Results 641 - 660 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | The Fall of Satan | Rev 12:4 | kalos | 167074 | ||
“How, why, and when did Satan fall from heaven?” 'Answer: Satan’s fall from heaven is described in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. While these two passages are referring specifically to the king of Babylon and the King of Tyre, they also reference the spiritual power that was behind those kings - Satan. In regards to when Satan fell, these passages describe is why Satan fell, but they do not specifically say when the fall occurred. What we do know is this: the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14). Satan’s fall, therefore, must have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created and before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Whether Satan’s fall occurred a few minutes, hours, or days before he tempted Adam and Eve in the garden, Scripture does not specifically say. 'Why did Satan fall from Heaven? Satan fell because of pride. He desired to be God, not to be a servant of God. Notice the many "I will..." statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Ezekiel 28:12-15 describes Satan as an exceedingly beautiful angel. Satan was likely the highest of all angels, the most beautiful of all of God's creations. Satan was not content in his position. Instead, Satan desired to be God, to essentially "kick God off His throne" and take over the rule of the universe. Satan wanted to be God, and interestingly enough, that is what Satan tempted Adam and Eve with in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-5). How did Satan fall from Heaven? Actually, a fall is not an accurate description. It would be far more accurate to say that God cast Satan out of Heaven (Isaiah 14:15; Ezekiel 28:16-17).' ---------------------------------------- Related Topics: Can Satan read our minds / know our thoughts? Why did Satan think he could defeat God? Was Satan in charge of music in Heaven? Who is Satan? Why doesn't God give Satan and the fallen angels a chance to repent? ____________________ www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html |
||||||
642 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | kalos | 167039 | ||
New Creature: Excellent answer. It goes above and beyond the "call of duty" in defining apostasy/apostate. Would that every forum question were answered as well as this one is. Grace to you, John |
||||||
643 | The Law and the Christian Today | Gal 3:24 | kalos | 166926 | ||
'The Law and the Christian Today. Mosaic law is of value for the Christian in several ways.' The Law Prepares Sinners for the Gospel. The Law Is a Guide for Christian Living. The Law Is of Value for Jurisprudence. The Law Points Typologically to Christ. 'The Law Prepares Sinners for the Gospel. 'No one can receive eternal salvation by works of the law (Ga 2:16) because none perfectly keeps the law (Rom 3:23), and violation of any part of it makes one guilty of the whole (James 2:10; cf. Rom 2:25; Gal 3:10). Instead, salvation is a gift obtained by faith, not works (Rom 4:4-5; Eph 2:8-10; Php 3:9). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4). It provokes and incites rebellion (Rom 5:20; 7:13), thereby making one fully accountable before God for violation of God's moral requirements (Rom 3:19; 4:15; 5:13; 7:8-10). By this means, the law shows sinners their need for a mediator to redeem them from the law's condemnation (Ga 3:13). Hence, the law is an essential prerequisite in preparing sinners for the gospel. 'The Law Is a Guide for Christian Living. 'The believer, through the Spirit, keeps the righteousness requirements of the law (Rom 8:3-4), following the principle of love which is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Mark 12:31, ; cf. Lev 19:18). As the New Testament use of Old Testament laws shows, the moral aspect of the law continues to define proper and improper behavior for Christians. Old Testament laws supplement New Testament morality by addressing some issues not directly treated in the New Testament. God's commandments were intended to bring life (Rom 7:10), and the promises of life associated with the law remain applicable (Eph 6:2-3; cf. Exod 20:12). 'The Law Is of Value for Jurisprudence. 'Law, when enforced by the state, serves to restrain evildoers (1 Tim 1:9-10). Biblical civil laws, although not directly applicable under the new covenant, are at least suggestive for improving modern jurisprudence. The Bible treats theft and manslaughter as torts against the victim (or the victim's family) rather than crimes against the state, and requires monetary restitution to the victim's family rather than imprisonment or fines to the state. This is arguably superior to the modern system where victims often get nothing, and where incarceration is ineffective for rehabilitation and extraordinarily expensive. The capital offenses in the Bible are suggestive for what crimes might legitimately be permitted as capital offenses for today (e.g., intentional murder), and crimes that should never be capital offenses (e.g., crimes of property). 'The Law Points Typologically to Christ. 'The laws foreshadow Christ typologically in many ways. Moral and civil laws reflect the righteousness of Christ and his kingdom, while the cultic (of or relating to a system of religious beliefs and ritual) laws emphasize his holiness. The tabernacle prefigures the presence of Christ among his people; the sacrifices foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The priesthood anticipates Jesus' priestly function. The whole cultic system with tabernacle, sacrifices, and priests prefigures union with Christ through the atonement. The penalties in the law anticipate Christ's judgments; the annihilation of the Canaanites anticipates the judgment of hell. Commands concerning occupying the promised land anticipate the future kingdom of God, heaven and the blessings in Christ himself. Joe M. Sprinkle' ____________________ bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/ BakersEvangelicalDictionary/ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996, Baker Books, Grand Rapids |
||||||
644 | ... | John 1:1 | kalos | 166839 | ||
The Bible Changed? No Chance- Much Ado About Nothing ____________________ "In the entire [NT] text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine." ____________________ 'The Verdict '...New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98 percent of the time. 'Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5 percent textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine. 'Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants." (...) 'Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.' ____________________ The Bible Translated, Retranslated, and Changed? No Chance By Gregory Koukl, President, Stand to Reason www.str.org/free/ solid_ground/SG0005.htm |
||||||
645 | Deceptive philosophyis about what | Colossians | kalos | 166837 | ||
Colossians 2:8 The Amplified Bible See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men's ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah). Holy Bible, The New Living Translation Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the evil powers of this world, and not from Christ. Good News Translation See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not from Christ. Contemporary English Version Don't let anyone fool you by using senseless arguments. These arguments may sound wise, but they are only human teachings. They come from the powers of this world and not from Christ. The Holy Bible, New International Version® See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. |
||||||
646 | ... | John 1:1 | kalos | 166786 | ||
Is the KJV the only Bible we should use? ____________________ "When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not how they spoke and wrote 400 years ago." ____________________ 'KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use? 'Many have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. 'The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. 'Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way, shape, or form. It is undeniable that the KJV contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done...and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in attacks of heresy and perversion of the Word of God by KJV Only advocates. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not how they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. Why should English speakers and readers today be forced to use a Bible translation that is not translated in the English they read and speak? The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. 'Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every translation contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. In my study and teaching, I use several of the different translations in addition to studying the original languages. By comparing and contrasting the different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. My loyalty is not to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2Timothy 3:16-17).' ____________________ http://gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html Recommended Resources: Web Pages That Address The KING JAMES ONLY Controversy http://ebible.org/bible/web/webfaq.htm#KJVOnly http://gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm www.gazettearchives.com/faith2000/ _disc4/000000b1.htm www.kjvonly.org/gary/7_reasons_pr.htm www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written, against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism. www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews.htm Recommended: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, James R. White, Bethany House Publishers (1995), ISBN: 1556615752 1th521 |
||||||
647 | ... | John 1:1 | kalos | 166785 | ||
Distortions, errors, corruptions, lies 'Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had his errors died with him!), until 1955 when J. J. Ray, who is self-described as "business manager, missionary, Bible teacher" published a little volume, God Wrote Only One Bible (Ray is apparently still living, but I can find out nothing about him, and he refuses to reply to certified letters; if anyone can supply specific information about this man, I would greatly appreciate it). In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements (the fact of Ray's plagiarism and dependence is documented in Gary Hudson's article, "The Real 'Eye Opener'," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. II, no. 1, Spring, 1991). Ray's book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies numbering perhaps in the tens of thousands. I first saw a copy myself in 1971 as a first-year student at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, where I was also introduced--by students from Ohio--to Ruckman's Bible Babel and Fuller's Which Bible? I find it of particular interest that Ray acknowledges that there are some erroneous translations in the KJV which do demand revision (pp. 30, 31, 102), a position today's KJVO (King-James-Version-Onlyism) mainstream would consider rank heresy. (...) 'From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second, and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJVO movement has arisen, and every present-day KJV-onlyite is a direct spiritual descendant of these ill-informed men. And as the movement has progressed from one generation to the next, with each new arising from intellectually-incestuous inbreeding, the views have become more radicalized and extreme. First, the KJV was viewed as better than other English versions, though not above some revision and correction (thus Ray); then, the view was taken that the KJV was error-free (but not without insoluble problems; thus Fuller); then, the KJV came to be accepted as perfect, and infallible, unalterably exact, superior even to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was made, and in fact was alleged to contain new revelations not found in the Greek and Hebrew (thus Ruckman); and now it is asserted that a person cannot be saved unless through the English KJV (thus Hyles and others), and all foreign Bibles should be revised to conform to the KJV (a view advocated by, among many others, some Americans visiting in Romania, by an American missionary in Japan, and by a church in Arizona which insists that the Reina-Valera Spanish translation, which has brought the conversions of millions, is not the Word of God), a point of view so absurd that only the most culturally isolated could believe it. The movement has become a vulgar caricature of itself, rushing at break-neck speed to ever more extreme views, and as the adherents grope about in the intellectual smog of KJV-onlyism, having lost all perspective and ability to discern truth from error, they become easy prey for every false doctrine. One leading KJVO advocate in the upper Midwest was recently ostracized from his circle of associates because he has begun espousing British Israelism, the view that the English- speaking peoples are Israel (the view of Garner Ted Armstrong; this view arises naturally from KJV-onlyism, for after all, the English-speaking people must be special, since to them alone God gave an infallible, inspired, perfectly preserved translation, right?). 'Every KJVO advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman, and all are the victims (unwitting, I hope) of the multitude of gross distortions, errors, corruptions, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and, in some cases, outright lies of these men. These men are collectively a bruised reed of a staff, upon which if a man leans, it will pierce his hand. They are unreliable in the extreme and are deserving of no confidence as to the truthfulness of anything they affirm. But I have no doubt that some will blissfully continue in their ignorance, willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because they do not want to see. '"So then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought forth Ray, and Ray, when he was full-grown, brought forth Fuller, Ruckman, Waite, Chick, Riplinger, Hyles, Bynum,...."' To read more go to: www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/ doug/kjvoroots.html |
||||||
648 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166729 | ||
Hank: Excellent post! You've said it all. I can just imagine that by the middle of this (the 21st) century , you'll have some people outraged at the idea of making new Bible translations. They'll be holding to the idea that the NIV was good enough for Paul and Silas "and it's good enough for me." They'll be old-time Christians of the 20th Century. Then there will be other people preferring a translation in what will then be current English. They'll be clamoring for a translation that they can understand. And the beat goes on... Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
649 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166728 | ||
"THE GREATEST PROBLEM, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version." ___________________ [Huron: Thanks for providing information that is accurate and informative. To expand a bit on what you've said, I quote from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version. --Kalos] 'A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible -- the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. 'The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. 'Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.' (Preface to the Revised Standard Version, 1952, 1946, 1971) |
||||||
650 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166727 | ||
No, Jesus did not speak to the people in several languages. He also did not speak in a language that was spoken by only 5 or ten percent (or less) of the population. Neither was the New Testament written in an ancient, archaic, obsolete dialect. It was written in the common, everyday language of the people. It was written to be understood. I am not against the KJV. I love it, quote it from memory, and read it every day. (I doubt that many people born after 1945 have read the KJV more than I have.) Personally I don't believe in dumbing down a translation for the convenieince of the masses of people. Also, I agree with you that it would be very helpful if everyone used the same translation of the Bible. If I had my way, we would. And it sure wouldn't be the NIV. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
651 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | kalos | 166725 | ||
Hank: There are various methods of biblical interpretation. Among them are the historical/grammatical method, the allegorical method, and the ever popular guess method. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
652 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166724 | ||
Md1234: seek after leasing; fetched a compass Using only the King James Bible -- no other versions or books -- please explain in today's English: In this verse what does "seek after leasing" mean? Psalm 4:2 King James Version (KJV) O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? In this verse what does "fetched a compass" mean? Acts 28:13 King James Version (KJV) And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: Grace to you, Kalos 168931 |
||||||
653 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166673 | ||
The notion that we each write our own version to satisfy ourselves to justify our actions is an odd one. I don't write my own version to justify my actions. There is no evidence that the ASV, NASB, NKJV or even the NIV were translations made to justify the actions of their translators or sponsors. You write: "There would be a lot less controversy concerning different interpretations of the scriptures." Translation and interpretation are two different things. As far as that goes, the Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James Version of the Bible when they were formulating their teachings -- more than 50 years before the publication of their own version, the NWT. The King James Version is also used by the Mormons and modern-day teachers of heresy. I suppose it was easy for the cults to confuse and deceive people by using a translation filled with archaic and obsolete language. No translation of the Bible -- not even the King James, which was NOT the first English translation -- is infallible or inspired. Whether a newer version has the same meaning as an earlier translation is not the issue. We compare the translations to the original language text, not to another translation. The only infallible and inspired Scriptures were those in the original languages in the original manuscripts. |
||||||
654 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166671 | ||
Use the first English Bible? Now which version would that be? Among early English versions were The Wycliffe Bible (1395), Tyndale New Testament (1526), Miles Coverdale Bible (1535) and The Geneva Bible (1587). Oh, and I almost forgot, there was the King James Version, a latecomer, in 1611. So which translation would you go with? You ask, "Why was this changed anyway?" Why was what changed? You mean why didn't we stick with the Wycliffe Bible or the Geneva Bible? Why did we need those new modern versions of the 16th and 17th centuries? |
||||||
655 | Does Jn 15:16 "choosing" apply to us? | John 15:16 | kalos | 166575 | ||
All are chosen? The Bible says, "For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14 (ESV) So are you saying that when the NT speaks of the chosen (elect) it means everybody - all people? Try this: Look up the NT verses that contain the word "elect". Read each verse, substituting the words "everybody" or "all people" for the words "elect", "the elect", "His elect", etc.. See if your definition of elect -- "everybody" or "all people" -- makes sense when inserted in the passage. For example, using this method, these verses would sound like this: Ro 11:7 "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but [all people] have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." If one were to substitute "all people" for the elect in this verse, it wouldn't even make sense grammatically. If "all people" have obtained it, then who are "the rest" who "were blinded" Mt 24:22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for [everybody's] sake those days will be shortened. Mt 24:31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together [everybody] from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mr 13:20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for [everybody's] sake [--and He chose everybody--], He shortened the days. Lu 18:7 And shall God not avenge [everybody]?... Col 3:12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; Are "all people" holy? 2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of [everybody], that they (everybody) also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. |
||||||
656 | Is Language curse or God's plan? | Gen 1:28 | kalos | 166570 | ||
Doc: An old friend and teacher of mine used to say: "Can you think without using words (language)? And if you can, tell me about it." Kalos |
||||||
657 | Gross or Net Income/ | Mal 3:10 | kalos | 166548 | ||
The Law was a curse? I don't think so. NASB Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth. NASB Psalm 119:151 You are near, O LORD, And all Your commandments are truth. NASB Psalm 19:9b The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. New King James Version Psalm 19:7-11 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. |
||||||
658 | Who are the two witnesses in Revelation? | Rev 11:3 | kalos | 166535 | ||
Who are the two witnesses in the book of Revelation? '"My two witnesses" identifies who receives authority from God. With the definite Greek article "the" before it, John indicates his audience’s familiarity with the witnesses--not their specific names and identity, but their specific roles. Verse four will deal with this issue in detail. 'Wild and unnecessary speculations about the identity of these two witnesses have filled many pages. Enoch and Elijah are by far the leaders in this theological guessing game. Given the fact that both are murdered and savagely treated, it is highly unlikely that the two witnesses are historical figures from Israel’s past. The Lord Jesus, Himself, states, that the living "will not be persuaded" to repent "even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31)." A point proved by His own resurrection. Equally, given that these two witnesses are murdered, it is extremely unlike God to resurrect faithful giants like Moses, Elijah, Enoch or any other great figure from the OT only to have them murdered in the streets of Jerusalem. Another point that argues against past historical figures, particularly Elijah, concerns the ministry of the two witnesses. 'The ministry of Elijah is specifically defined. Malachi 4:5-6 states, 'Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse. 'What exactly is Malachi predicting here? The Lord Jesus helps us understand the meaning of this text. He states in Matthew 17:11, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things…." Literally, "Indeed, Elijah is coming and he will restore all things." This demands that John the Baptist was in a figurative sense, Elijah. 'However, the verse also supports the conclusion that the real literal Elijah is going to come. Jesus summaries Elijah’s mission: to restore all things. Elijah is going to bring reconciliation among the people of Israel. Now the reader must pay close attention to the Lord’s words. Elijah will restore all things. 'Notice Elijah will not try to restore. Elijah will not desire to restore, but in fact, Elijah will restore all things. Such a ministry is not reported to be a part of the ministry of the two witnesses. It is therefore best to see the two witnesses as two future individuals whom God will use in ministry reminiscent of Moses and Elijah (for reason to be stated below)...' To read more go to: www.revelationcommentary.org/11_chapter.html P.S. With bated breath I await the post explaining why the above and anything else quoted from RevelationCommentary.org or Solagroup.org is invariably wrong (i.e., incorrect, in error). |
||||||
659 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | kalos | 166414 | ||
By grace through faith plus nothing For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) 'Salvation is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ. Nearly 200 times faith, or belief, is stated as the single condition in the N.T. (John 1:12; Acts 16:31). That faith must be placed in Christ as one's substitute for and Saviour from sin' (p. 1950, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978). John 15:6 (NASB) "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned." Abiding is the result, not the cause, of our salvation. John 15:4-6 Abide in Me. "The word 'abide' means to remain or stay around. The 'remaining' is evidence that salvation has already taken place (1 John 2:19) and not vice versa. The fruit or evidence of salvation is continuance in service to Him and in His teaching (John 8:31; 1 John 2:24; Col 1:23). The abiding believer is the only legitimate believer." (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) |
||||||
660 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | kalos | 166393 | ||
What does it mean to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ? 'To believe in Jesus Christ is to have a confident conviction that: '1) He is who the Bible says He is. '2) He will do what He promises. '3) Upon placing my trust in Him, I enter into a personal, eternal relationship with the Son of God.' (From a message by Charles Stanley, In Touch Ministries) Note that what I have posted is NOT the entire Plan of Salvation. It is NOT Steps to Salvation or How to Be Saved. No one need write and tell me that I left out part of the Plan of Salvation. The focus of this quote is limited to the question WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO *BELIEVE* IN JESUS CHRIST? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Next > Last [212] >> |