Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Related question to Galatians 3
Reflection on Bible Galatians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Related question to Galatians 3
First Difference: The first translation difference is the first part of verse 11. All of the translations differ on how they refer to the gentiles. Some of the translations say “Once Gentiles,” or “formerly Gentiles,” thus alluding that they are no longer Gentiles, but without that phrase then it can be interpreted that they have not yet been transformed from Gentiles. This difference can reconstruct the entire meaning for this passage because in one the Gentiles have been transformed in the flesh, and in the other they have not been. Second Difference: The second difference is verse twelve. Specifically the part where it mentions the Gentiles being “separate from Israel.” All the translations use different phrases to describe the separation
As previously mentioned, one of the most important similarities between these three texts is the perception of Abraham. Abraham’s commitment to God was tested, and as it was proved, he is the basis for all three of the Abrahamic faiths. In Genesis, God speaks directly to Abraham, saying, “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall by blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3) In the Tanakh, Abraham’s loyalty to God is tested throughout the Bible, and as Abraham’s devotion become apparent, God solidifies ...
One of the main dangers in the way we chose to interpret God in both testaments, is our tendency to see the Bible as containing two different gods: the God of the
The first connection is probably the most easily seen by the common reader which is the use of language in both texts. In Genesis 12:1 according to Fox's translation it says, "YHWH said to Avram: Go-you-forth from your land " and similarly in Genesis 22:2 G-d says, " and go-you-forth to the land of Moriyya/Seeing." In both cases when G-d is speaking to Avram, who is later renamed Avraham, G-d uses the term "go-you-forth" If these two sections of the bible had actually been written by different sources at different times then how come the same words are used? The answer is that they were not written by different sources but the reason the same language is used for both is because it is one source. Had it been written by two different sources there would most likely be different words used for, go-you-forth, like travel, journey or move. The fact that the source of the Old Testament chose to use the word "go-you-forth" for both of these passages meant that there was supposed to be a link between the two especially because it is G-d speaking these words in both situations.
There are three theological differences between Judaism and Christianity. The first difference is that the Christians believe that Jesus is their Messiah and Jesus is the Son of God. However, the Jewish people think that Jesus brings the disaster and they are waiting for the Messiah’s coming. The second difference is that Christians are more kind-hearted. Jesus always gives help to others. Also, he says that if someone has faith he will get salvation. Nevertheless, the God in the Old testament, which Judaism believes often punish people when they do something wrong. The third difference is that Christian believes in predictions. Yet, the Judaism follows close to the
Robinson, B. A. (2008, March 30). Books of the Hebrew Scripture . Retrieved May 7, 2011, from Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_otb3.htm
Although the points where the Torah and Qur’an disagree on basic facts may be controversial, these facts can often profoundly change the overall character of a story. Rather than making a value judgment as to which story is better or more likely, I will simply present these differences along with a discussion on how they impact the meaning and purpose behind the story.
To best discern this text, the reader needs to understand how the original audience comprehended it. When the Lord spoke of a suffering servant, who or what was the Lord alluding to? Was the Lord suggesting the nation of Israel? Or was the Lord indicating a particular individual?
After reading 2 Kings 25 and the two articles, the main source of contrast between these two sourcs is the amount of detail they go into on different aspects of the Exile. The Biblical reading mentions King Nebuchadnezzar and his capture of King Zedekiah, the efforts of General Nebuzaradan and his detailed destruction and pillaging of Jerusalem and the Temple, the capturing and execution of Judah’s chief officers and priests, Judah’s revolt against Gedaliah and fleeing to Egypt, and the benevolence King Evil-merodach of Babylon demonstrated towards Jehoiachin. The articles, however, mentioned nothing of to do with any of these circumstances. They concentrated, instead, on the life in Judah during the Exile.
One main difference is Purgatory in The Divine Comedy. Purgatory is a middle place between Paradise and Inferno. It holds the people who are in the process of repenting of their sins after they have died. The Bible does not have a middle place. It’s just Heaven and Hell, and that’s it. Paradise has many spheres, where Heaven is only one place, and there aren’t any levels to get to it. Paradise and Heaven both belong to God and the angels. Inferno and Hell both hold the non-Christians and they are tormented forever. Unlike Hell, there are many, many circles in Inferno, which belong to the different kinds of sins. In the Bible, it says everyone will have a new body that is free of sickness and pain. Everyone will have a body like they did when they were alive. In Inferno, everyone has almost invisible/transparent bodies. Their shadows outline their body shape. The Bible and The Divine Comedy are similar because in both, God represents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Inferno, the devil is surrounded in a lake of ice, where in The Bible, he is surrounded by
... of Israel, 2d ed.: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. Garden City: Baker Academic, 2002.
New Testament. Vol. 2. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.
D When Paul talks about “we” in this verse he is speaking about the Jews. This is easily seen through the context around this verse. The people that were “the first to put our hope in Christ” were the Jews. In the Old Testament, the only way into the Kingdom of God was to be born into it under the covenant God had with the Jews. In the verses after this, Paul goes on to explain how the Gentiles are also able to be chosen by Christ to be regenerated.
In the quest for the original wording of the Bible you have to look at all of the texts and their background. Their are many versions: Revised Standard, The New English Bible, The New International Bible, New American Bible, and the King James Version. All have different ways of saying the same scripture. This is the beginning of the textual criticism portion of biblical exegesis. In my own personal opinion I have found that the K...
“The Old Testament has a vision of the people of God which will include, but not confined, to ethnic Israelites: many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will become may people’ (Zech. 2:11); it was built into the “genetic code” of Israel from the outside, as the New Testament’s scriptural quotation and argumentation on this point show clearly” (Wright, C., 1992, p.2). These types of passages assured the people of Israel that God was near, and they also sculpted the path of today’s world. The Old Testament lays out the principles of the Bible. The stories are used a guidance to those who are seeking a relationship with God and have a desire to
The rule of Biblical interpretation that was not followed and should have been was when a contradiction like this appears, the emphasis should only be given to the multiple passages that are clear rather than to a passage that is isolated and obscure. The only basis for establishing a doctrine cannot be based off the historical occurrence of an event. As well as the writer’s original intent must be the only valid interpretation of a Scripture passage.