Results 381 - 400 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | A Day In The Life Of The Forum | 2 Tim 2:23 | kalos | 174173 | ||
A Day In The Life Of The Forum Repost of ID# 30847 __: I'll take ten shekels for the bridge. Of course, first we'll have to start a thread to find the conversion rate between the shekel and the dollar. As soon as someone gives an answer, especially if it's the right one, we need to have some Internet Lone Ranger self-appointed shekel expert write in and tell the first guy he's wrong. This should be followed by 100 posts over a period of three weeks in which most of the Notes and Answers will come from those who have never in their lives seen a shekel and who don't even know how to pronounce the word. Included in the posts should be a quote or two from current publications in which the conversion rate (shekel to dollar) is accurately given. This will immediately be followed by warning posts cautioning the writer not to believe anything you read in establishment publications as to the value of a shekel. Then someone else will have to look up shekel in Strong's and work backwards into the original language. After the debate becomes more and more heated, bitter and divisive, someone should report it to the Lockman foundation and have it restricted from appearing on the homepage. A month from now someone will bring up the exact same question and we'll go through the entire farce again. In the meantime, another poster will ask how many shekels dowry did Cain's wife's father have to pay. To answer that question it will be debated whether Cain's wife's father was Adam, Cain's first son, a monkey, a Nephilim, or a fallen angel. By then the original bridge will have rusted and it will then be falling down, falling down, falling down. My fair lady. I'm sorry, __, what was your original question? In all the craziness we've lost sight of the original purpose of the thread. :-) Bless you, __, kalos |
||||||
382 | 'Prophecy from the LORD' | Jer 23:34 | kalos | 174134 | ||
"If any prophet, priest, or anyone else says, 'I have a prophecy from the LORD,' I will punish that person along with his entire family. You should keep asking each other, 'What is the LORD's answer?' or 'What is the LORD saying?' But stop using this phrase, 'prophecy from the LORD.' For people are using it to give authority to their own ideas, turning upside down the words of our God, the living God, the LORD Almighty." Jeremiah 23:34-36 (New Living Translation) | ||||||
383 | Holy Living | 1 Thess 4:7 | kalos | 174120 | ||
Denying the Sufficiency of Scripture 'Once the church allows subjective experience to replace the objective test of Scripture on one issue, a precedent will be set for future issues. A theological Pandora’s box will have been opened, leading to an epidemic of superstition and doctrinal deterioration.' ____________________ To read more go to: www.equip.org/free/DD075.htm |
||||||
384 | Holy Living | 1 Thess 4:7 | kalos | 174095 | ||
"Experience alone has no weight. Scripture alone has all the weight we need." The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB) 'We don't confirm truth or base our beliefs on subjective feelings. We base our beliefs and teachings on what the written Word of God says -- not on experience. Experience alone has no weight. Scripture alone has all the weight we need. 'Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture.' To some people 'the personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling them trumps the objective Scripture. 'Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' 'One of the things Mormons ask potential converts to do is to read the Book of Mormon and then pray to God and ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true. It is said that you will then receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's restored church on earth today. It is difficult to counter this testimony because it is an emotional and, I believe, spiritual phenomenon. I say spiritual but I am not saying it is of God; it is of the devil. 'Mormons teach that if you are sincere and that if you ask God for wisdom as it says in James 1:5, that God will answer you and lead you into the truth. What could be more common sense than that?... 'You don't pray about truth -- you look into the Bible for it. To begin with, the Mormons are going against scripture and trusting something unverifiable (except by their own subjective feelings, of which the Bible says not to trust, Jer. 17:9).' (www.carm.org/lds/bom_look.htm) ____________________ Material above is quoted from these sources: www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm www.carm.org/lds/bom_look.htm |
||||||
385 | Holy Living | 1 Thess 4:7 | kalos | 174083 | ||
Ecstatic Moments The following quote is in agreement with what John Brown wrote about "enthusiastic fervors". Christian growth in our lives is not achieved by ecstatic moments at the altar. That is not the way God works in the life of the believer. --John MacArthur Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
386 | ... | 1 Cor 12:13 | kalos | 174044 | ||
"What good is readability if a translation does not accurately render what the Bible actually says?" --Leland Ryken, author of "The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation" ____________________ [Jesus777: Hank has provided you with an excellent answer. I trust the following information will also be of interest. Grace to you! --Kalos] 'The following Question was asked by an attendee at the 2003 Shepherds Conference (a ministry of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California), and was Answered by John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the CD, #SC1007, titled General Session #5 John MacArthur - QA. 'Questioner: 'Could you give us your thoughts on the use of paraphrased versions of the Bible in many writings today and in church services almost to the exclusion of, you know, the literal translation? 'John MacArthur's Answer: 'James, that’s a very, very important question. I’m cranking up on this one. Now, I’m going to say something, and I’m just going to say it because I want you to know how serious [it is]. I believe anything other than a literal translation of the Bible is a serious breach—serious breach—of God’s intention for how we handle His word. I think it’s a violation. Now, there are some that are worse than others. But, I believe that we need to remember that a translation is a translation. 'Anytime you open a Bible and it says, “A translation for our times,” “a translation for modern times,” “a translation for people to understand,” you have a problem. “Modern times” has no right to determine what God said. Translation is translation. Interpretation is interpretation. Paraphrase is paraphrase. But when you blend those, you have very serious issues. We would say, perhaps, that the NIV is maybe the least troublesome of dynamic equivalency translations, but it’s the old slippery slope issue again. 'And it just goes from there—and watch where the NIV has gone! From the NIV now to the TNIV and who knows where else it’s going to go, because once you have taken the step to say, “We have the right to change the original text so that people can understand it better,” you have just stepped away from what is the Word of God. That is why I always land on the NASB, the New King James or the ESV, which is also formal equivalency and an excellent translation as such. 'This thing is running amok—it’s running amok. There are people in churches, as you were saying, all over the place, who have never heard the Word of God read—never heard it read. People are reading the Message to them or the Living Bible or whatever else variations of that. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation 'I would commend for you, if you really want to dig into this, there’s one book that is absolutely the best thing ever written on this. I mean it is a slam dunk book. I don’t know what else could be said. It is a book called "The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation" (ISBN: 1581344643) and it is written by Leland Ryken and it is published by Crossway. I will tell you, you will read that book and you will never again wonder about translation. And you will also never again use a dynamic equivalency because you will be in fear of divine judgment. I mean, that book is absolutely the best thing—it’s not just the best available. I don’t know how you could write a better one! Leland Ryken has done his work and he has given all of us a tremendous tool to deal with the issues of translation. 'I believe we are bound by God to let God say what He said. And so, that’s why we land on what’s called “formal equivalency,” word by word translation, the only variables being the family of manuscripts that are used. OK? But read that book. Get that book. Don’t just get the book; read the book!' |
||||||
387 | ... | 1 Cor 12:13 | kalos | 174043 | ||
MESSAGE-A Good Effort, But Not a Bible [The following is an excerpt from a customer review of THE MESSAGE by Eugene Peterson. Although not written by me, it perfectly expresses my opinion of THE MESSAGE. --Kalos] 'A Good Effort, For Whatever It Is: But A Bible, It Isn't' 'In my opinion "The Messsage" is not a bible at all, but more of a running commentary of the bible.' When you've read THE MESSAGE 'do not be persuaded you have read THE Bible; you haven't, any more than seeing "West Side Story" enables you to say you have seen "Romeo and Juliet." I'd much prefer the reader try a real Bible first in order to claim s/he's read "The Bible."' ____________________ www.amazon.com |
||||||
388 | can someone explain the holy ghost? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 173994 | ||
"IT" is the title of a novel by Stephen King. "MISTAKE TO USE 'IT' WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT" "The Holy Spirit must never be considered merely as a blessing, a feeling, or an influence. How far short of the full truth it is to refer to Him as 'It'" ("The Spirit Himself", by Ralph M. Riggs, Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, Copyright 1949, 1977). Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
389 | can someone explain to me 2Peter:20,21 | 2 Pet 1:20 | kalos | 173993 | ||
You write: "God will not punish the innocent." But where in the Bible does it say that ignorance of the Law is an excuse for sinning? True, God does not punish the innocent. But, according to Romans 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one". And Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." So, does God punish the innocent? No. But who is without sin? "For all have sinned...". Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
390 | The Eternal Insecurity Version (EIV) | John 10:28 | kalos | 173863 | ||
Who has fallen from grace? ...Read the verse in context. New King James Version Galatians 5: 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Verse 4. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. In the context, who is it who has fallen from grace? "You who attempt to be justified by law." "The [Gr.] word for 'fallen' means 'to lose one's grasp on something.' Paul's clear meaning is that any attempt to be justified by the law is to reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone...Those...who turn their backs on Christ and seek to be justified by the law are separated from Christ...Their desertion of Christ and the gospel proves that their faith was never genuine (compare 1 John 2:19)" (MacArthur Study Bible). |
||||||
391 | The Eternal Insecurity Version (EIV) | John 10:28 | kalos | 173860 | ||
The Eternal Insecurity Version (EIV) IF one could fall from grace and lose one's salvation, then the following Scriptures would have to read as they do here in order to line up with that "truth". (I added and deleted words to the following verses to demonstrate how they would have to be changed IF it were true that one could lose his salvation. I mean no irreverence or disrespect toward the Bible. I'm not the one who needs to add to or take away from the words of the Bible in order to make it line up with my beliefs.) John 5:24 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath NOT everlasting life, and MAY OR MAY NOT come into condemnation; but is passed from LIFE UNTO DEATH. John 10:27-29 (KJV) My sheep CANNOT hear my voice, and I know them NOT, and they MAY OR MAY NOT follow me: [28] And THEY MUST EARN eternal life; and they MAY OR MAY NOT perish, and ANY man is able to pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is NOT greater than MAN; and ANY man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Philip. 1:6 (KJV) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you MAY OR MAY NOT perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 1:4-5 (KJV) To an inheritance CORRUPTIBLE, and DEFILED, and that FADETH AWAY, NOT reserved in heaven for you, [5] Who are NOT kept by the power of God. The above misquotes are absurd, aren't they? But they are no less absurd than the attempts to explain away these verses as they actually appear in the Bible. |
||||||
392 | Was it possible for Jesus to have sinned | Phil 2:7 | kalos | 173758 | ||
Could Jesus have sinned? (Source: www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html) 'If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to "sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb 4:15)? If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?" 'No, Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man -- and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so included in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell. Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 'Although Jesus is fully human He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do. Therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by his very nature. 'To be tempted is not in and of itself sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as to smoke crack or participate in a homosexual act. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for tempted: '1) Tempted - To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature. '2) Tempted - To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such act to such a degree that the act is already taking place in your mind. 'The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought, the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition 1, except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Hence He was tempted like we are but remained sinless. 'Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (1 John 2:16). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve as well as the temptation of Jesus and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins we have the ability to "just say no" to sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6 especially verses 2 and 16-22).' ____________________ www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html |
||||||
393 | Don't argue... | 2 Tim 2:24 | kalos | 173695 | ||
If The Shoe Fits To Whom It May Concern: Don't argue... ...irritably or with irritating persistence. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:24a "And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending)." Heard on Christian radio. Adrian Rogers said: Don't argue. Witness, yes. Defend the faith, yes. But as soon as it becomes an argument, just STOP! According to Rogers, "If you lose the argument, you lose the point. If you win the argument, you lose the person." "Argue" defined. To argue is "to contend or disagree in words : DISPUTE" (http://m-w.com/dictionary/argue) To DISPUTE is "to argue irritably or with irritating persistence" (http://m-w.com/dictionary/dispute) |
||||||
394 | Remaking of the Will | Rom 8:7 | kalos | 173632 | ||
"You did not choose Me" "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." (NASB John 15:16 ) "He chose us in Christ" Even as [in His love] He chose us [actually picked us out for Himself as His own] in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (consecrated and set apart for Him) and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love. (AMPLIFIED Ephesians 1:4 ) "from the beginning God chose you to be saved" 2 Thessalonians 2:13 :: New International Version But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" 1 Peter 1:2 :: New International Version who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. |
||||||
395 | Distinction between Christian/disciple? | Acts 26:28 | kalos | 173624 | ||
Hank, I have to agree with you. Does the NT make a distinction between Christians and disciples of Christ? This Scripture comes to mind: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Ac 11:26 "...the disciples were called Christians..." In this verse Christians is apparently a synonym of disciples. It doesn't say in this verse that some disciples were called Christians and others weren't. It simply says "...the disciples were called Christians...". So it seems to me that the Scripture here uses the two terms interchangeably. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
396 | God's covenant is unilateral | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 173607 | ||
God's covenant is unilateral "Because a covenant confirmed between two human parties was bilateral, some scholars have concluded that the covenant Yahweh established with human beings is also bilateral. This is not the case. God initiated, determined the elements, and confirmed his covenant with humanity. It is unilateral. Persons are recipients, not contributors; they are not expected to offer elements to the bond; they are called to accept it as offered, to keep it as demanded, and to receive the results that God, by oath, assures will not be withheld." Bibliography Information. Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Covenant'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/ Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) 1997. |
||||||
397 | Don't argue... | 2 Tim 2:24 | kalos | 173599 | ||
Don't argue... ...irritably or with irritating persistence. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:24a "And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending)." Heard on Christian radio. Adrian Rogers said: Don't argue. Witness, yes. Defend the faith, yes. But as soon as it becomes an argument, just STOP! According to Rogers, "If you lose the argument, you lose the point. If you win the argument, you lose the person." "Argue" defined. To argue is "to contend or disagree in words : DISPUTE" (http://m-w.com/dictionary/argue) To DISPUTE is "to argue irritably or with irritating persistence" (http://m-w.com/dictionary/dispute) |
||||||
398 | Does “robbing God” apply to us today? | Mal 3:8 | kalos | 173591 | ||
Does “robbing God” apply to us today? 'Question: 'Does “robbing God” in Malachi 3:8 apply to us today? (Source: www.bible.org/qatopic.asp) 'Answer: 'When you come to a subject like tithing, I think it is important to see that there are two extremes to avoid. The first is the temptation to conclude that tithing is not for this age, so that I feel no obligation to give, and can keep as much money for myself as possible. The other is to use the tithing texts to make people feel obliged to give more, and to feel guilty if they don’t. Preachers are usually the guilty ones with respect to the latter. The sad reality is that in most churches, at least half of those who attend give nothing —that’s right, nothing—at all to the Lord’s work. 'In the King James Version, “tithing” (“tithe,” “tithes,” “tithing”) occurs 40 times in the Bible, 32 times in the Old Testament, and 8 times in the New. In the New Testament, 5 of the 8 occurrences are found in Hebrews 7:5-9, which are referring to the “tithe” of Abraham to Melchizedek in the Old Testament. Two of the remaining 3 occurrences occur in Luke. In Luke 11:42 we find a parallel text to the one remaining text (Matthew 23:23). Here, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of tithing in the small, inexpensive, things (mint, dill, cummin), but neglecting the weightier matters. Thus, Jesus does not condemn tithing, but says that there are more important matters. (One could point out that at this point Jesus was still talking as One in the old dispensation, and not the new.) In Luke 18:12 we see the self-righteous Pharisee, boasting about his tithing as a proof (in his mind) of his righteousness. So far as I can find in the New Testament, neither Jesus or any of His apostles taught the necessity of tithing. Neither can we find any statement that they did tithe—that they practiced tithing. Jesus did pay the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27), but we do not read of Him paying His tithe. (...) 'I would have to say that the whole tithing system cannot be brought over [from the Old Testament], in a wholesale fashion, to the church age or the New Testament saint. We are not physical Israel. We don’t live in the promised land. We don’t have a Levitical priesthood, or sacrifices to offer (literally, at least). We are, however, to support those who minister to us (1 Corinthians 9:1-14; 1 Galatians 6:6; 1 Timothy 5:17-18). We are to give to the poor, especially the saints (Acts 6:1-6; Romans 12:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1f.; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9; Gal. 2:10; 6:10; etc.). From 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 and Philippians 4, we certainly see that our giving should be out of gratitude, and something we joyfully do. The whole concept of stewardship should abolish the mindset that says, “Ten percent of what I own is to be given to God, but the remaining ninety percent is mine.” It is all God’s. As stewards, we are to wisely invest it for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom. In the 2 Corinthians (8 and 9) text and the Philippians 4 passage I do not see Paul appealing to the Law as the basis for giving, as though it was only our duty. I see Paul speaking of giving as though it were our delight, as it should be. All of this is to say that I would not seek to employ the Malachi text to badger saints to give. I would use the New Testament texts such as those I have mentioned to do so. We should give. Most of us should give more than we do. But I don’t personally find the Malachi text the compelling text for teaching others about giving.' ____________________ www.bible.org/qatopic.asp |
||||||
399 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | kalos | 173578 | ||
The bad news: It seems that the content of this forum contains more error than the TBN television network. The good news: The content of this forum also contains more truth than TBN. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
400 | New Birth -- An Event, Not A Process | John 3:3 | kalos | 173565 | ||
New Birth -- Event, Not Process New Birth -- "Cleansing from sin that God gives to all who believe on his Son through the Holy Spirit. "Some have considered the new birth to be a process a person experiences, even over a period of years. Such an interpretation is not congruent with the tense of the Greek verb in this passage (John 3). The aorist tense suggests that the new birth is an event rather than a process. Prior to a certain point in time, a person is not-born-again or regenerated; after that point, the person is. "The new birth is, then, a sovereign act of God by his Spirit in which the believer is cleansed from sin and given spiritual birth into God's household. It renews the believer's intellect, sensibility, and will to enable that person to enter the kingdom of God." Carl B. Hoch, Jr. Bibliography. L. L. Belleville, Trinity 1 (1980): 125-41; F. BŸchsel, TDNT, 1:665-75, 686-89; S. Charnock, The Works of Stephen Charnock, vol. 3; J. Dey, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, pp. 725-30; N. R. Gulley, ABD, 5:659-60; Z. C. Hodges, BSac 135 (1978): 206-20; A. Kretzer, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:243-44; W. L. Kynes, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 574-76; J. I. Packer, EDT, pp. 924-26; A. Ringwald, NIDNTT, 1:176-80; P. Toon, Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. a division of Baker Book House Company (http://www.bakerbooks.com/), Grand Rapids, Michigan. Bibliography Information Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'New Birth'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". (www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/ BakerEvangelicalDictionary/). 1997. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [212] >> |