The King James version says 'Of the doctrine of baptisms...., but my pocket interlinear New Testament translates as 'of the baptisms, of teaching'\nI don't have a problem with the word doctrine being translated as teaching, but is the word for doctrine/teaching actually related to baptisms or is it a separate thought?
210114
You are correct doctrine = teaching.\n\nG1322\nδιδαχή\ndidachē\ndid-akh-ay'\nFrom G1321; instruction (the act or the matter): - doctrine, hath been taught.\n\nYes baptism is a teaching, not a doctrine necessarily.\n\nBut don't miss what Paul (God) is telling us.\n\nMove on, get into the meat of the Word. There are 80 year Christian babies, still sucking milk.
78045
right after salvation "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? \nAnd he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Acts 10 vs 47 and 48\n\nBut the thing to keep in mind is that getting baptised dose not help you get into heaven it the act of salvation that dose that! The man on the cross next to Jesus did not get baptised but he got saved! Baptism in water is a sign to outhers that you have been baptized in the blood of Jesus!
646177
hmmmm, this will be good!!\n\nFor: GINEVRA1WEASLEY, how is he pulling things of contexts when it's from your very own Bible? 32 (Bible) Scholars couldn't get it right and I doubt that you'll be able to get it right..
514423
No idea whatsover. Good point! The key word there is PROTEST. \nCatholic means universal. The Church is spread throughout the entire world and is UNITED.\nProtestant means protest.\nProtestants all claim to use the Bible alone, yet they all teach radically different things.\n\nSomehow, I don't think this is what Jesus wanted when he prayed for us to be ONE.
528032
I have more than one translation...and using the concordance is always a good idea.\n\nThanks for pointing that out. \n\n:o)
178342
for new testament study, i actually read the original language, Greek.  there is no substitute... learn it if you ever have the opportunity!  for general reading, i typically read the nasb or esv because they tend to be the most literal without as much translators interpretation involved... but a faithful paraphrase like the nlt (new living) or an "optimal" translation like the hcsb is always helpful as well\n\nkatlyn, i really have the same concern though about not getting the full meaning... i certainly don't understand it as good as the native speakers did, and i understand english much better, but my hope is that over time it will get more natural.  it is invaluable being able to see what's really going on semantically though, so you're not in the dark when people talk about such things, don't you think?
305828
The evidence in Acts was speaking in tongues, and that was called Baptism in the Holy Spirit.  Also try 1 corinthians chapter 14, and it will talk about the gift of tongues, and speaking in tongues from the baptism.  two different tongues.
294382
I dont believe there are any versions outside of the original texts that are more accurate than the next. There are flaws in the 1611 KJV as well as the NIV and every other version... I dont like the NWT though because it deliberately changes text to fit the Jehovah's Witness doctrines. (if you dont believe the KJV has flaws, contact me and I'll be happy to share them with you)
72339
100? There's a LOT more than that- don't you use the Skeptic's Bible list?\n\nSo- of those listed, how many affect doctrine or the central lessons of the Bible? No denomination I know of bases any doctrine on the age of the varius kings, or the numbers of soldiers.\n\nYeah, you can make the arguement that it somehow destroys the integrity of the Bible... but it really doesn't when two different authors over a period of time disagree on relatively minor issues, especially when the oral history element is facotred in.\n\nThe only REAL issue is that it invalidates the idea of inerrancy of the Bible... but for that to be an issue, you have to believe in a pretty 'stiff' and formal definition of inerrancy- the idea that God's hand moved the pen and protected each translation... which is so obviously untrue that it amazes me anyone believes it.
274972
The KJV Bible was modernised as it was written in old English and too hard for most people to understand.  I personally love this version, so there's no need to stop using it.\n\nThe term Jesus saves is true, but He saves through the repenting of sins.
354426
I think that verse reveals a lot of modern evanglicalism to be out of step with Scripture. We have a very friendly, easy gospel preached in America where salvation is all up to us. John 6 teaches its not up to us at all in fact we contribute nothing to our own salvation including the will to believe. We are so totally depraved in our sin that we cannot even worship God unless he makes us worshippers. Very humbling.
285733
The proper form of baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus designated in Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."  The clear command of Jesus is to baptize this way.  But, if that is so, then why do we see so many instances in the New Testament where people were baptized "in Jesus' name"? \n\nThe reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not because it was a formula, but because the phrase, "in the name of" means "in the authority of.  We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10,\n\n"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, 'By what power, or in what name, have you done this?' 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health.'"\n\n     The Jews asked "by what power, or in what name, have you done this?"  Peter answers and says that it was in the name of Jesus, that they had healed.  In other words, "in the name of Jesus" means that it is by the power and authority found in Christ.\n\nThe only bible that disputes Matthew 28:19 is the New World Translation bible. That Bible was mis-translated and changed by the Jw cult. No bible scholar or language expert takes that bible serious.
444405
Try looking on the wikipedia site. They are controlled by the publishers of the NIV Bible and are pushing it and its ideas. Of course there has been a lot of controversy over that version just because it reverses the meaning of some sections by changing the wording.\n\nI will always prefer the unannotated K.J. version, at least the political and philosophical biases in that are from a culture that is fading away (Monarchy).\n\n\n.
353932
I can attest that the KJV does mistranslate a lot of words. My trusty NIV holds up pretty well, I think I've only found two slight errors, but the KJV is definitely shaky at best. And no, the "thee" and "thou" parts of the KJV are not problematic, that is simply the language of the day and it doesn't matter if you translate, "thou art happy" or "you are happy", its the same thing. I love Greek.
181253
Regarding translation and the Word of God.  To say, in general, that I "question" something is not saying that I disagree with it.  I try and question much in translation.  There was a time when I questioned the Word of God.  I have since been convinced of the veracity of God's Word, but I still question translation and try to derive as much as possible from it by reading many different concordance references and multiple versions.  I would say, all in all, general bibles like the NIV and ASV are pretty good translations.  I would definitely get one with a good concordance, explanations, and references, and use them.\n\nOn fundamentalism and the Evangelical movement in America.\n\nThis is a loaded question.  There is 1. A fundamentalist faction.  2. an Evangelical movement and 3. the Moral Majority faction.  These are not one in the same, though members of each may cross over into the other and become affiliated with the other now and again.  NONE OF THESE ARE MILITANT.  Do they feel that America has diverged from a "wholesome" path... absolutely.  Do they feel that they want to be able to let their kids play outside again.... absolutely.  Do they think that God is the answer to the problems with America..... absolutely.  Do they think that their vote can make a difference... they know factually that it can.  But, few support Jerry Falwell for any public office... I believe his call is for evangelism... not politics, though he has a right to voice his opinion when someone asks him.  Is it good for the Republican party?  Well, I guess it would be... considering their "conservative" agenda.  Moreover, I think that is bad for the Democratic party than good for the Republican.  The Democratic Party is now appearing to stand against Christianity and Christians, in general.  Considering there is only one kind of Christian (whether fundamental or liberal) this is a bad progression of events for the Democratic party.  I think that they need to review their stance, or another party needs to creep up.
95301
First off nowhere in the scripture does it say that it went out with the disciples or apostles. Secondly if you are a child of GOD you are a disciple of CHRIST...So as long there are children of GOD there are disciples. Thirdly it says unknown tongue, if Peter would have spoke in a foreign language only the person of that tribe or nationality would have understood. Uknown tongue is exactly what it means a tongue that can not be learned or taught, but only by the Holy Spirit...Why cant we take the word for what it says. Lastly the NIV version is hypocritical because they take alot of the important scriptures out. The Bible says to not take away or add to. For example John 5:1-5 which is talking about the pool of Bethesda in the KJV it goes in order from verse 1-2-3-4-5 ETC... But in the NIV it goes 1-2-3- oops 5 where is verse 4, hmmm want me to show you what verse 4 says "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." So basically the NIV is taking the power of GOD completely out of the picture. Tell me again why is the KJV wrong...Seems to me the KJV is right and the NIV is wrong....
208790
gablue430 has listed some of the very best choices.  My list would be similar, with one addition:\n\nNIV Study Bible\nNIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible\nESV Reformation Study Bible\nNIV Quest Study Bible \n\nBut I'd like rather to suggest a METHOD for you to make a good choice for YOU.\n\nThings to consider:\n\n1) Which TRANSLATION(s) are you comfortable with?  If you have a fairly strong preference for one you should take that seriously.   Of course, if you're mainly using this book at your desk and happy to keep a copy of your favorite translation at the ready, this may be less important for you --you can focus on Point #2.\n\n(NIV and ESV seem to be the dominant versions in evangelical circles these days [ESV is esp. claiming the old NASB crowd and many NKJV users].  I use both [with others] for study & teaching, but just for reading --silently or aloud-- I think the NIV is superior.  Comparing their Study Bibles, the NIV Spirit of the Reformation vs. ESV Reformation Study Bible are very close in quality -- you translation preference might well be the tie-breaker.)\n\n2) Are there specific study aids within the TEXT that you think would find especially helpful?  and do you know what you want them to do?\n\na) is it cross references that give you a lot of related passages to check out on your own?   -all of those listed ar pretty solid in this area (I have a slight preference for the NIV Study Bible on that; they did an excellent, thorough process of assmebling USEFUL parallels)\n\nb) book introductions, overviews: \nAll of those listed include some helpful book introductions (The book outlines are just OK -- haven't yet found one that is consistently helpful at this point.  At some point they tend to break down into a mere list of contents, without any analysis of WHY they are organized the way they are.  But it's a reasonable start.)\n\nc) text notes:  are you looking for 'topical notes' that answer common theological questions, esp practical ones?  (try Quest);  do you want some good, reliable discussions of what the Bible teaches on many key doctrines?  (try the two "Reformation" Bibles);   do you mainly want note that focus on special features of the specific text you are looking at, the structure of this psalm, etc? (NIV Study Bible probably beats everyone on this point -- this is my own preference and why I've always preferrd this one over the rest for MY use)\n\n3) What about the EXTRA resources in the back?  ( I don't think these are generally as imporant as those under #2 --which tend to be the *main* reason people get a study bible, but do give them some thought, esp. if things are coming out pretty even to this point!)\n\na) MAPS  - how many? how readable are they for YOU?  (some Bible map sections are great... some are awful!)\n\nb) INDEXES:   esp. 'topical guides' & Concordance -- are these enough for your own needs?  will they help you find things you are looking for? (I mostly use a separate complete concordance, but for some folks having more IN their Bibles is important to them)\n\n3) "PHYSICAL" matters, layout, etc.  (some of this may come into play more AFTER you've decided which version you want, when you're looking at size, shape, etc)\n\na) Readability of print:   All of these probably have pretty decent, readable print, etc. but that is not ALWAYS the case.  But you might find you prefer reading a single column ['like other books'] or that two-columns works well for you [tends to decrease the page count, so may lead to a smaller book to carry, or to thicker paper]\n\nb) Some have better quality paper than others as well (oddly I've found some hardcover editions have better, thicker paper than the leatherbound).  \n\nc) binding: You might have a preference on binding, and that may depend on how and how much you use the Bible, as well as the size.  (I have found that I like a smaller leatherbound cross-reference Bibl