Results 661 - 680 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
661 | HCSB TRANSLATION? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55036 | ||
justme: I misunderstood your original question. HCSB is the abbreviation for Holman Christian Standard Bible. Sorry for the confusion on my part. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
662 | Brand new out of date NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55394 | ||
justme: At one time or another I have owned at least one Bible by every major, established Bible publisher in this country. It is my opinion (and notice I label it as opinion) that the highest quality English Bibles in the world, with the finest bindings, material, and workmanship, are those which are also published by the world's oldest publishers of the English Bible: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press in England. On this forum I am not the resident expert on Bible publishers. :-) Thus, I offer my opinion for what it's worth. Personally, when I want good information on quality books and Bibles, what I do is "Ask Hank (Hallmark)." Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
663 | Brand new out of date NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55457 | ||
That's a great idea. Start a column and call it "Ask Hank." :-) | ||||||
664 | Brand new out of date NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55487 | ||
EdB: I have a Bible by Foundation Publications and it is a beauty. It's the NASB Updated Edition Side-Column Reference Bible. It's the single-column text with all the translators notes. I had one exactly like it in the early 70s. The exact same edition and binding. The only difference is the first one was the original NASB and this one is the Updated edition. The NASB has been my translation of choice for 30 years. The most used, well-worn Bible I have is the NASB Ryrie Study Bible. I have the new Ryrie in the Updated NASB in a fine leather binding. But I never use it. I can't wean myself away from the Ryrie I used for so many years. By the way, Cambridge does have a website for Bible sales (http://uk.cambridge.org/bibles/). I have an Oxford KJV in hand-grained Morocco leather. But someday I want to get a leather-bound Cambridge King James Version Bible. I remember when you could buy one for 20 or 25 dollars (in the early 1970s). Now of course the prices start at around 100. Talk to Hank sometime about finely bound Bibles. He is very knowledgeable on the subject. For the past 5 years or so the Bible I use every day is the MacArthur Study Bible. It contains more useful information than any Bible I've ever seen. It's like having a one-volume Bible commentary with the Bible text included. Good to hear from you, Ed. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
665 | Brand new out of date NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55488 | ||
It's like something I heard on Christian radio recently: If your Bible is coming apart, then you aren't. | ||||||
666 | Is oral sex among a married couple a sin | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55652 | ||
inmyheart: I thank you for your interest and reply. Consider this: "If we add to Scripture and weigh [people] down with even more unwarranted guilt, we become like the Pharisees and their legal experts. To protect holy principles, they added their own laws to Moses—like fences around fences—and in the process they heaped on others burdens that they themselves were not willing or able to bear ( Luke 11:46 )." I am not calling you a Pharisee. I merely point out what could happen if we started adding to Scripture and weighing people down with unwarranted guilt. (www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/). Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
667 | Why JWs altered Bible translation? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55824 | ||
Yes, I am asking a lot of questions, but I'm not searching for answers. Periodically this forum is infiltrated by JWs with an agenda. They're pushing their doctrine and, for all I know, fishing for converts among the readers of the forum. No, I am not searching for answers. I am challenging Watchtower teachings, all of which are unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture. I do not expect to change the minds of JWs who frequently drop in here. What I am doing is trying to expose Watchtower error for the benefit of readers who may not know any better. |
||||||
668 | Why JWs altered Bible translation? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 55833 | ||
christian7: Your apology is accepted, although it is not necessary. In fact, I thank you for asking the question and giving me the opportunity to answer it. I greatly appreciate your input. Grace and peace to you, kalos |
||||||
669 | Pre-Wrath Rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 56012 | ||
Parousia: I am sincerely sorry. I did not mean to sound so abrasive when I wrote what I did about the word "support." My error. No hostility intended. :-) It's true that THE RAPTURE QUESTION ANSWERED is the only *book* I have read concerning the Pre-Wrath Rapture. However, it is not the only *thing* I have read on the subject. I intend to read on. I intend to read the book "THE SIGN A Biblical Study of End Time Events By Robert Van Kampen. An exhaustive reference work based on more than fifteen years of intense study. It is a sweeping survey of end-times prophecy that spans the breadth of Scripture." If you have something to say about the Pre-Wrath Rapture position, then please feel free to say it here on the Forum. I approached this issue with all honesty and sincerity. It is not that I had already made up my mind and was looking for proof to support what I already believed. I very carefully read and considered the case for the Pre-Wrath Rapture and then accepted it as the accurate and correct position. As for the Pre-Trib Rapture, I have had that drilled into me my whole life. It is the ONLY rapture position I would believe or even listen to for more than 40 years. But before I ever heard of Sign Ministries, I had questions in my mind regarding the Pre-Trib position. There are some things in the Bible, Matthew 24 in particular, that seemed to contradcit the Pre-Trib theory. I am glad that I have had the privilege to finally learn and see what the Bible so clearly teaches on this subject. The main argument against the Pre-Trib Rapture is that nowhere in the Bible does it directly or indirectly say that the Rapture will take place before the 7-year period spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Daniel 9:27) and other prophetic writers of Scripture. Is there a 2 1/2 Coming, a Third Coming, or, as the Bible indicates, a Second Coming? kalos |
||||||
670 | Pre-Wrath Rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 56025 | ||
Parousia: I offer you my sincere apology. I made unfounded assumptions and suspected opposition on your part, where apparently there was none intended by you. Sometimes I can really mess up. This is one of those times. If I may, I would like to offer an apology for anything in any of my posts to you that you may find offensive. This is no excuse, but sound doctrine, the Bible, and Christ Himself so often come under attack on this forum, that I am a bit gun shy and tend to overreact sometimes. You have no idea how happy I am to see that you are apparently not opposed to the Pre-Wrath position. Again, my apologies. My bark is much worse than my bite. Grace and peace to you, kalos |
||||||
671 | Pre-Wrath Rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 56076 | ||
justme: Thank you for the book recommendation. One thing, I think, we all agree on is the Rapture itself - that it is real and will take place. The major area of disagreement seems to be the timing of the Rapture. Yet you and I would agree on the fact of the Rapture, would we not? Though I am thoroughly persuaded that the Prewrath Rapture position is correct, this is not something I try to force on others. In general, how we interperet eschatology need not divide the body of Christ. And I agree with David Jeremiah, who says, regarding the Second Coming, "It's time to get off the program committee and get on the welcoming committee." Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
672 | Pre-Wrath Rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 56077 | ||
justme: I do know what you mean when you write: "there is now and will always be tribulation." Often when I speak to people of the great tribulation they will raise the point that you made. And I agree with you when you write: 'I think it will get much worse! The "YET" Jesus refered to has "yet" to come.' In fact the Bible is very specific that there is coming upon the earth a time of unprecedented trouble or tribulation. Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
673 | Be serious about this- | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 56268 | ||
"Manasseh reigned Israel at twelve years of age AND was held accountable for his bad reign"? The original question was not asked in reference to kings. What king is NOT held accountable for how he reigns? Age has nothing to do with a king's accountability. "Hi, the reference to twelve is not quite as arbitrary as it may seem." Yes, it is. In the context of the original question, "What is the age of accountability?", twelve is every bit as arbitrary as it may seem. You miss the point, which is that there is no mention of an "age of accountability" in Scripture. To arbitrarily set ANY age as the age of accountability is contrary to both Scripture and reason. |
||||||
674 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57209 | ||
I must say I agree with you on two points: 1. By *YOUR* definition, the Roman Catholic church is completely cultic. 2. You do digress. Moreover, there are those who are in agreement with you that the RC church is a cult: 'Even with the significant areas of doctrinal agreement between Catholics and Protestants (see Part One), a notable number of Protestant fundamentalists insist that Catholicism is an anti-Christian cult. Organizations and individuals (some of them quite popular) who classify Catholicism as a cult include: Chick Publications, Alberto Rivera's Anti-Christ Information Center, Tony Alamo's Christian Foundation, Bill Jackson's Christians Evangelizing Catholics, Albert James Dager's Media Spotlight, and Dave Hunt's The Berean Call. (This is not to say that all of these people belong in the same category — the latter three are more respectable than the former three.) Actually this is just a few of many individuals and organizations that classify Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult. Because their position receives a wide hearing in some evangelical circles, we must address their claim' (http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-2.htm). You want CRI? You got it. 'Five More Reasons Why Catholicism Is Not a Cult '(6) Cults frequently have a low view of the Bible, replacing or supplementing it with their own so-called "sacred writings." In fact, cults often argue that the Bible has been, to some extent, corrupted and therefore their writings are needed to restore the truth. While Catholicism's acceptance of noncanonical writings (the Apocrypha) and placing of apostolic tradition on par with Scripture are fundamental problems to the Protestant, Catholics nevertheless retain a high view of the Bible (inspired and infallible) and see it as their central source of revelation. '(7) Cults usually have some kind of authoritarian, totalistic leader or prophet. While some feel that the pope fits this category, in reality the pope governs the church with heavy dependence upon the bishops (college of cardinals), and within the restrictions of the official teaching of the church. Protestants clearly disagree with the authority and exalted titles given the pope, but he still does not fit the category of a cult leader. '(8) A frequent characteristic of cults is their emphasis on a "remnant identity" — that is, they claim to be God's exclusive agent or people who restore "authentic Christianity," which has been corrupted or lost. Usually this type of restorationism has an accompanying anticreedal and antihistorical mindset. While Catholicism has at times been guilty of an unfortunate exclusivity13 (some Protestant churches have also), they emphatically deny restorationism, and strongly emphasize the continuity of God's church throughout history. '(9) Those who classify Roman Catholicism as a cult (an inauthentic and invalid expression of Christianity) usually also give the Eastern Orthodox church the same classification. What they do not realize, however, is that if both of these religious bodies are non-Christian, then there was no authentic Christian church during most of the medieval period. Contrary to what some Protestants think, there was no independent, nondenominational, Bible-believing church on the corner (or in the caves) during most of the Middle Ages.14 Additionally, the schismatic groups who were around at the time were grossly heretical.15 So much for the gates of hell not prevailing against the church (Matt. 16:18). 'Some try to sidestep this argument by reasoning that as long as there were even a few individuals who remained biblically orthodox apart from the institutional or organized church, then those select individuals constituted God's authentic church (a remnant) — thus the church was never truly overcome. This thinking, though containing an element of truth, is not completely correct. It is true that the church has an invisible16 and local dimension to it, but it also has a visible and organizational dimension (John 17:21). While the church is primarily a community of believers, it also functions as an institution through which believers encounter the ministry of the Word and the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper). Scripture does not allow for the sharp distinction between the spiritual and organizational dimensions of the church that some would like to draw.17 '(10) Even with the serious problems evident in Roman Catholic theology from a Protestant point of view, Catholic doctrine overall does not fit the pattern of the recognized cult groups (see comparison chart). Catholicism affirms most of what the cults deny and possesses an orthodox foundation which all cult groups lack' (http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-2.htm). |
||||||
675 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57289 | ||
You write: "In my own personal study, The WofF tenets are almost identical to those of the Assembly of God." That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. You are far, far from the truth. I've been in the Assemblies of God for more than 40 years. I KNOW for a fact that The WofF tenets are NOT almost identical to those of the Assembly of God. They are not REMOTELY similar to those of the A of G. Your statement is just plain nuts. I know exactly what the Assemblies of God believe and you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You do the Assemblies a great injustice to make this crazy accusation. You can go to the A of G website at (www.ag.org/top/). There you may read EXACTLY what the Assemblies believe. After reading this outrageous statement of yours (which has no basis in reality), I wonder if you have any respect whatever for accuracy or fact. |
||||||
676 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57337 | ||
"The major tenets of the Word of Faith movement betray the fact that it is in opposition to mainstream, evangelical Christianity. It asserts that God created human beings in “God’s class” as “little gods.” Before the fall, humans had the potential to exercise a “God kind of faith” and could call things into existence. Humans took on Satan’s nature by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden, thus losing the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (taking Satan’s nature upon Himself), went to hell, was “born again,” and rose from the dead with God's nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to duplicate the Incarnation in believers so they might fulfill their calling to be little gods. It follows, then, that those who have had the Incarnation duplicated in them by the Holy Spirit (thus giving them the ability to exercise the “God kind of faith”) should be successful in every area of their lives. Furthermore, hardships like indebtedness, illness, and even being left by one’s spouse show lack of faith because these problems should be eliminated by “claiming” God’s promises. While certain details of the above outlined doctrine vary from teacher to teacher, the general outline remains the same. CRI considers this teaching in its complete form to be at best aberrational and at worst heretical" (www.equip.org) The organization and leadership of the Assemblies of God do not teach or believe even ONE of the above points of doctrine -- NOT ONE. To claim otherwise one would have to be a fool, a liar or both. |
||||||
677 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57341 | ||
CERTAIN DETAILS OF WORD OF FAITH DOCTRINE VARY FROM TEACHER TO TEACHER. While certain details of the following outlined doctrine vary from teacher to teacher, the general outline remains the same. Kenneth Hagin is neither the designated nor the sole spokesman for the entire Word Faith movement. There is much more to Word of Faith teaching on healing than that which appears in Hagin's tenets of faith. The organization and leadership of the Assemblies of God do not teach or believe even ONE of the following points of Word of Faith doctrine -- NOT ONE. To claim otherwise one would have to be a fool, a liar or both. ------------- "The major tenets of the Word of Faith movement betray the fact that it is in opposition to mainstream, evangelical Christianity. It asserts that God created human beings in “God’s class” as “little gods.” Before the fall, humans had the potential to exercise a “God kind of faith” and could call things into existence. Humans took on Satan’s nature by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden, thus losing the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (taking Satan’s nature upon Himself), went to hell, was “born again,” and rose from the dead with God's nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to duplicate the Incarnation in believers so they might fulfill their calling to be little gods. It follows, then, that those who have had the Incarnation duplicated in them by the Holy Spirit (thus giving them the ability to exercise the “God kind of faith”) should be successful in every area of their lives. Furthermore, hardships like indebtedness, illness, and even being left by one’s spouse show lack of faith because these problems should be eliminated by “claiming” God’s promises. While certain details of the above outlined doctrine vary from teacher to teacher, the general outline remains the same. CRI considers this teaching in its complete form to be at best aberrational and at worst heretical" (www.equip.org) ------------- The Assemblies of God teachings on healing are NOT identical to the teachings of the Word Faith Movement. Following are quotes regarding the A of G position on healing.: 'As the privilege of believers, the promise of healing does not rule out suffering for Christ's sake and the gospel's. We are expected to be prepared to follow His example ( Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 2:19,21; 4:12-14,19 [KJV/NIV]).' 'No one in the New Testament demanded healing. People came to Jesus beseeching Him. They did not look on healing as their right, but as a gracious privilege extended to them.' 'Jesus did not turn away from those who had little faith or weak faith. Those who are sick often find it is not easy to express faith, and Jesus did a variety of things to help them.' 'In humility we recognize that we do not understand all that pertains to divine healing. We still see through a glass darkly. We do not understand why some are healed and others are not any more than we understand why God permitted James to be martyred, while Peter was delivered. Scripture makes it clear, however, that our part is to preach the Word and expect the signs to follow.' (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4184_healing.cfm) |
||||||
678 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57344 | ||
None of the following nonsense is identical or even remotely similar to AG teaching. JOHN HAGEE A number of people consider Hagee’s teachings to be thoroughly biblical. We would disagree with Hagee, however, on the following points. Preaching Prosperity (...) The power of wealth, however, is such that it can lead people into idolatry. Some, for instance, may become so caught up in matters of finances and wealth that they neglect or completely forget about their duties and responsibilities to God. God, for some of these individuals, may begin to fade out of the picture altogether, being replaced by crass materialism. Rather than grounding their primary concerns on the eternal, they instead devote their lives to that which perishes (John 6:27; Matt. 6:19-21).5 Promoting Positive Confession (...) Like his teachings on prosperity, Hagee’s reiteration of the Faith movement’s doctrine of positive confession runs contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Nothing confessed by believers in faith — verbally or otherwise — automatically comes to pass. Only God has the power to create as He wills (Gen. 1:1). Christians are certainly instructed to pray to God for their requests (Matt. 6:8-13; 21:22). Ultimately, however, all such requests are subject to God’s sovereign will; whichever ones come to pass only do so as a direct result of God’s will and not the will of the believer (1 John 5:14).7 Salvation Without Conversion? (...) The Law, revealed through the Jews, was meant to be “our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24-25). As the Bible clearly states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (vv. 28-29). To be saved, a person — whether Jew or Gentile — must turn to Christ (5:4-6; cf. John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-13) who is “the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). In writing that the “message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel,”14 Hagee discourages Christians from sharing the Good News with unsaved Jews who, like everyone else, have need of the gospel if they are to spend eternity with God in heaven. The Reluctant Messiah In Hagee’s theology, the Jews can hardly be faulted for not flocking to Christianity since it was supposedly Jesus who declined their request for Him to be their Messiah. “The [Jewish] people wanted Him to be their Messiah, but He absolutely refused,” writes Hagee. “The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah, it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews!”15 (...) Indeed, Hagee’s view is made especially ironic by the fact that Jesus Himself said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus’ own people rejected Him, and not the other way around (John 1:11; Mark 12:1-12). Judging Alternative Viewpoints as Anti-Semitic Hagee’s personal view regarding the Jewish people has led him to render harsh and inaccurate statements about individuals who differ with him on Israel’s relationship with the church. Those who believe the church is now the true Israel are, in his opinion, guilty of spreading the message of anti-Semitism.18 And along with amillennialism — “the view that when Christ returns, eternity begins with no prior thousand-year (millennial) reign on earth”19 — it is condemned as “ancient Godless heresy that is again raging through the Church masquerading as truth.”20 (...) “Is it important to be right on the Israel question?” asks Hagee. “When you consider that being wrong brings you under the curse of God and headed for eternal, everlasting fire with the devil and his angels . . . it’s important! Israel is not a ‘take it or leave it’ subject. It is a life and death matter . . . eternal life!”29 It is indeed unfortunate that Hagee would think one’s personal view of Israel can radically affect an individual’s eternal destiny. Nowhere does Scripture state that salvation hinges upon a person’s perspective of the new Israel. Hagee has no biblical basis for his denouncement. By making such unwarranted statements, Hagee winds up condemning many erstwhile believers, theologians, and defenders of the faith — both past and present. Though many may claim Hagee’s preaching is helping to spread the Word of God and building a bridge of unity between the Christian and Jewish communities, the fact remains that his message contains elements which lie in direct and serious opposition to biblical truth. (To read the entire article see Statement DH005 at www.equip.org) |
||||||
679 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57392 | ||
justme: Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate you. However, I am not as unflappable as I would like to be. :-) "He's still working on me." You are wise to use the Abuse Report feature when you feel it is needed. The Abuse Report function is here for a reason. If someone comes to the forum with an attitude and looking for trouble, most likely he will find it. As has been noted before, the Lockman Foundation does not want posts that attack the authority of the Bible, that make personal attacks on other individuals, that quarrel over denominational issues, that are posted by cultists trying to proselytize us, or that are intended to cause divisiveness, dissension or discord. This is not a Bible speculation forum, a Bible bashing forum, a platform for the ego of Lone Ranger internet Bible experts, nor any such thing. Moreover, it is not meant as a discussion group, according to the Lockman Foundation. This is the Study BIBLE Forum. Unfortunately, some have to be warned that posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. They come here ignoring the warning, but leave believing it -- after it's too late. When I joined this forum, nine days after its inception, it was never for the purpose of arguing about the Bible. Nor do I study the Bible to win arguments. But I will not sit by silently while my cherished beliefs about Christ and His Word are attacked. I haven't had the opportunity to say this in quite awhile: I do not get upset or perturbed when someone disagrees with me IF they do so in a polite, civilized manner with reasonable arguments backed up with Scriptural support. But when all a person can do is rant and rave and bellow and babble on and on with no Scriptural support; when the other person launches ad hominem attacks against those authors or organizations whose reference materials I cut and paste; when they ignore the points another has made and then go on to change the subject or ask new questions, etc. -- that is when I feel I am wasting my time and the dissenter is wasting everyone's time by posting speculative nonsense. Well, I have said more than I intended to in this post. But I will let it stand as written. Take care and have a great weekend. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
680 | cult by what definition? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 57560 | ||
You can contact Mr. Samples through this website: (www.equip.org). | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Next > Last [212] >> |