BioI am a proud husband of a very sweet wife who has blessed me with our four children. We have been married 25 years this past year and are looking forward to eternity. Life without an end, wow! I heard the gospel of Christ, (finally!), in January of 1987, and became a believer in Jesus Christ, the Holy, Only-begotten, Son of God, and have not ever regretted following the Lord. Since 1990 I have been a minister of God, preaching and teaching to the people in our church, and in the nursing home in our area. I love the Lord and am a lover of his word. I preach and teach from the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible, hence the name Genevan Baptist.
Location: Indiana, USA
InterestsPreach, teach, and believe the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. And I love to read many other books, and have.
Maybe the next verse might help? 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness . But what was the 'pleasure in unrighteousness'? Maybe the ability to live life without boundaries? Sinful ones no doubt they are. Led in the ways of 'a lie', to which even the elect (and I mean saved folk) might, if it were possible , be led into?
You sound upset? I am not trying to aggravate your 'flesh'. What do you mean "a response in kind"? I answered your questioning of my belief in "a lie" being singular. And it makes sense, to me anyway. Your question: " What reference did you use to understand the form as singular?" I am sorry. I meant no harm, just being direct and responding to, what seemed to me, 'a silly question'. As for the Hebrews 12:1 verse, it too is a singular word "sin", according to the verse . Think about it - " and the sin which doth so easily beset us" - no where in this verse does it refer to the plural sense (for the word sin). The phrase "the sin" is talking about the sin nature that is placed in front of us, it is not speaking of a specific sin but the specific 'nature' of sin, and that is singular. And we all happen to have it.
Uh...the verse? "...that they should believe a lie." It doesn't say that they would believe " lies ", which would mean more than one , i.e. plural . I don't see how 'looking up' the word in some book can tell more than the text here.
Wierd. Can't Figure this paste out, but here is what I found that was interesting to me... Pre-1611 English BiblesUse of "Easter" and "Passover" While the word "Easter" had been used since the seventh century to refer to the celebration of Christ's resurrection, William Tyndale, in his 1525 translation of the NT (which was the first English translation from the Greek) was the first to translate the Greek word "pascha" as "ester". In addition, Tyndale was the first person to use the word "Passover", which he did in his 1530 translation of the OT Pentateuch by translating "pecach" as "Passover". Martin Luther translated "pascha" as "ostern" (Osterlamm, Osterfest, Fest) in his 1522 German NT , but transliterated "pecach" in the OT as "Passah" (using ostern etc. just three times). [14a] Prior to Tyndale, Bible translators had generally transliterated "pecach" and "pascha" (with the Greek "pascha" itself being a transliteration of the Hebrew "pecach") Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate (405 AD), transliterated "pecach" as "phrase" ** and used "pascha" un-translated ** Wycliffe (1384 AD), in the first English translation (from the Latin), used several terms for "pecach" ** but transliterated "pascha" as "pask" ** (paske) Tyndale translated pascha as ester (or ester lambe, ester fest) 26 of the 29 times it appears in the NT . [14b] Later English translations also used ester (Easter), but reduced its use (substituting "passover"). The 1539 Great Bible (Cranmer) used passover (passe-ouer) 14 times and Easter or Ester 15 times [14c] (see below) The 1557 Geneva Bible used Easter several times, but the 1560 eliminated its use and used passover ("Paffeouer") all 29 times. The 1568 Bishops' Bible (the base text for the KJV ) used Easter only three times (twice in John 11:55 and in Acts 12:4 ) The 1611 KJV used Easter only once, in Acts 12:4 The charge (translation rule) given to the KJV translators included this: "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."  As such, in Acts 12:4 , it appears the KJV translators themselves did not translate pascha as Easter, they simply did not alter the Bishops' translation (which goes back to Tyndale/Luther) - in accordance with their charge.
Looking now at the "New Testament Octapla", covering 8 English Bibles. Tyndale, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, and KJB , being the one's we might pay attention to. 1)Tyndale, 2)Great Bible, and 3)Bishops all agree with the KJB with 1)ester/2)Ester/3)Easter. Therefore it was not an "error" in translating by the KJB translators, as has been said from other sites I have read. People seem to forget the previous versions prior to the KJB when 'making up stories' about what the text should say.
Just a memory...but I seem to remember that there were pre-1611 English Bibles that used 'passover' and 'easter' interchangeably in their texts of the OT and NT . I know my Bible says Passover where the KJB says Easter. (in my 1560 Bible.) Seems that some even used the word 'Pascha'. I'll look'em up.
I agree to a limited degree. But when you look at lost people, they will always do less 'humane' treatments toward their fellow humankind than true children of God, of which 'Jews' are not children of God until converted to Christ . So there should be no surprise if the atrocities mentioned are true or not. Lost people are not lead to do right.
Actually was reading the book of Judith and came across the 'timing' of the events in chapter 5, where it describes that this history occurred AFTER the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. And AFTER the rebuilding of the Temple. Therefore it has nothing to do with Jeremiah and nothing to do with the Nebuchadnezzar that we are usually familiar with. In fact the name used was Nabuchodonosor, which some have referred to as Nebuchadnezzar. Could be the 'greek' version of the same name, but not the same person.