I assume they round it up from .99 cents to 1 cent, which is fair.
If the publisher ever figures out that Isaiah 28:10 is not about Bible study, I'll pay the other 98 cents.
I thought the ZERO on the left didn't count anyway and that the period implied it. So .99 cents equals to 0.99 cents or maybe as some say 99 cents is the correct way without the period -- Which one is it? [:P]
DAL
I thought the ZERO on the left didn't count anyway and that the period implied it. So .99 cents equals to 0.99 cents or maybe as some say 99 cents is the correct way without the period -- Which one is it? DAL
I thought the ZERO on the left didn't count anyway and that the period implied it. So .99 cents equals to 0.99 cents or maybe as some say 99 cents is the correct way without the period -- Which one is it?
99¢ or $0.99, but not .99 cents. That would be 99/100th of a cent.
That's how children learned and that's how people in Isaiah's time mocked his words without realizing that they were mocking the very WORD of God...or so most commentators say.
To me, the publisher has taken a principle from that text to give it a spin to Bible Study and how a babe in Christ should learn. We don't have to keep it in context as the principle transcends the context in my opinion.
Like that verse, "Where there's two or three gathered in my name..." (Matt. 18:20) in its context is not talking about staying home and meeting there because you felt like skipping church, but the principle is there if it happens under unique circumstances...e.g. say my family got a flu virus and we couldn't go to church and we decided to stay home and do a devo or worship service at home. God/Jesus will be there even if there's only 2 or 3 gathered...the principle still applies...just like the one in Isaiah 28:10 can be taken and used for Bible study. Ah ha! You didn't see that one coming, did you? So pay the other 98 cents! ;-)
Context is very important, but the principle transcends the context. Does that make sense?
Like that verse, "Where there's two or three gathered in my name..." (Matt. 18:20)
I was just reading about this today in the CJB:
[quote]Binding and Loosing: Who Has the Authority to Determine Halakhah? At Mattityahu 18:18 the Greek words usually rendered “bind” and “loose” are translated “prohibit” and “permit.” This reflects the first-century Jewish application of these concepts to their leaders, who were understood as having authority from God to decide what practices should be followed by the community, i.e., to determine halakhah (“Jewish law,” although this meaning dates from a later period). In verses 18–20 the Messiah transfers this power from the rabbis to his own talmidim (disciples). This authority was not assumed instantaneously,64 nor was it assumed later when it should have been. But the fact that Messianic Jews and Gentiles have hitherto made little use of Yeshua’s far-reaching grant of authority does not cancel it. Moreover, this understanding gives verses 19–20 a different meaning from what most Christians understand—they say that two or three Messianic Community leaders suffice to determine proper practice (Messianic halakhah). The usual Christian application is that when two or three believers pray together, God listens. Though true, it is not the point of these verses.
64 See Matthew 23:2.
Stern, D. H. (1998). Complete Jewish Bible: an English version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament) (1st ed.). Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications.
NICNT also discusses the Jewish context of that verse:
[quote]His spiritual presence among them is the source of their authority to declare the will of God and to expect God to hear their prayers. And that presence is promised not to a formally convened ecclesiastical council, but to any two or three12 of his people who meet as his disciples.13
This saying is regularly compared to a rabbinic motif found especially in a saying from the early second century ad in m. ʾAbot 3:2 (cf. 3:6): “If two sit together and words of the Law are between them, the Shekinah rests between them” (i.e. God is present with them). W. D. Davies, Setting 225, therefore calls Matt 18:20 “a Christified bit of rabbinism.”14 The idea of spiritual presence is similar, and may represent a tradition of thought already present at the time of Jesus, but what makes the present saying remarkable by comparison is that the one present is not the more abstract concepts of the Law or the Shekinah, but the human figure of Jesus.15
12 The phrase recalls the agreed witnesses of v. 16. It was a problem to some early Christian solitaries that the saying mentions “two or three” but not “one.” See B. Englezakis, NTS 25 (1978/9) 262–272, for the possibility that this concern lies already behind the mysterious Gos. Thom. 30, which is normally read as “Where there are three gods, they are gods; where there are two or one, I am with him,” but where a fragmentary Greek version suggests a different reading of the opening clause.
13 See D. D. Kupp, Emmanuel 86–87, 185–188, for the theme of “coming together,” συνάγομαι, in Matthew and its implications for the relations between the ἐκκλησία and the συναγωγή. Kupp understands the term to be used of the Jewish leaders “to draw uncompromising battle lines,” (186) but in a more positive sense when referring to disciples. He resists any attempt to define the nature of the gathering here more specifically (as liturgical, judicial, or for prayer). See, however, W. G. Thompson, Advice 197–198, for the view that the combination of συνάγομαι with εἰς τὸν ἐμὸν ὄνομα denotes the reason for the gathering, which he describes as “to invoke the name of Jesus.”
14 Cf. Davies & Allison, 2.790: “a Christian reformulation of a rabbinic sentiment.”
15 Carter, 369, rightly points out that the rabbinic sayings related to the issue of “where and how God’s forgiving presence and will were encountered now that the temple was destroyed. Matthew’s answer is Jesus.” See D. D. Kupp, Emmanuel 192–196, for the discussion of how this saying relates to m.ʾAbot 3:2 and of the respective ideologies which underlie them.
France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (pp. 698–699). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.
Like that verse, "Where there's two or three gathered in my name..." (Matt. 18:20) in its context is not talking about staying home and meeting there because you felt like skipping church, but the principle is there if it happens under unique circumstances...e.g. say my family got a flu virus and we couldn't go to church and we decided to stay home and do a devo or worship service at home. God/Jesus will be there even if there's only 2 or 3 gathered...the principle still applies...just like the one in Isaiah 28:10 can be taken and used for Bible study. Ah ha! You didn't see that one coming, did you? So pay the other 98 cents! ;-) Context is very important, but the principle transcends the context. Does that make sense?
It appears to me the context of Matthew 18:15-20 is church discipline.Verses 16, 19, & 20 continue the 2 or 3 theme from Deuteronomy 19:15 and others.
It appears to me the context of Matthew 18:15-20 is church discipline. Verses 16, 19, & 20 continue the 2 or 3 theme from Deuteronomy 19:15 and others.
It appears to me the context of Matthew 18:15-20 is church discipline.
Verses 16, 19, & 20 continue the 2 or 3 theme from Deuteronomy 19:15 and others.
The context of the passage is very important. Sadly verse 20 is often misused.
Like I said Robert and Petahchristian, The context is extremely important but we can take a principle from any given context and apply it to other things (We just need to clarify when we do so). Another example would be when Paul told Timothy that those who do not provide for their own have denied the faith and are worse than infidels. The context is the care for the windows but the principle applies to everybody who has a family and is not supporting them. The husband who does not provide for his wife and his children he, too, has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
The context of discipline in Matthew as Robert correctly observed is there, but the principle can be used in other justifiable scenarios.
Ps. Just to clarify, none of us are arguing. I know some might think we are, so we should warn them or else we'll get censured...hehe 😁
The context is extremely important but we can take a principle from any given context and apply it to other things (We just need to clarify when we do so).
Not touching that.
Perhaps we are contributing our .02¢ to help pay for the .99¢ bible study. [;)]
Here a little, there a little [;)]
[shut up and go to church, Robert]
Pointing out that this has not been fixed. The sale is still .99 cents, instead of .99 dollars or 99 cents.
