker do you think you will be forgiven? Wouldn't you have to give them their money back and admit you took it?

Consider how hard it would be to be forgiven for rape or murder. Wouldn't you have to turn yourself in to the authorities and confess? Getting away with a sin means no forgiveness. Confessing to Jesus but continuing to live the lie that you are innocent cannot be forgiven because you would be an unrepentant liar.


Doesn't keeping faith with Jesus require that you accept the consequences of your actions and you make amends to the limits of your ability even if it costs you your life?

Tim

Salvation is a free gift of God that leads to a changed life no longer characterized by sin. James talked about the fact that a person's faith will result in actions that reflect the character of God.

Jesus talked about making restitution in order worship God properly. Paul discusses "confessing your sins one to another" with the idea being making apologies or restitution.

Does a Christian need to make restitution in every instance of sin in order to be forgiven by God? I don't think so.

First, this would be impossible. We are not aware of everything we do wrong in life. Other times our transgressions are so enormous that we cannot possibly repay our debt to our neighbors other than an admittance of wrongdoing and an apology.

Second, not every Christian is in the same place in his walk with God. Some are more sanctified than others. While restitution (if possible) following repentance is the ultimate goal for the earthbound Christian, many will just not do this due to ignorance, embarrassment, pride or a situation's complexity. Are we to assume God withholds his forgiveness from these people?

Consider this, the only troubled church that Paul warned about "falling from grace" was the Galatians. The Galatians were being influenced by teachers that would have them leave their faith in Jesus' atonement. Such a warning was not given to the Corinthians who had some very carnal activity going on. Ultimately faith is the vital component. Without faith a changed life is impossible.

[Traffer]

There is huge Biblical evidence of the need for repentance, which means basically to have a change of heart, or to turn around and go a different way.

Do you believe there is forgiveness without repentance? I'm aware of the 7X70 teaching, yet believe that repentance is required for forgiveness, even to 490 times a day, and that simple confession is left wanting.

Without a repentant heart, why would a person even seek forgiveness? Repentance is a turning of the heart FIRST. Then the change of heart hopefully inspires a commitment to a change of one's ways. It is very VERY simple. Not easy, but simple.

[1hole]

There are two versions of the demise of Judas as mentioned above. One version has him falling down and bursting open and the other version has him hanging himself. The rotting corpse and breaking rope is an attempt to harmonize the two accounts.

In that climate, if it was summer, enough body rot to bloat/rupture so that after a stretched neck pulled apart and fell would take no more than three days. So, I believe what we have is more likely two parts of the same story instead of two stories.

We shouldn't equate Judas' (nor anyone else's) fit of emotional remorse with spiritual repentance, i.e., a true turning away from past performance. True repentance is distinctly different from a moment of remorse.

None of us are or can be perfect in this life but if there is no change in personal performance there has been no personal repentance.

[dtknowles]

………….Does a Christian need to make restitution in every instance of sin in order to be forgiven by God? I don't think so.

First, this would be impossible. We are not aware of everything we do wrong in life. Other times our transgressions are so enormous that we cannot possibly repay our debt to our neighbors other than an admittance of wrongdoing and an apology.

Second, not every Christian is in the same place in his walk with God. Some are more sanctified than others. While restitution (if possible) following repentance is the ultimate goal for the earthbound Christian, many will just not do this due to ignorance, embarrassment, pride or a situation's complexity. Are we to assume God withholds his forgiveness from these people?……...

I think restitution must be made to the best of our ability even if it is a great hardship.

No you don't have to repent and make restitution for sins you can't be expected to know you committed, it is obvious you can't. Faith is not broken in this case as you are willfully disregarding you obligation.

I believe that God will withhold his forgiveness in cases of ignorance, embarrassment, pride or a situation's complexity. Pride is a sin on its own. Embarrassment is possibly a sin as well if it reflects a lack of humility.

The ten commandments lack nuance, I believe a better guide is the seven deadly sins and cardinal virtues.

You said, "Some are more sanctified than others." Life is a test of faith that very few will pass. "Few will be called."

Tim

[Ickisrulz]

I think restitution must be made to the best of our ability even if it is a great hardship.

No you don't have to repent and make restitution for sins you can't be expected to know you committed, it is obvious you can't. Faith is not broken in this case as you are willfully disregarding you obligation.

I believe that God will withhold his forgiveness in cases of ignorance, embarrassment, pride or a situation's complexity. Pride is a sin on its own. Embarrassment is possibly a sin as well if it reflects a lack of humility.

The ten commandments lack nuance, I believe a better guide is the seven deadly sins and cardinal virtues.

You said, "Some are more sanctified than others." Life is a test of faith that very few will pass. "Few will be called."

Tim

The Bible does not teach that our life on earth is a test that we must pass in order to enter heaven. It teaches that the human race is lost due to sin (we've already failed). It is only because of God's work through Jesus that anyone can be saved. Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned.

There is no idea of "breaking the faith" in the New Testament when a Christian fails or even willfully sins. Jesus told Christians to be perfect, but never said they would be rejected and not forgiven when they are not.

Christians cannot live like the devil, but God doesn't get out of their car when they exceed the speed limit either. God is exceedingly patient with his people. Jesus' "yoke is easy and burden is light."

[dtknowles]

The Bible does not teach that our life on earth is a test that we must pass in order to enter heaven. It teaches that the human race is lost due to sin (we've already failed). It is only because of God's work through Jesus that anyone can be saved. Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned.

There is no idea of "breaking the faith" in the New Testament when a Christian fails or even willfully sins. Jesus told Christians to be perfect, but never said they would be rejected and not forgiven when they are not.

Christians cannot live like the devil, but God doesn't get out of their car when they exceed the speed limit either. God is exceedingly patient with his people. Jesus' "yoke is easy and burden is light."

The Bibles might not teach that life is a test but you must live before you can be saved. You must show you are worthy before you are saved so you don't have to call it a test but you can pass or fail.

Salvation must be earned by keeping faith with the teachings of Jesus. Saying you love Jesus with all your heart will not save you if you don't follow his teachings.

No God does not get out of the car when you drive like the Devil, you have up to the moment of your death to repent and make amends. You say God is patient but he ends our life whether we are ready or not. I think his patience is limited.

Tim

[Ickisrulz]

The Bibles might not teach that life is a test but you must live before you can be saved. You must show you are worthy before you are saved so you don't have to call it a test but you can pass or fail.

Salvation must be earned by keeping faith with the teachings of Jesus. Saying you love Jesus with all your heart will not save you if you don't follow his teachings.

No God does not get out of the car when you drive like the Devil, you have up to the moment of your death to repent and make amends. You say God is patient but he ends our life whether we are ready or not. I think his patience is limited.

Tim

The Bible teaches we are ALL unworthy to be saved. No one is saved because he is worthy.

The Bible clearly shows no one earns salvation. It is a free gift that can only be lost by not trusting in the work of Christ.

The Bible does show where God ended the life of some people. But it also shows that peoples' death comes at their own hands, the hands of others, accidents, illness, etc. In other words, God is not the cause of everyone's death nor does he decide when each person dies.

Do you think if a Christian is driving down the road at 100 mph fully knowing it is wrong, crashes and dies without being able to repent for speeding that he is lost?

[dtknowles]

The Bible teaches we are ALL unworthy to be saved. No one is saved because he is worthy.

The Bible clearly shows no one earns salvation. It is a free gift that can only be lost by not trusting in the work of Christ.

The Bible does show where God ended the life of some people. But it also shows that peoples' death comes at their own hands, the hands of others, accidents, illness, etc. In other words, God is not the cause of everyone's death nor does he decide when each person dies.

Do you think if a Christian is driving down the road at 100 mph fully knowing it is wrong, crashes and dies without being able to repent for speeding that he is lost?

If he was committing suicide for a selfish reason then yes. I someone else suffers because of the crash, maybe. If he just lost control and went off the road and crashed, maybe not.

You can't earn a stairway to heaven but by your acts you can fulfill much of Jesus' mission. Passivity is probably not enough. Those saved will be but a few. The bar is high and we are all sinners.

Tim