/lit/ - Literature

>>23399249
There are times where the Old Testament switches from Hebrew to Biblical Aramaic (sometimes called Syriac-Aramaic) in midsentence, such as in Daniel 2:4 or Jeremiah 10:11.

It even goes into using single words in this language, such as in Genesis 31:47, and the examples in Psalms and Proverbs already mentioned. So yes, it makes sense, and the Proverbs translation even does it with the same word, so there's basically no excuse for arguing that it's wrong.

>it doesn't make sense to go with son with ben, but then also go with son when the word is bar.
It does make sense, according to everything that I know.
>the line in proverbs is quoting his mother, so it's more understandable.
It's equally understandable, anon.

>>22891423
You can tell these things by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as it says in John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

>>22419534
In Mark 16, in the last few verses it says this:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

So we see that there were certain signs that were meant to follow the apostles, as it says in the last few words, "confirming the word with signs following." These would be the sign gifts that accompanied the apostles of Christ. Such as speaking in tongues and surviving snake poison (as Paul in Acts 28). So the signs were meant to confirm the word, and that's why when the apostles were finished with their ministry, the signs stopped. At this time, the writing of inspired Scripture was completed, so the special signs, really miracles of God, were no longer needed to "confirm the word" that they spoke. Although we still have them today as we can read about them and with faith believe. As Jesus said to Thomas, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29).

>>22313257
>a divine figure .
That's not a Biblical concept. The Lord our God is one Lord, and beside Him there is not any other. See the Ten Commandments for example, or as Jesus said,

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
(Mark 12:29-31)

So you see from this that there's no room for "a divine figure" that isn't the Lord. In Psalm 96:5, which is also in the Old Testament, all other false gods are said to be idols and nothing more.

>I'm talking about dogmatic trinitarianism
Yeah, so like 1 John 5:7 or John 10:30. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit being pre-existent of the world, being the Creator and co-equal in majesty and divinity. The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is our Lord from the beginning, that's why He identifies Himself as such, for example in John 8:58. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

That's referring to Jehovah, who said in the book of Exodus, "I AM THAT I AM."

>Consubstantially was actually invented and defended by the modalist Sabellians
Not actually. Modalists deny the distinct personhood of the triune Godhead. They don't hold to consubstantiality, they simply claim there is only one Person appearing in different forms, which doesn't require or derive from such an explanation.

But what does the New Testament for example say about this?

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
(Hebrews 1:8)

"For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
(2 Peter 1:17)

>>21880015
The passage 2 Peter 1:21 in the 1611 Authorized version says:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

But in the NRSV says,
"because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Notice how the term "holy men of God" was made gender-neutral in the NRSV. Thus indicating that it wasn't specific men of God that were inspired to give us Scripture, but just "men and women" generally.

>>21615167
You skipped verse 13 anon, and the full explanation.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
(Matthew 13:13)

Certain people already refuse the truth, so they are unable to understand the meaning of the parables. They will understand neither the parable itself nor the explanation thereof.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
(Revelation 22:17)

"Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."
(Matthew 13:9)

>>21062461
>>21062508
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this, one must pray also, in addition to individual Bible reading. See you later, anon!

>>20913293
Also, for Acts 8:37 here is an early quotation:

>In the Acts of the Apostles: "Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may."
(The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise 12, Book 3.43)

And a quotation for Revelation 22:19 (emphasis added below):
>Nor does the Scripture in this place alone bear witness to the θεότης, that is, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; but also the Lord Himself said in the Gospel: "The Spirit is God." Which passage you, Arians, so expressly testify to be said concerning the Spirit, that you remove it from your copies, and would that it were from yours and not also from those of the Church! For at the time when Auxentius had seized the Church of Milan with the arms and forces of impious unbelief, the Church of Sirmium was attacked by Valens and Ursatius, when their priests failed in faith; this falsehood and sacrilege of yours was found in the ecclesiastical books. And it may chance that you did the same in the past.
>And you have indeed been able to blot out the letters, but could not remove the faith. That erasure betrayed you more, that erasure condemned you more; and you were not able to obliterate the truth, but THAT ERASURE BLOTTED OUT YOUR NAMES FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE.
(Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, Book 3.10)

Note: the last part of the above quote refers to Revelation 22:19, where it says "book of life," not "tree of life" as some versions have it. As the KJV has it:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:19)

>>20864220
The KJV says:
"Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun."

>>20843152
>He was the first pope.
That seems to be Sylvester actually, at least as far as the Roman ones go.
>He told his followers to sell their property give it to him and he'd redistribute it among everyone in the group.
Not true according to Acts. People giving their property was voluntary, not a commandment.

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."
(Acts 5)

>>20412703
>should the bible be read cover to cover ?
Yes. But I'd reccommend for your first read do the New Testament first, then the Old. And reading Nehemiah 9, Acts 7, and Hebrews 11 first would be good because they give a good overview of the Old Testament.
Also use the King James Version
http://justbible.com