What is the correct translation for Hebrews 6:2 ?
464483
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.
220890
It is actually 2 Hebrew words:  "Hosha Na".  It means "Please save us."  (It also appears in Psalm 118 as "Ho-shee-a Na".)
489245
First off, Hebrews is talking about the Hebrews that were taken out of Egypt and yet with all the evidences of God's working, they rejected Him.  They wandered 40 years in the wilderness for that transgression and was destroyed, not by any doing of the Holy Spirit but by their own hard headedness.  Those that accepted the teachings that were taught, were taken in to the promised land and saved.\n\nThere are many graphs, predictions and surmisings on many things including the Second Coming of Jesus but as Jesus Himself said, nobody knows the day or the hour of the Coming of the Son of Man.\n\nAs for being saved by grace with no law, another of the fallacies that are being taught.  How can you know what is sin if you have no law to compare anything with?  Does grace make the law void?  If you are caught speeding and the cop tells you he will let you off this time but watch your step, that is grace.  So do you peel out of there throwing rocks and dirt at the cops car and him and say there is no law as you got off by grace?  Not on your life!!  You would very carefully pull away, using your signal and all the good things you know to do as you were just saved by grace, not from the law but because of it.  If we are void of any law, we have nothing more but tyranny.  Jesus came not to desroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill all that was revealed by them.  WE are just as hard headed as the Hebrews were back in Moses time so it is really our decisions that push the Holy Ghose away, not any desire of His, and there is no time limit stated anywhere in the bible on how long He will strive with you.
670222
2 Cor 5:21 has always beeen theologically confusing. The first problem is to determine the sense in which Christ was "made . . . sin for us".  There are three major approaches. One approach is to understand made . . . sin as "treated as a sinner."  It seems to be saying Christ came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the result of sin, that is, estranged from God and the object of his wrath.  This is not a particularly good translation.  \n\nThe second approach is to identify "made . . . sin" with Christ's assuming a human nature. Through the incarnation Christ was made "in the likeness of sinful man" (Rom 8:3).  This is a better translation, but still not great.  \n\nThe final approach is to interpret verse 21 sacrificially as "made to be a sin offering." This draws on the Old Testament notion that God made the life of his servant a guilt offering (Is 53:10).\n\nOn the whole, this last interpretation seems the likeliest one.  The equivalent Hebrew term "hatta't" can actually mean either "sin" or "sin offering" (as in Lev 4:8-35). Also, the logic of verse 19 almost demands it.  If our debts are not posted to our account, it is because someone else has legally assumed them--much as the scapegoat did on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) and the guilt offering did on other occasions (Lev 4--5). This is why God can make overtures of friendship and forgiveness toward those who are otherwise his enemies.\n\nIf the exact point of "made sin" is lost to us, the thrust is clear.  In 1 Peter 2:24 Christ himself bore our sins in his body up onto the tree. Paul may well be thinking of Isaiah 53:12, where the servant of the Lord is to be numbered with the transgressors and bear the sin of many.\n\nThe genitive can be subjective ("the righteousness that God gives"--that is, a righteous character), objective ("the righteousness we have before God"--that is, a right standing) or possessive ("the righteousness that God possesses"--that is, we share the righteousness that characterizes God himself). In Paul's writings the noun dikaiosyne typically is used of character. It is not merely that we acquire a right standing or do good works; we actually become righteous--although the latter may well presume the former. This is no legal fiction. \n\nPaul is the only New Testament writer to use the noun katallage (reconciliation) and verb katallasso (to reconcile).  In Greek social and political spheres the term denoted a change in relations between individuals, groups or nations, while in the religious arena it was used of relationships between gods and humans.  In Paul's writings, God is always the reconciler.\n\nThe bible is not just about sin, it is about forgiveness.  My best advice is: don't study sin, study forgiveness.  Sin comes pretty naturally to us, forgiveness does not.  It stands to reason that forgiveness is the more important of the two.
830821
There's a passage I got memorized,\n                       seems appropriate for this\n                       situation: Ezekiel 25:17. "The path\n                       of the righteous man is beset on\n                       all sides by the inequities of the\n                       selfish and the tyranny of evil\n                       men.  Blessed is he who, in the\n                       name of charity and good will,\n                       shepherds the weak through the\n                       valley of darkness, for he is truly\n                       his brother's keeper and the finder\n                       of lost children.  And I will\n                       strike down upon thee with great\n                       vengeance and furious anger those\n                       who attempt to poison and destroy\n                       my brothers.  And you will know my\n                       name is the Lord when I lay my\n                       vengeance upon you."\n\nAlthough its a very inaccurate quote if you actually check that passage in a bible.
739717
The KJV was meticulously translated.  By man.  And, no surprise, it isn't perfect.\nThere IS no perfect translation because, even if you have a Hebrew, Greek or Chaldean lexicon, you don't have the meaning of the words from 2,000 years ago.  Meanings change.  Take the word "gay" for example - means something VERY different today than it did 20 years ago.\nWithout taking the time to learn the original languages, then do have the lexicons as well as a Strongs (or other) Concordance.  Read the same passages in different versions for richer comprehension.  A passage read from the KJV, the NIV and The Message takes on new dimension.\nRead it - and read it sloooowly and patiently!  Read it reguarly.  And read it again and again.  What had no relevance (seemingly) last month can suddenly leap out at you today.
480639
First of all, no one speaks ancient Greek or Hebrew anymore, so there will always be some debate to translation.  \n\nSecond, the translators of the New World Translation are all Jehovah's Witnesses.  Part of the belief system of the Jehovah Witnesses (and part of what makes it a cult) is that if any non-JW tries to convince you of anything they are "from the devil, and should not be listened to."  So it isn't that they haven't told the translators about the errors, it is that the translators don't listen.  \n\nThird, the "scholars" you speak of don't have the qualifications to translate the Bible.  They use their ideology, not their intellect to make the statement that there are "no errors."\n\nFourth, if the "scholars" were doing such a great job of translating, why don't all the other scholars who study ancient Greek and Hebrew come up with at least SOME of the same conclusions, in fact why do ALL of them disagree?\n\nFifth, if the New World Translation has no errors, why can a simple Greek student like myself find errors?  If you believe the New World Translation has no errors, you have never taken Greek!\n\nSixth, Scholars who have actually done the translating on every translation (with a few exceptions where ideology got in the way, like the NWT) have worked very hard to make sure there were no translation errors, so your argument is invalid.\n\n\nBTW - Translating error - John 1:1, if it should be translated "the Word was a God" because of the lack of a definite article before the word translated God (here the word is Theos), you had better insert the word "a" before God in verses 6,12, and 18 of the same chapter to read, "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god," "...to them he gave authority to become a god's children," and, "No man has seen a god at any time," for there is no definite article in front of God in any of these verses, either.  If you don't believe me, look it up.
1051815
One will never find a competent Jewish translation to say 'rib'... but rather the word means 'side'.  It also says that after God removed this portion to fashion Eve, He filled in the space with flesh.  If all God too was a single cell or less....why would it specifically say the flesh was replaced.\n\nNo sir,  it the the quran that has corrupted the story.
129169
where does it say this in the Bible?And please try to spell correctly
1166496
2nd Timothy 2:15 (and the surrounding verses) might be good for what you're looking for: \n\n Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
892686
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: \n\n\n1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text. \n \n1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. \n \n1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. \n \n1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. \n \n1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. \n \n1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. \n \n1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. \n \n1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. \n \n1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.  \n\nThese versions make more sense than the King James because how can Jesus be with God and BE God at the same time? Also, if Jesus IS God, then that would contradict John 1:18 where it says: "No man has seen God at any time."
495732
The exact translation is.........in which I can serve to him.  Check it out if you like.\n\nhttp://translate.google.com/translate_t\n\nHope that helps!
872238
Ok, well I found a translator on the net and boy does it lose the flow:)\n\nAve Husband In order to completely Husband In order to completely Husband In order to completely Ave ave master Master tecum Benedicta you upon mulieribus And benedictus And benedictus fruit the stomach The stomach your Jesus Ave Husband Ave Husband Mother dei Region for us pecatoribus Region , region for us Region region for us pecatoribus Now and upon hour deadly Upon hour deadly , deadly our Upon hour deadly our Ave Husband!
594204
We traditionally translate shalom as "peace".  This is often a good translation, and may well be the best simple way to render to word used all by itself as a greeting.  ("May you be well/whole" might also be suitable, but are rather awkward.)  \n\nBut since words in two different languages seldom mean exactly the same thing in ALL their uses, "peace" is not the best way to render it in EVERY situation.\n\nThe word actually refers to various sorts of "wholeness" from good health, to good circumstances, to inner tranquility.  When referring to relationships, for instance, the emphasis is on "peace" (for that describes relationships that are 'whole').\n\nFor an overveiw of the emphasis of the word in OTHER contexts, here is a list of the 'range' the word has in biblical Hebrew:\n\n=completeness, soundness, welfare, peace\na) completeness (in number)\nb) safety, soundness (in body)\nc) welfare, health, prosperity\nd) peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment\ne) peace, friendship\n(1) of human relationships\n(2) with God especially in covenant relationship\nf) peace (from war)\ng) peace (as adjective)
220851
Read Hebrews Chapter 9:4
530827
Check this link and request a Bible in your language:\n\nhttp://www.watchtower.com/
443204
"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Exodus c20 v12\n\nDo what your mom tells you. LOL