Results 1801 - 1820 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1801 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | Hank | 48930 | ||
Hello, bgg. How lucky you are! You have received excellent responses to your question from a trio of responsible people who have been a part of the census of this forum for a long time and whom I consider among the elite "true-blue" users! [I can almost see them blushing :-)] While the talk has been about manuscripts -- that was, after all, your question -- I'd like to append a short remark or two about the other factor involved in what you read in the finished product, the English language edition of the Scriptures. I'm speaking, of course, about translation. I've read a good deal about manuscripts and translations, and there is a reasonably impressive consensus among scholars that the differences in manuscripts are actually not terribly pronounced and that, by and large, they tend to be fairly insignifcant, the differences involving no major doctrinal issues. But on the subject of translations and translation philosophies, conservative biblical scholars have been quite vocal. There has been fairly recently a plethoric rise in the number of 'dynamic equivalence' or paraphrased versions to hit the market. These run the gamut from loosey-goosey paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message to more modest paraphrasing such as the New International Version. A concomitant of many of these paraphrased versions has been the inclusion of gender-neutral language, for which Zondervan's newest child, the TNIV, has come under intense fire from many conservative groups. Opinions are divided in regard to paraphrased versions. Proponents say that they read smoother and are easier to understand. Opponents counter that they take far too many liberties with the sacred text, and that what the reader reads may not be what the text actually says or means but what the translators say it says and means. I happen to pitch my tent in the camp of opponents of paraphrased versons, preferring a more literal translation. In this group of more literally accurate English translations are, in addition to the venerable old King James Bible, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and two newcomers whose success is yet to be determined, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the English Standard Version. --Hank | ||||||
1802 | Genesis1:27 and 2:18, Wife 1 and 2 ? | OT general | Hank | 48538 | ||
Mariad, there was one creation, one Adam, one Eve. There is one creaton account in Genesis 1 and 2, the second narrative being a continuation of and an expansion on the first. There is no disharmony or contradiction between the first part of the narrative and the second. This Lillith fable is sheer nonsense, having no foundation in Scripture or anywhere else. --Hank | ||||||
1803 | I want to know why Orpah did not stay? | Ruth 1:4 | Hank | 48530 | ||
There is no account in the record why Ruth opted to go to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law Naomi and why Orpah stayed behind in her country of Moab. Naomi told both of them to return to their own homes in Moab, but at first both of the daughters-in-law were in unison, saying "Surely we will return with you to your people." Naomi said again to them, "Turn back, my daughters." And she painted a gloomy picture for them of the possibility of ever being able again to bear sons to be their husbands. The key that could possibly be the answer to your question of why Orpah turned back (and Ruth went with Naomi) may be found in 1:14-16. In v.14, Orpah kissed Naomi and left, but Ruth clung to her. In v.15, Naomi says to Ruth, "Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and TO HER GODS; return after your sister-in-law." And in v.16, Ruth says, "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and YOUR GOD MY GOD."....Please note that I have set the references to 'gods' and 'God' in upper case. This may be the clue to why Orpah stayed in Moab, the land of false gods, and why Ruth (your God my God) chose to accompany Naomi to Bethlehem. There is the strong possibility that Ruth had already been called by God to faith and obedience and to fulfill the divinely designed role of being in the lineage of the Messiah. --Hank | ||||||
1804 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 48043 | ||
Jawz, yes I am totally sola scriptura, and yes I can provide ample Scripture of what Scripture says about itself to support my stand, and on many posts to this web site I have done just that, and so have many others. But I see no reason to repeat them to you, because it is a fairly safe guess that you will no more believe them than you believe what the Scriptures say of the marriage of Mary to Joseph or of their subsequent becoming parents to other children of this marriage. If you do not accept the Scriptures as your sole authority for faith and practice, I see no reason to answer any more of your questions or attempt to prove anything else to you by the use of Scripture. Our premises are too divergent to permit of any meaningful dialogue that uses Scripture as the basis for its arguments and conclusions. This forum is designed to be a STUDY of Scripture and not an ATTACK on its authority. Accordingly, I choose not to participate in or respond to anything further that is presented on this thread. You, jawz, are in violation of the second agreement that appears in the green oblong box in which you agree before posting that your post is not an attack on the authority of the Bible. The Lockman Foundation set up these guidelines for users to follow, and they fully expect them to be followed. It is wise for every user to pay attention to them if they wish to be allowed continued access to post on this forum. --Hank | ||||||
1805 | is this verse in the bible. | Gen 38:9 | Hank | 48008 | ||
Perhaps your question is answered in Gen.38:8-10 involving Onan. --Hank | ||||||
1806 | Is the Bible filled with TRUTH? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 48003 | ||
Aggie2000, it would appear from a reading of the examples you have cited of your pastor's interpretation of these selected scriptural passages that the fault lies not in the alleged inaccuracy of the King James Bible but in the possibly unorthodox and heretical teaching of your pastor. You and your fellow worshipers in this congregation may have less cause to question the accuracy of the King James Bible and indeed the reality of your salvaton than you have to question the shepherd of your flock, your pastor. He may well be teaching error and using the King James Version as his scapegoat. Is he feeding the flock with the pure truth of the word of God or is he adulterating it by filtering it through the funnel of liberal theology? A pastor has as much responsibility, yes even more, as the man or woman in the pew to subject himself to the authority of Scripture and to preach and teach it faithfully, in season and out of season, and to handle it aright. As for the time-honored King James Bible, it has been accepted and respected by the brightest of scholars and the humblest of readers alike for its accuracy, its forthright speech, and its majestic and stirring poetry and prose that have blessed English-speaking peoples for nearly four centuries. The 'inaccuracies' that your pastor appears to be dedicated to prove are, for the most part, not inaccuracies at all. Although a few passages may strike the modern reader as inaccurate or obscure, they did not strike the readers in 1611 as being anything of the sort. English has undergone dynamic changes since 1611. Thus the modern reader who is unschooled in Jacobean-age English usage will need to equip himself with a certain degree of background knowledge in order to read the King James with fullest understanding and enjoyment. The effort, I would opine, is well worth it and will be vastly rewarded..... Again I say, apparently -- apparently, because I do not have anything that approaches a comprehensive knowledge of your pastor or your church -- the problems that you and others in your congregation are experiencing are not engendered by the King James Bible, but by your pastor whose exegesis of Scripture has little if anything to do with this fine translation. Please rest assured that in the Bible of your upbringing, the King James, the one that your mother may have read to you, you were getting and continue to get the truth, the genuine message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moreover, you were getting it in a majestic rendering of English that has never been surpassed or likely ever will for its beauty and excellence. Of the KJV-only camp I truly am not, yet I maintain the high view of this version that should be accorded to it for the fine masterpiece it is. Finally, it is my prayer that the problems your congregation is having may be resolved and unity restored, all to the glory and honor of the King. --Hank | ||||||
1807 | another hypothetical, applied ethics | James 4:7 | Hank | 47795 | ||
Parable, in your hypothetical you listed three options regarding the disposition of Satan. The Bible lists one. It is far from being hypothetical. It is in Revelation 20:10. --Hank | ||||||
1808 | Different | John 3:16 | Hank | 47793 | ||
Annaciah, you asked that your correspondent give you not the right answer but his opinion. Should we thus infer that you don't want the right (scriptural) answer to your question, but would prefer to play a game of extra-biblical jumping jacks and bounce opinions around on the forum like a rubber ball? By the way, I'd also ask for Bible proof of the two items Searcher asked proof of, and disagree with the same issue that Searcher disagreed with and for the same reason. --Hank | ||||||
1809 | A hypothetical question | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47790 | ||
Chynna, it's not especially a pleasant task, but I'm afraid I must burst your hypothetical bubble. Nothing in Scripture remotely supports the supposition that the Son of God ever has or ever will ask man's opinion on matters that are in His province alone. Your hypothetical question, therefore, is not and cannot be a viable, biblically answerable question. It is in fact -- and I don't wish to seem rude -- out of the question. Hypotheticals and what-if questions, Chynna, are bad mind games to play when the item under consideratoin is the Bible. --Hank | ||||||
1810 | May I see your proof of intamacy please? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47787 | ||
Beans, there are two possible approaches to your question. The first approach would be a spoon-fed approach in which you would be given a string of Bible verses which illustrate that God is indeed mindful of us and that he loves and cares for us. The other approach to your question would be to challenge you to read through the Bible with a marking pen or notebook handy and underline or jot in your notebook those passages that clearly demonstrate the loving care and concern that God has visited upon His people since Adam and Eve walked in the garden of Eden. The first approach would be a quick-fix answer to your question, and probably be just as quickly forgotten. The second approach will feed you for a lifetime. What do you say, Beans? Are you willing to give the second approach a try? --Hank | ||||||
1811 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 47759 | ||
Jawz, you ask me to consider why Mary and Joseph got married at all. Indeed! While I ponder this, why don't you consider why ANY man and woman get married. Your attempt to 'prove' that Mary and Joseph had no other children at the time Jesus was 12 years old falls flat. You would have us believe that this is fact simply because no other children are mentioned at this point in Luke's narrative. First of all, the focus of the gospels is on Jesus Christ and not on every detail in the life of Mary and Joseph. And secondly, there is overwhelming contextual evidence in the New Testament that Mary and Joseph bore children in a natural manner and thus that Jesus had siblings. In spite of any and all evidence to the contrary, you stick to your skewered rendition of Matthew 1:25, saying that the whole point of this verse is to state clearly that Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations, when the plain truth of the matter is that it says the very opposite. Morever, you ask us to understand all mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters in Scripture in light of this 'fact' that you have presented to us. You are, in effect, saying that your interpretation of Matthew 1:25 is correct; that the English readings of all legitimate translations are in error; and the Scriptures that mention Jesus' siblings are flat wrong. You, my friend, have produced a bill of goods that will not sell. --Hank | ||||||
1812 | Did Mary and Joseph marry? | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 47733 | ||
Jawz, you say I make a big deal about the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and then you proceed in a lame effort to 'prove' they were never married, only betrothed. You ask, "Where in the NT does it say that Joseph and Mary were married?".... Matthew 1:24,25: "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife. And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called his name Jesus.".... We have clear evidence [Luke 2:39ff) that 12 years later Joseph and Mary were still together. Isn't this rather a long time for a betrothal? Jawz, I don't know what else you are looking for to show that Mary was indeed Joseph's wife -- a certified copy of their marriage certificate perhaps? Was Eve Adam's wife? Was Sarah Abraham's? Perhaps, since we don't have certified copies of their marriage certificates either, we should conclude that neither Adam and Eve nor Abraham and Sarah were ever married. That's exactly where your line of reasoning would take us.--Hank | ||||||
1813 | Scrp. w/no apolgy for speak Truth of God | Rom 1:16 | Hank | 47649 | ||
In Romans 1:16 the apostle Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." [NKJV] Is this perhaps the scripture you had in mind? --Hank | ||||||
1814 | The King James Version | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47565 | ||
Angelface, your "question" merely said, "The King James Version." Aside from noting that it was first published in 1611, has been called the noblest monument to English prose, and after nearly 400 years, is still revered and widely used by English-speaking peoples, I don't know what other information you may desire on the King James Bible. Perhaps you will want to expand on the subject. --Hank | ||||||
1815 | Dosen't it say pray LIKE this ?? | Matt 6:9 | Hank | 47523 | ||
TKO, your question leaves me with a question. Are you asking whether Jesus is teaching His disciples to pray exactly like He says, i.e., to use His exact words, or whether Jesus is teaching them a pattern to be followed in their prayers? This model prayer than which none other has ever been written that excels it, summarizes the teaching of Jesus about the kingdom and serves as a pattern for all prayer. There can be nothing wrong with praying (I say 'praying' -- not merely 'saying') this prayer verbatim. But then Scripture does not proscribe other, more personalized prayers, but they ought to contain the elements that our Lord taught in this lovely prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11. A careful study of this prayer reveals that the first part contains three petitions concerning the glory of God. The second part contains three petitions concerning the personal needs of His disciples. This serves to remind us that, even in prayer, we must put God first. --Hank | ||||||
1816 | predesdination | Matt 6:9 | Hank | 47515 | ||
TKO, your Bible reference doesn't fit your question. Please try again. --Hank | ||||||
1817 | is Armagedon to take place soon. | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47464 | ||
Dear Praise the Lord: The only Bible answer that anyone can give to specific questions of this genre is this: If the Bible doesn't say, we can't say. We can guess, ruminate, speculate and devise time frames on eschatological matters, but they are worthless unless they are clearly corroborated by Scripture. The Bible is clearly not a calendar. The Lord Jesus, in Matthew 24, begins His Olivet Discourse by predicting the destruction of the temple. His disciples wanted to know when this would happen, and what the signs would be of His coming and of the end of the age. Jesus tells them that certain events will take place, but tells them, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only."[v.36] In v.44, Jesus commands to "be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." Thus our main concern is to be ready. The message to Adam and Eve was to trust and obey God, as it was to Noah, to Job, to Abraham, to Moses, to Paul and that message is clear to us also. Our message rings clear from the word of God: trust and obey Him. That's our job. All else -- and this includes the working out of future events in accordance with His purpose and will, is His job. As God put Job in his place, so He puts us in ours. --Hank | ||||||
1818 | What is the book of Joshua about? | OT general | Hank | 47418 | ||
Without intent to be impolite or brusque, I would suggest that the best antidote to a lack of knowledge about the book of Joshua is to read the book of Joshua. --Hank | ||||||
1819 | THE LORDS PRAYER | Matt 6:9 | Hank | 47410 | ||
Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. This is popularly called "The Lord's Prayer" -- a misnomer. It is a model prayer that Jesus taught to His disciples. Our Lord never prayed this prayer. It would have been unfitting that He should ask for forgiveness for Himself; He didn't need to. I notice your user name is goddess. Really? --Hank | ||||||
1820 | Send in the Clones? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47215 | ||
Send in the clones? There was a time when we could take the line from the song that said, "Well, maybe next year." Now it is upon us and we are virtually on the brink of saying, "Don't bother, they're here." Parable, the questions you pose are grave questions indeed and as I see it mankind is not remotely prepared at this time to answer any of them. Genetic engineering is, as you say, creating urgent challenges, challenges that have the potential to affect our lives far beyond anything that Darwin's theory has ever been able to do. But God is in control even now, just as He has always been. This is not to say that hard times may not be ahead for the Christian believer, but hard times have always been the norm for God's people. We cannot predict the future with any real degree of precision. Human cloning, I submit, looks as if it may be a certainty at some time in the future. On the other hand, it may not be. There are any number of things that could prevent it, among which -- I do not rule this out -- is divine intervention. I have lived more than six decades on this planet and have learned a little. I've learned to trust the sovereign God for one thing. And for another, born of this trust, not to worry much, especially about things over which I have no control. The unfolding of future events is surely something I can't even predict with any certainty and much less exert any control over. Bring in the clones? Perhaps so. But God will prevail and His word endure. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ] Next > Last [114] >> |