Results 561 - 580 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
561 | Beast system, what do you think it is? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22272 | ||
You write: "They have microchips now for dogs that are the size of a grain of rice and are implanted into their skin with a needle,this will be what the antichrist uses on people." Yours is an interesting assumption, even a possibility. But how do you KNOW that microchips "will be what the antichrist uses on people"? Do you have a Scripture reference to support your assertion? Thank you. |
||||||
562 | Why is the Apocrypha not included? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22581 | ||
LisaMarie: With all respect, it is not that some Christians don't feel that the books of the Apocrypha are essential teachings, although that may be true. When it is excluded from the Bible, it is because the Apocrypha is not inspired as are the 66 books of the Bible. In itself that doesn't mean the Apochrypha has no value whatsoever -- just that they are not inspired by God. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
563 | how could God have always existed? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22808 | ||
Kelly, no harm in wondering (unless it becomes excessive). I often wonder about things. When I start thinking about the origin of God, my mind is easily boggled and I have to stop thinking about it. It's just too much for my mind and imagination to deal with. Also, when someone asks a question like "How could God have always existed?", you never know whether they are testing you, wanting to give you the answer, or implying that unless they can understand it, they won't believe it. Since I have no window to look into another person's mind, I think it is better to give the questioner the benefit of the doubt. I see now that you were honestly wondering about it, as I do. It's a pleasure to hear from you. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
564 | Study Bible Doctrine | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22877 | ||
Retxar: You're welcome. I know that I've already given two answers. One is that the NASB SB is, in my opinion, the BEST Study Bible for the reasons I have already stated. Also I said my PERSONAL FAVORITE -- the one I have used the longest and am most attached to -- is the Ryrie. I have a third answer. :-) If I could only keep one study Bible, which one would it be? Which one is INDISPENSABLE because of the detailed, comprehensive notes on every page? The answer is the MacArthur Study Bible. I would miss the NASB SB and the Ryrie if I were deprived of them. But I would not want to go a day without the MacArthur Study Bible within reach. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
565 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22886 | ||
Sir Pent: I have to agree with you. Early on in the history of the forum, I observed that the following is a cause of much disagreement and misunderstanding among people: Two people in a debate often use the same English word to mean two entirely different things. Often one person uses an English word in the everyday, ordinary, universal sense of the word; whereas the other side of the debate ascribes a unique and private meaning to the same word. The point is: how can two people discuss/debate an issue if they can't even agree on the definition of key words used in the discussion? It has also been said that the meaning of English words has changed. To the one who says that, I would ask: What is your point? Of course, language changes. We all know that. Any dynamic language changes. It's a fact of life. We don't resolve changes in the language by denying their existence. Instead we keep abreast of how a word is currently used. I'm not saying anyone here has said this, but I've actually known (KJV-only) people who claim that it is "wrong" to change how a word is used or what it means. (I am talking now about changes that are accepted and recognized by the general population -- not those instances where an individual makes up any meaning he wants for a word and insists that his meaning is the only valid one.) As I see it, to assert that it is "wrong" for a society to change how it uses a word is just plain silly. God did not hand down the Webster's English dictionary of 1829 with the warning that "Thou shalt not add to or take away from the words of this book." Come on, people. A little common sense, please. kalos |
||||||
566 | Study Bible Doctrine | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22889 | ||
Nolan: It's good to know that I'm not the only person who has a hard time narrowing his top preference down to just one Bible. The New Scofield Reference Bible holds a special place in my heart because 30 years ago, it became my first ever study Bible. It's the only Bible where I can consistently locate a verse by knowing whether it's on a right or left page and whether it is in the left or right column on a page -- at the top, middle, or bottom vertically. My old Ryrie is dear to me because it has for almost 25 years been the most read, studied, prayed-out-of, quoted, photo-copied, carried and used Bible I own. Talk about signs of wear -- none of my other Bibles even come close. But which one do I use EVERY day, especially when composing Answers or Notes for the forum? The MacArthur Study Bible. I thank God for each and every one of these helpful, trustworthy study Bibles. It seems that no two of those mentioned do exactly the same thing in the same way, so one need not fear repetition or redundancy if one owns and uses more than one study Bible. kalos |
||||||
567 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22956 | ||
"Nowhere does Scripture state that believers have authority over Satan himself." EdB, I totally agree with you when you write: "Other songs are talking to Satan, what going to happen to him or what we are going to do to him and etc. Again where is the worship of God in that? “Satan you under my foot”." For the benefit of the readers, may I add something (in agreement with you) that relates to this subject? I do not sing songs to or about Satan. I never join in when others are singing the chorus referring to Satan, "He's under my feet, He's under my feet." I don't think so. The believer's authority has been much overstated. The notion that people can order Satan about when they can't even get their kids to do what they tell them is truly astonishing. "Elliot Miller writes: "The biblical evidence suggesting that believers have been given direct authority over the demonic realm is scantier than is usually supposed. Neil T. Anderson applies Matthew 12:29 (“first binds the strong man”) to believers, when it is obvious from the preceding seven verses that Jesus was referring to Himself alone. Matthew 18:18 (“bind” and “loose”) refers to church discipline, not spiritual warfare, as the larger context makes entirely clear. Anderson uses Ephesians 1:18-21 (Christ is seated above all authorities and powers) combined with Ephesians 2:5-6 (believers are seated with Him) as proof of the believer’s authority over the devil. But rather than dealing with spiritual warfare, these passages speak of Christ’s exaltation by the Father and the believer’s acceptance and exaltation before the Father in Christ.” One should therefore be careful not to infer too much from them. "Nowhere does Scripture state that believers have authority over Satan himself. Those biblical passages that do speak of believers’ authority over the demonic realm apply strictly to driving demons out of lost human beings (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:19; Acts 8:7). They are never applied to pastoral counseling or the believer’s personal battle with the devil. "This does not mean Christians must accept defeat in spiritual warfare. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus has won the victory over the devil and all authority has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Col. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:22; etc.). While believers do not have the prerogative to say, “I command you, Satan (to do this or not do that),” Jesus does. Believers are indeed positionally seated with Him in heavenly places and are thus made partakers in His victory. They therefore can be confident that if they resist the devil, he will flee from them (James 4:7)" (www.equip.org/search/). (The Bondage Maker: Examining the Message and Method of Neil T. Anderson (Part Two: Spiritual Warfare And The “Truth Encounter”) by Elliot Miller. Available to read online at www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
568 | Can anyone post any answer they want whe | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 22959 | ||
VillaSanJuan : Please note the following question and answer: "Why does everything happen in thirds? Note Bible general Fri 11/16/01, 4:03pm God is in a trinity. We are three part beings. A triangle is the most stable shape in equal materials. Three works." See what I mean? kalos |
||||||
569 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23004 | ||
Yes, Ed, I agree with you. And to make it worse, this false teaching is reinforced by unbiblical choruses making a joke out of Satan. Instead of learning every new projected-off-the-wall chorus that comes down the pike, we ought to be learning Scripture. For example, we see in Jude 1: 8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (NKJV) |
||||||
570 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23012 | ||
"Alright, Bud Abbott. Now I'm askin' you. If a dictionary says a lexicon is a dictionary; and a lexicon says a dictionary is a lexicon, that only leaves one question. What is the name of the guy on first base?" "No, what's on second. Who's on first?" "I don't know." In unision: "Third base!" (Disclaimer: This post is all in fun and is not meant to mock or hurt anyone on the forum.) |
||||||
571 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23013 | ||
Ed: Of course we agree from time to time. :-) Even when we don't agree, it doesn't change the fact that you are my esteemed brother in Christ. Good scripture quote there, Ed. Grace, kalos |
||||||
572 | Healing Holy Spirit | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23039 | ||
RoseS: Thank you. No disrespect or discourtesy toward you is intended here. I merely address your previous reply. Did I say "No" was in the the biblical passage? Instead, did I not say, "The *implied* or *expected* answer to each of the following questions is "No"? On the other hand, let's try it your way. If the answer to the questions is not No, then it must be Yes. So let's try that and see what we get. Are all apostles? (Yes, ALL are apostles.) Are all prophets? (Yes, ALL are prophets.) Are all teachers? (Yes, ALL are teachers.) Are all workers of miracles? (Yes, ALL are workers of miracles.) Do all have GIFTS OF HEALINGS? (Yes, ALL have gifts of healings.) Do all speak with tongues? (Yes, ALL speak with tongues.) Do all interpret? (Yes, ALL interpret.) Now we just need to re-define the word "all" to make the above true. By the way, Mark 16:16 is probably not a genuine part of Mark's Gospel. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
573 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23043 | ||
Ed: Caution is advised whenever you encourage me to "preach it, brother." Because if you say it, I'll do it. (smiles) Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
574 | Why are there two ways( seemingly to be | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23044 | ||
Whatever. | ||||||
575 | Why are there two ways( seemingly to be | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23080 | ||
Thanks for your reply. As far as four different versions of the superscription above the cross, recently that question has been adequately answered on this forum. If you are unable to find it using the Search function, I will be glad to look for it and re-post it for you. Also, there has been beaucoup discussion of the forumula to be spoken over someone when they are being baptized. You will find all sides of that question by searching the archives. Grace to you, kalos :-) |
||||||
576 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23083 | ||
Ed, You reiterate another good point here: Why all this focus on and obsession with Satan? That's not what the Bible and Christianity are about. Look in any concordance. The names of Abraham and David appear in the Bible far more times than the word Satan. So why aren't we paying more attention to the patriarch and the king than we do to Satan? IM never-to-be HO, kalos :-) P.S. I'm ready to "preach it" at the drop of a hat. I'll even drop my own hat just to get it started. :-) |
||||||
577 | Why are there two ways( seemingly to be | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23085 | ||
Steve: I goofed again. My apologies. When I wrote suggesting that you use the Search function and offering to help you, I did not realize whom I was writing to. I honestly, but mistakenly, thought I was replying to the new person. So please don't be offended at my offer to help you use the search function. It was purely unintentional. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
578 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23099 | ||
Steve, you write: "There are times we need to explain what we mean. For example, if a culture has never seen a lamb, to see that Jesus was the Lamb sacrificed would mean nothing." You make an excellent point. And it is for this very reason that translations like the GOD'S WORD version and the CEV, written especially for people who are unchurched or unfamiliar with Bible terminology, translate the way they do. For example, these translators are not concerned with using or explaining words like shekel or phylacteries. They are more interested in getting at the meaning of a verse, rather than the word-for-word literal translation. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
579 | Healing Holy Spirit | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23108 | ||
RoseS: You are welcome. And my thanks to you for participating in the forum. I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. :-) It's great to hear from someone who is eagerly searching and open to what the Bible says and plainly teaches. Always be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Whatever you hear or read, check it out in the Scriptures and make sure it lines up with the Word of God. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
580 | So when did "evil" start? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 23448 | ||
Lisa, You write: "Different 'authorities' on the bible have extremely different views." As a general statement, this may be true, especially when those authorities are secular humanists teaching the "Bible as Literature." I had the dubious benefit of such a course when I was in college. But I am not aware that among conservative evangelicals (of whom there are multitudes) there are many extremely different views regarding what books do and do not make up the canon of the Bible. Among this large group of Bible readers, students, scholars and teachers there is a consensus, if not universal agreement, that the 66 books of the Bible constitute the entire Bible. There are no more divinely inspired books -- no more and no less. I'm not trying to be rude or dogmatic here. I merely state an observation. (I won't call it a fact and risk an interminable argument over it. Since I have not actually polled every last conservative evangelical denomination, then I do not know it to be a fact. Yet I am confident that my observation is not mistaken.) You write: "Hence the "Eloheim" writings and the "Yahweh" writings." I do know what you are talking about, having been exposed to a course in Bible as Literature. The muddled theology inherent in Bible as Literature courses is usually espoused by people (both university professors and liberal clergymen) who are NOT unbiased, people who do not necessarily believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, some of whom, for all I know, don't even believe in God. I have no doubt that you want to know everything you can about your Lord. Nor do I doubt that you love Him and don't want to miss a single word of text. You write: "I have several different versions just to make sure I get it all in." I, too, have several different versions. I have in my home 17 different translations in print. On the net, I can find 26 different versions either of the NT or of both the OT and NT. Yet not one of those 26 versions (with the possible exception of the Douay-Rheims) has any more or any less than 66 books of the Bible. Thank you for hearing me out. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Next > Last [212] >> |