-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You accuse me of idolatry because I believe the King James Bible is the infallible words of God. I am not an idolater at all but a worshiper of the one true God and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself said: "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14:23)
In fact, I don't think I hold my King James Bible in a high enough esteem. I often grow cold in my affections and hunger for God's words compared to what I find recommended in the Scriptures themselves. God says in Isaiah 66:2 "but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and Trembleth at my word." Job says 23:12 "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food."
David often says things like: "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day." "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" (Psalm 119:97, 103) and "In God I will praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word." (Psalm 56:10) "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)
And Jeremiah says: "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart" (Jeremiah 15:16) and of God Himself the Bible tells us "Thou hast magnified Thy word ABOVE ALL THY NAME." So, no, I have not made an idol of my King James Bible. I only wish I were more consistent in being able to love, and tremble at, and esteem and magnify and joy and rejoice in God's pure words as much as I see in His Book that others have done.
This is ridiculous John! We are not 16th century people having to use those words. We know what thee, thou, wenst comes, hither and such means in our modern language. So please don't infer that Thou is except and you is not.
Ok, posthuman, believe whatever you like. I have given the reasons, which are true.
but bro you didn't give any reasons. when i asked how do i know this is supposed to be a sin offering you just said "because it is" a couple times.
I’m just wanting correct language. I’m not concerned about it being up to date. The Bible should dictate our culture not culture dictating the Bible.
However, you are wanting 16th century culture to dictate how we speak. That is NOT a Bible issue, but a language issue.
It is a language issue. Individual words are important to God, not just the thought.
You might still be reading him wrong.
Israel refers to physical Israel, where all the Jews live. The majority of them do not accept Jesus as their Messiah.
If they accept him during the Tribulation, then those Jews among them become a group of people that are considered saved, but they will have to persist to the end.
I provided the very scripture that used the word "offering." But here it is again.
"And the LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but He had no regard for Cain and his offering"
"By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous when God gave approval to his gifts. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." - Heb.11:4
Do see it now? Paul, is referring to Cain and Abel and notice the word that he uses is "sacrifice." But even if Paul had not described what the offerings were, it is because of the teaching of shed blood.
God accept Abel's sacrifice because it had to do with shed blood. Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it did not having have anything to do with the shedding of blood. Cain's sacrifice represents our own works. Below is the definition of the word
HELPS Word-studies
2378 thysía – properly, an offering (sacrifice); an official sacrifice prescribed by God; hence an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms.
2378 /thysía ("sacrifice") refers to various forms of OT blood sacrifices ("types") – all awaiting their fulfillment in their antitype, Jesus Christ (Heb 10:5-12).
I hope that this is beneficial
Blessings!
Well, it should be obvious of what Thou, thee and comest, etc, means.
My original point in all of this, is that I look at all translations and not just one.
I don't just stick to one translation.
If you want to stick with the KJV, then that is your prerogative. I just don't like reading in 16 century English, which isn't even correct. For if we were to read real 16 century English, we would hardly be able to understand it.
I like checking everything out.
i like to think Apollos wrote Hebrews. i know it's less likely but i just like to think so. just an off-topic comment.
again you just said, "because it had to do with shed blood" but how i get that assumption from the text anywhere? it's just by fiat.
there are many offerings in the law that did not contain blood but are not only accepted, in fact commanded. shewbread. wave offerings of firstruits. drink offerings. thanksgiving and freewill offerings do not require blood. it's incorrect ((not that you're saying this but to make my point)) to say all offerings must contain blood just as it's incorrect to say all offerings are for atonement.
what in Genesis 1-4 says that the offering Cain and Abel were bringing was a sin offering? what in Genesis 1-4 says they must offer blood sacrifice? is there anything at all? or is it the justification always just going to be 'because preachers say so' ??
i gotta say, don't be mad. i've been grilling you because it's important to be able to justify our answers from scripture. my pastor points to the same thing, blood, and i grilled him, too, because he didn't justify it either - and then the next sunday he did. and that's why i call him my pastor ♥
the answers are there, and i think it's important that we find them, because they teach us about Christ: this whole thing is a picture of Christ, and it's much more than 'there must be blood, because, blood' -- another thing he has taught me is that just giving people solutions to the problems they come up with isn't nearly as effectual as leading them to the solutions so they can find them on their own. we humans, we don't internalize things we have been told and memorize nearly as well as things we reason out for ourselves. so what i'm doing by pestering you about this question isn't trying to argue with you over the presence/absence of blood is significant or not; i'm trying to prod you to look deeper into it and figure out what Cain & Abel were doing, why they were doing it, why Abel's sacrifice showed faith and why Cain's was profoundly evil.
i do have a lot of respect for you bro. i'm not trying to start a fight, and i'm not trying to dispute the relevance of blood. i'm trying to get to the bottom of why Cain's sacrifice is wicked, and that takes more than the fact that it wasn't blood, because bloodless sacrifices can still be acceptable depending on the context. we have to understand the context and we have to be able to prove it's the context, not just say 'it's the context because i say it is the context' -- hope this makes sense?
thanks for your patience with me
There are generally three different ways to interpret Cain and why did God reject him:
- The Calvinist way would say Cain was predestined, since Abel was the elected one. Thus, they believe that even if Cain was to offer the exact animal sacrifice that Abel did, he would still have been rejected.
- People who lean more towards dispensationalism would say "Faith in God required the correct works then, that an animal sacrifice was needed to show your faith in God". Abel did that and was accepted, Cain did not even after God reminded him a second time and thus was rejected.
- Others who are against dispensationalism would say "Abel believed God in faith and he was accepted. Cain did not believe in God and he was rejected. The animal sacrifice is a result of that belief, and played no part in the initial acceptance or rejection.
.
● Heb 11:4 . . By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.
I'm going to edit the wording of that just a bit to bring out an important
point.
"By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice"
The missing word "better" is a modifier; which serves to show that both
men's offerings were sacrifices; only the quality of Abel's sacrifice was
superior to the quality of Cain's.
Sacrifices should never be assumed always lethal and/or bloody. Take for
example:
● Rom 12:1 . . I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your
bodies as living sacrifices
● Heb 13:15-17 . .Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of
praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And do
not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Heb 11:4 also testifies that Abel's offerings were gifts. The very same Greek
word is used at Matt 2:11 to categorize the treasures that the wise men left
with baby Jesus.
Their gifts were not sin offerings; they were tributes: defined by Webster's
as (1) something given or contributed voluntarily as due or deserved
especially a gift or service showing respect, gratitude, or affection and (2)
something (such as material evidence or a formal attestation) that indicates
the worth, virtue, or effectiveness of the one in question
In other words "gifts" are acts of worship; which is the primary reason why
Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays.
_
● Heb 11:4 . . By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.
I'm going to edit the wording of that just a bit to bring out an important
point.
"By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice"
The missing word "better" is a modifier; which serves to show that both
men's offerings were sacrifices; only the quality of Abel's sacrifice was
superior to the quality of Cain's.
Sacrifices should never be assumed always lethal and/or bloody. Take for
example:
● Rom 12:1 . . I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your
bodies as living sacrifices
● Heb 13:15-17 . .Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of
praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And do
not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Heb 11:4 also testifies that Abel's offerings were gifts. The very same Greek
word is used at Matt 2:11 to categorize the treasures that the wise men left
with baby Jesus.
Their gifts were not sin offerings; they were tributes: defined by Webster's
as (1) something given or contributed voluntarily as due or deserved
especially a gift or service showing respect, gratitude, or affection and (2)
something (such as material evidence or a formal attestation) that indicates
the worth, virtue, or effectiveness of the one in question
In other words "gifts" are acts of worship; which is the primary reason why
Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays.
_
This entire post is just ridiculous. Who are calvanist and why are they relevant. What is dispensationalism and what makes them different or seperate than the body? Quit giving people any credit and quit justifying people who divide themselves. They can go and be evil by themselves. We either follow Christ or reject the truth. Their is no other way. Calvan or dispendation among many others. God is no respector of person. I havent heard any Paul denomination but probly because PAUL WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE IDEA. so who ever calvin is must be a cursed doctrine and sect to begin with.
Hebrews gives the answer as to why God rejected Cain's sacrifice:
==========================================================
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous when God gave approval to his gifts. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." - Heb.11:4
==========================================================
HELPS Word-studies
2378 thysía – properly, an offering (sacrifice); an official sacrifice prescribed by God; hence an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms.
2378 /thysía ("sacrifice") refers to various forms of OT blood sacrifices ("types") – all awaiting their fulfillment in their antitype, Jesus Christ (Heb 10:5-12).
The word "thysia" translated "sacrifices" has to do with OT blood sacrifices.
Abel's sacrifice had to do with the shedding of blood, Cain's didn't, but represented His own works.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the lack of understanding and contention that I am seeing and receiving regarding this issue.
This issue is the very bases of salvation.
God demonstrated this when He found Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves. But God went out and had an animal killed to cover themselves. Why did the Lord to that? Because He was teaching that only blood can cover sin. It was pointing to what Jesus would ultimately do.
There is only one answer, not many! What you call alternative views, is really false teachings!