Results 501 - 520 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | was wine fermented | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 13515 | ||
Thanks, Hank! Now I get it. To quote an old West Indies folksong: It was clear as mud But it cover the ground And the confusion made me brain go round. --JVH9212 |
||||||
502 | Where did Jesus get His blood from | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 13523 | ||
Tom: Your statements, "Jesus was not GOD, therefore Jesus was not born perfect but made perfect refer to Hebrews5:8-9." AND "GOD made JESUS GOD after he perfected him in GOD's righteousness, not man's righteousness." You are not in serious error. To deny the Deity of Christ is HERESY. The Deity of Christ is THE essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Your statement that "Jesus was not GOD" is divisive, outrageous, ridiculous, and heretical. Not only that, it betrays a great ignorance of basic Bible doctrine. --JVH0212 |
||||||
503 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 13781 | ||
How easily we Monday morning quarterbacks criticize the decisions and question the motives of the reformers. I do not now nor have I ever belonged to the Lutheran church, but I shudder to think where the Christian church would be today without Martin Luther. This reminds me of a couple of months ago when the forum was on some kick where they were questioning the motives of the Apostles. I know not what others may do, but as for me I choose not to go there. Martin Luther "allowed himself" to be separated from the church? His only alternative was to lie and recant what he believed with all his heart. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Roman Catholic church would have cleaned up its act on its own without the influence of the Reformers. Do you like reading the Bible in your own language? Martin Luther was one of the first to translate the Bible into the language of the people. |
||||||
504 | What do you think of 1 Cor 1:18? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15556 | ||
Tim: As happens more often than not, we are in agreement. (Actually I am in agreement with more than 90 percent of your postings.) Our salvation is past, present and future. We were saved from the penalty of sin, we are being saved from the power of sin, and we shall be saved from the presence of sin. |
||||||
505 | Is inter-racial marriage wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15724 | ||
According to "The New Compact Bible Dictionary," Ham "became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites (Gen. 10:6-20)." "The descendants of the original Ham (Pss. 78:51; 105:23; 106:22). In these passages 'Ham' is used as another name for Egypt as representing Ham's principal descendants" (The New Compact Bible Dictionary, Edited by T. Alton Bryant, 1967, Zondervan). |
||||||
506 | Is inter-racial marriage wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15755 | ||
"A curse of slavery was placed only on Ham's son, Canaan — whose descendants later occupied Phoenicia and Palestine. They were Caucasians." This article first appeared in the Spring 1991 issue of the Christian Research Journal. (www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
507 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15903 | ||
koinekid: Your answer shows much wisdom and a knowledge of the subject. We are in agreement on your main points. I would agree entirely if you said, "Frequently the NIV sacrifices an overly wooden literalness for readability." (Please note, I am not defending the NIV because it is my favorite translation. That honor goes to the New American Standard Bible. My second favorite would be the New King James Version.) I don't mean to criticize you in any way or to be nit-picky. But when the NIV substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they," this is a good example of translation that is accurate, although not literal. If "they" means "Jesus and the disciples," then is not "they" an accurate translation? I could see your point if the NIV substituted "Caiaphas and his henchmen" for "they." That would be inaccurate. But the NIV does not do that, does it? It accurately substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they." Again, in no way am I saying that your ideas are wrong. I would be the first to acknowledge that you do know what you're talking about. In your post I agree with you far more than I disagree. Thank you for your posting, which I find, on the whole, to be both accurate and readable. :-) |
||||||
508 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15928 | ||
CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS NOTE. This is a re-post of a previous Note -- with a correction added. The corrected copy is in paragraph three. The corrected sentence is: *If "they" means "Jesus and the disciples," then is not "Jesus and the disciples" an accurate, although not literal, translation?* koinekid: Your answer shows much wisdom and a knowledge of the subject. We are in agreement on your main points. I would agree entirely if you had said, "Frequently the NIV sacrifices an overly wooden literalness for readability." (Please note, I am not defending the NIV because it is my favorite translation. That honor goes to the New American Standard Bible. My second favorite would be the New King James Version.) I don't mean to criticize you in any way or to be nit-picky. But when the NIV substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they," this is a good example of translation that is accurate, although not literal. *If "they" means "Jesus and the disciples," then is not "Jesus and the disciples" an accurate, although not literal, translation?* I could see your point if the NIV substituted "Caiaphas and his henchmen" for "they." That would be inaccurate. But the NIV does not do that, does it? It accurately substitutes "Jesus and the disciples" for "they." Again, in no way am I saying that your ideas are wrong. I would be the first to acknowledge that you do know what you're talking about. In your post I agree with you far more than I disagree. Thank you for your posting, which I find, on the whole, to be both accurate and readable. :-) |
||||||
509 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 15997 | ||
On this day -- September 12, 2001, the day after the Day of Terror -- the concern for capitalization and pronouns can only be exceeded by a concern for the all-important issue of who Cain married. If your only criterion for selecting a Bible translation is the use of capitals, then by all means DO NOT purchase a copy of the NIV. |
||||||
510 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16011 | ||
"Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) |
||||||
511 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16052 | ||
"If you want to see people celebrating on the streets of Palestine "Our god is good"; then don't be concerned about capitalization." I have no idea what the above sentence means. If "Our god is good" is a Bible quotation, could you please enlighten us: what book, chapter, and verse is that found in? I would be happy to respond to your post if I knew what you meant. |
||||||
512 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16054 | ||
Ray: You write: "Hi kalos, Did this message by John MacArthur mention theomatics?" To quote Morant61, my reply is: "This is a bunch of nonsense. " (...) "I highly recommend the Bible and urge everyone to stay away from just garbage!" |
||||||
513 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16092 | ||
koinekid: You write: "My favorite Old Testament professor at Liberty reads the NIV, studies from the NASB, and teaches from the KJV." I LIKE this idea and the way you stated it. For years, I have done general reading in one translation, studying in another and teaching from yet another. Am I reading three different Bibles? No, I am reading three different translations of one and the same Bible. (Currently, I like to read from the ASV 1901 or the HCSB NT, study from the NASB and the NKJV, and teach my high school Sunday School class out of various translations, including the NIV, TEV, and others. I use many study Bibles and translations to study and research answers to post on the Forum. I find the two most useful translations to be the NASB and the Amplified. But, I have a strong preference for the translations that follow the King James tradition, e.g. ASV 1901, NASB and NKJV, etc.) And we are in 100 percent agreement re the NASB. It is, just as I have been saying for the last 30 years, "the most literally accurate Bible translation in the English language." |
||||||
514 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16253 | ||
Ray, my dear brother in the Lord. We don't agree on everything, yet I still esteem you as better than myself. You are a precious brother. But, I must point out that we are very much not in agreement when you say the NIV does not recognize the Deity of Christ. This is absurd. I know there's no changing your mind. You have already heard all the arguments refuting your beliefs about capitalization. So it would do no good whatever for me to repeat them. But this is a pretty serious accusation to bring against any translation. Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has the right to be wrong in his facts. |
||||||
515 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16274 | ||
Thank you, Nolan, for this posting and for providing the key verses to look up. The idea that the NIV doesn't recognize the Deity of Christ is one of the Top 100 Absurdities I've read on the forum . . . THIS WEEK. | ||||||
516 | Is it a sin to play the lottery? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16710 | ||
"Gambling is a bankrupt abandonment of reason and religion, and in the long run everyone loses." You ask: "Did not the Apostles "gamble" when casting lots to see who would replace Judas." No, they did not. The Apostles were not "gambling." "What appears to be chance to the finite human mind is known to a sovereign God. Casting of lots, for example, is a biblical illustration not of gambling (for no money or other value was placed at risk in hopes of greater gain) but of individuals trusting a sovereign God to direct the "chance" disposition or direction of the lay of the lots. People used "chance" to understand God’s will. Their faith was not in chance but in God. But belief in chance as fate stands in direct opposition to a purposeful creation, ordered and directed by the Sovereign God of the universe. Chance without God is the personification of anarchy and nihilism. God controls, not chance (Amos 3:6)." (...) "Summary "If baseball once was America’s national pastime, it’s been replaced by a 550 billion-dollar-per-year obsession — gambling. Gambling feeds the self-indulgent, instant-gratification mindset that has plagued America in recent decades. Beneath its glittery surface lurk the parallel tragedies of increasing addiction and a decreasing devotion to spirituality. Most Christian churches have been silent about gambling. Scripture is not. Even without a direct commandment, "Thou shalt not gamble," the Bible offers numerous principles that militate against the practice. Informed Christians will challenge such social evils as state-sponsored gambling and the use of gambling for fundraising. Gambling is a bankrupt abandonment of reason and religion, and in the long run everyone loses." (www.equip.org/free/DE209.htm) |
||||||
517 | Is it a sin to play the lottery? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16721 | ||
Well done. If you have no answer to a posting, then, by all means, resort to ridicule and mockery. Are you a-mus-ing yourself with this forum? In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes. I will interact with anyone who has a specific comment or question about the passage in question. I will not respond to questions or posts that stray away from the specific passage being discussed. |
||||||
518 | Is it a sin to play the lottery? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 16747 | ||
Jim: My church uses Welch's grape juice instead of wine. :-) Grace to you. |
||||||
519 | Definitions - God? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 17217 | ||
Lionstrong: When I wrote "I am not too superstitious to attempt a definition of God," I was definitely not referring to the answers you had given to Charis' question. Your approach to "summarize what he has revealed about himself in his Word" as a way to define God is very similar to my own approach. I find myself in agreement with the answers you gave. Peace to you, kalos |
||||||
520 | Definitions - God? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 17257 | ||
OK. Thanks for clarifying for me that which I had previously overlooked regarding your earlier post. Peace! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [212] >> |