Results 501 - 520 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | friend, a homosexual, what do you do | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 167327 | ||
johnpastors: The apostle Paul in the preamble (1 Cor. 12:31) to his famous "love chapter" (1 Cor. 13) gave the Corinthians the imperative to learn the "more excellent way." He was, of course, speaking of the way of love, of agape, which he so beautifully explained in chapter 13. But being in Christ is also a more excellent way.. As for all other sinners so for the practicing homosexual, there is a more excellent way -- God's way, following His commands and leading a lifestyle in accord with His moral laws. And who knows? You, as a friend of a homosexual, may be the one person on earth who can show him a more excellent way, by word and deed. It's a heavy responsibility but it's also a marvelous opportunity. Pray, and we will pray with you, that God will use you as his instrument to bring this lost sheep into the fold. --Hank | ||||||
502 | Rachel rejecing comforting | Matt 2:18 | Hank | 167326 | ||
AnnaMaya: It will help to understand the sense of the passage better if you ask, "Was Rachel comforted by the fact that her children were dead?" Obviously she was not. Compare this account of Rachel in Matthew 2:18, which is quoted from Jeremiah 31:15, with Naomi's play on words (Naomi, pleasant; Mara, bitter) in the wake of her loss of her husband and her two sons. Read Ruth 1:20,21. ...... My wife and I lost a son several years ago, and I can assure you we refused to be comforted because our son was dead. Believe me, there is no comfort to be found in the loss of children. This is the real sense and meaning of the passage and not that Rachel was merely being a stubborn woman by crassly refusing the condolences of loving friends. --Hank | ||||||
503 | Books of the Bible outline | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167252 | ||
jmhoward: If we may assume by your incomplete question that you are looking for outlines of the books of the Bible, here's a tip. Many reference Bibles and almost all study Bibles provide outlines along with introductions at the beginning of each book of Scripture or in an appendix at the back of the Bible text. Three excellent choices: Ryrie, Scofield, and Thompson Chain. --Hank | ||||||
504 | Jesus took keys from Satan for hell | Rev 1:18 | Hank | 167153 | ||
justolneetor: Two trustworthy colleagues, Kalos and BradK, gave you fine answers to your question. In this short post I wish merely to point out that your question itself is what we might call 'loaded' -- that is, it is freighted with two major assumptions, both of which are wrong if we are to use the Bible as the sole standard upon which we are to base our faith. And that, by the way, is exactly what we do on SBF: we measure everything by the yardstick of Scripture. ...... ERROR ONE: Jesus went to hell. .... Consult any good Bible dictionary for the distinction between hell and Hades in the New Testament and hell and Sheol in the Old. ERROR TWO: Jesus took from Satan the keys to death, hell and the grave. ..... Keys are symbolic of authority and control in Scripture. Matter of fact, they still are. So if Satan indeed had authority over, and control of, death, hell and the grave, as you say, then pray tell me how he got it, when he got it, why he got it, and who gave it to him. This is an important question, friend, and I am not prepared to accept any answers to it from you or anyone else unless those answers are thoroughly documented with Scriptures that fully support the premise and leave no room for doubt. ..... I agree with my Christian brother, BradK, who suggested that perhaps you have been watching too much Word-of-Faith nonsense on TBN. In my economy, ANY exposure to these spreaders of false doctrine is too much! Much of what they say and teach is is laughable and would comedic if it weren't so damagingly heretical and even at times blasphemous. ...... Read and study God's pure word for yourself; be careful to choose your spiritual mentors; avoid false teachers like the plague; and please don't accept the polluted versions of the Gospel being bruited about by charlatans who infest your home like gnats and grub worms via TV and the Net, lead the gullible into egregious error, and infuscate the Gospel light like a total eclipse darkens the noon-day sun. --Hank | ||||||
505 | THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167080 | ||
ashbury: Quite candidly, to attempt to answer your personal question on this public forum is neither in the forum's best interests or yours. Concerns of this sort are best handled locally and person-to-person, perhaps with the help of qualified counsel. --Hank | ||||||
506 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 167054 | ||
justme: While I have not been exposed to the article by Dr. Norman Geisler from which you have lifted a fragment without benefit of full context, I am familiar with a great deal of Dr. Geisler's work and hence do not believe that he is speaking adversely of such orthodox Christian beliefs as Christ's virgin birth, His bodily ascension and His Second Advent. The key point of Dr. Geisler's article appears to be that it is not necessary to be an accomplished theologian in order to be saved. There is good evidence that Paul and Silas thought much the same way. When, in Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer put to them the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" neither Paul nor Silas presented him with a long list of doctrines that he must espouse, or a lengthly creed he must memorize, or a confession of faith he must recite every Lord's Day. Neither did they tell him to enroll in a theological seminary and get a doctorate degree! [If there is any reader of this post who doesn't know what the jailer was told to do in order to be saved, please turn in your Bible to Acts 16:31.] --Hank | ||||||
507 | ch. 1 verses 3-14 | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166928 | ||
fstewart: Your question reads, "need some one to help me with chapter 1 verses 3-14." .... Would it be all right to offer you just any kind of help on any book of Scripture that has as many as 14 verses in its first chapter, or do you have a preference as to the kind of help you'd like to receive and the book on which you'd like to receive it? --Hank | ||||||
508 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166719 | ||
Md1234: Bless your heart! I feel your pain! -") A septuagenarian myself, I find myself lapsing into luxurious revelry from time to time, longing for the good old days that shall be no more -- the simple days of yore when everyone drove either a Ford or Chevrolet in any color he wanted as long as it was black, when a box of cereal meant a box of corn flakes or shredded wheat, when we had a choice of one or possibly two radio stations to listen to, when everybody lived in white frame houses with big front porches, and when almost everybody went to church on Sunday mornings wearing starched collars and carrying their black King James Bibles. Except nobody called it the King James Version back then. It wasn't a version of the Bible. It was THE Bible. Period. You could buy it about everywhere. Even Sears and Roebuck sold it in their catalog. But you never ordered the King James Version OF the Bible. You just ordered the Bible. And the King James is what you always got. ...... Now times have changed and are a changing still. But I am happy to report to you, with hopes that it will assuage your fears, that nothing has happened to Jesus Christ. He is still the same: yesterday, today, and forever. And I am happy also to report to you that certain of His followers, that dedicated cadre of godly men and women who devote their lives and talents to the study of the ancient tongues and customs-- with a scholarly eye ever focused on the enormously difficult and exacting task of translating God's word into good and understandable modern languages -- have been able to accomplish their mission of translating without adding to or taking from the word of God. One would be hard pressed to find any group of translators more honorable, more of conviction, and more dedicated to the task of rendering God's word into an English translation more transparent of the ancient manuscripts than the hard-working teams who translated the original NASB and its 1995 Update -- and this would include the group who gave us the King James Bible in 1611. ..... Yes, admittedly, the plethora of new versions can be bewildering at times. But the advantages of having several excellent modern translations at our beck and call cannot be ignored and, for my money, outweigh the mild "tower of Babel" syndrome some seem to experience when exposed to different translations. ..... It might be observed in postscript that it took some 50 years for the venerable King James Bible to gain general acceptance among its readers. Its translators too were accused of shaking things up and changing things around so much! ..... I'm 70 years old, as I've stated, but I make every effort to keep my mind active and alive and to stave off becoming fossilized for as long as possible. One way to do this is to recognize that all living languages change, and that any work, religious or secular, that was set down in the English language of Elizabethan times, is outdated and in need of updating. But in reading the Elizabethan English of Shakespeare's dramas and sonnets, it is not nearly as crucial to understand his every word as it is to understand God's word. The language of the King James may be beautiful (it is), its sounds musical and its cadence poetic, but if it fails to communicate meaning to the modern reader, it fails to serve him well. ..... Who among modern readers is likely to understand this question: "How long will ye love vanity and seek after leasing?" (Psalm 4:2b, KJV). Who would not find it much more understandable to read: "How long will you love what is worthless and aim at deception?" (Psalm 4:2b, NASB). The fresh new translation of 1611 is the archaic one today. And should the world stand another 400 years, the New American Standard Bible will be the crusty old version that few read and even fewer understand. Life goes on. --Hank | ||||||
509 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | Hank | 166712 | ||
drbloor: Where did you come across a BIBLICAL claim that Cain was not Adam's son? There may indeed be all sorts of wild speculations extant about Cain's lineage in secular works, but the word of God settles the matter once and for all in Genesis 4:1. And this being a forum that accepts Scripture as the sole authority in the matter, there really isn't any point in considering foolish theories about Cain's parentage, is there? --Hank | ||||||
510 | ... | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 166539 | ||
. | ||||||
511 | How do I let go of hatred? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166504 | ||
chell: Rivet your attention to the program and counseling sessions in which your pastor is guiding you. You are most unlikely to find specific answers to your problem on this Forum or any other web site, so don't waste your time and energy flitting around the internet for solutions! Stick with what your pastor has made available and give it your all. And don't forget to pray. Take your burdens to the Lord in prayer. And do not forsake a regular, daily encounter with the Scriptures. Feed upon God's word every day of your life. --Hank | ||||||
512 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | Hank | 166464 | ||
Sins. This topic has been discussed many times on the Forum. Please use Search. --Hank | ||||||
513 | PROV 1 .24-32HAVE YOU READ IT? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166343 | ||
. | ||||||
514 | ? ? ? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 166340 | ||
x | ||||||
515 | DO YOU THINK DEATHBED REPENTANCE? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166339 | ||
8888 - 1111 equals 7777. | ||||||
516 | was king ahasuerus druck | Esth 1:10 | Hank | 165878 | ||
Read Esther 1:10-12. --Hank | ||||||
517 | Differences in meaning of Romans 2:12 ? | Rom 2:12 | Hank | 165767 | ||
Dear Living4God: Yes, indeed, it is entirely possible to become confused, and even mislead or misguided, by the plethora of versions that are available in English these days. In your quest for a suitable version for your personal use, you refer to your struggle to find the one that is most inspired. Doubtlessly you mean one that is most accurate, not the one that is most inspired. When the Bible says that all Scripture is inspired (see 2 Timothy 3:16), it has reference to the original manuscripts (called autographs), not copies, translations or versions thereof. So what you are seeking is obviously a translation that is both accurate (true to the ancient manuscripts) and readable (one that you can best understand). ...... You indicate that reading the Bible is something you are new at and imply that you are finding it somewhat difficult to understand. Don't despair; you are not alone. We all of us from beginning readers of the Bible to veteran students of Scripture have discovered that the riches of God's word are deep, complex and in some places beyond our grasp. That is why we need all the help we can muster, not only from other, wiser saints whose insights may excel our own, but from the illumination of of the Holy Spirit as well. No child of God should ever approach Bible study without praying for the Spirit's guidance and illumination of God's eternal truth. ....... Now a word or two about translations, their methodologies and philosophies. Back in 1607 when the King James Bible translators began their monumental work, there was essentially one way to translate the Scriptures from the ancient tongues into English, and that was to render into the receptor language, English, a version as transparent as possible of the donor languages, principally ancient Hebrew and Greek. It was years later when some translators begin playing around with the idea of paraphrasing. Instead of a formal word-for-word translation, they began to attempt to render into English not necessarily the words of the original authors but their thoughts -- what the translators thought the authors meant by what they said. The goal was to present to English readers the message that had the same freshness and impact on modern English readers as the originals had to the Hebrew and Greek readers in their day. This attempt was called 'dynamic equivalence.' It is the method the NIV uses, the NLT, etc. The problem is, how can we be sure that dynamic equivalence is in fact giving us the right thoughts, the same impact, the intended meaning of the original authors. The fact is we cannot. We are not getting a translation of the inspired words of Scripture; we are getting the thoughts that have been filtered through the minds of translators. In essence, instead of getting a "Thus saith the Lord" we are getting, in any paraphrased version, a "This is what we think the Lord meant by what He said" but we don't really get the exact words that He said, only what are supposed to be, according to the translators, the thoughts -- what He meant by what He said, not what He actually said. ...... Accordingly, I grow more and more opposed to using or recommending ANY paraphrased version, whether it's NIV, New Living Translation, The Message, Good News Bible, or whatever else comes out in paraphrase claiming to be the word of God. ...... My word to you is avoid paraphrased versions. The KJV is beautiful and reliable but takes some extra study to master its Jacobean English. The New King James Version is similar to the King James, of course, but uses modern English. Both use the same manuscript tradition for the New Testament. ....... The NASB is accurate and clear with modern language, but is not so literary as either the KJV or the NKJV. Another good version that is essentially literal (as opposed to paraphrased) is the English Standard Version, a revision of the Revised Standard Version and considerably more conservative in its approach to translation. ..... Finally, I'd be ever so happy to recommend to you the perfect translation except for one thing. It hasn't been brought into existence yet and it is highly doubtful that it will be anytime soon! But from among the four that I've listed as commendable -- the King James Bible, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version -- you should find one or more to your liking. It is not a bad idea to get a copy of all four of them. You will find that one often tends to illuminate another. ...... Other handy tools to have at hand when studying Scripture are an exhaustive concordance, a good Bible dictionary, and perhaps a conservative, orthodox commentary and a couple of study Bibles. ..... Let me encourage you to make Bible study a part of your daily life. God bless. --Hank | ||||||
518 | Creation Studies. | Genesis | Hank | 165766 | ||
Dear Lionheart: One would be hard pressed in my view to find any better materials on creation from an orthodox Christian point of view as well as a truly scientific point of view than what is available on-line at Institute for Creation Research (icr.org). Additionally this organization has a vast amount of excellent books and videos available. I urge you to check them out. I recommend their materials without reservation. The founder and president-emeritus of ICR, Dr. Henry Morris, is the author of a fine study Bible called "The Defender's Study Bible" which I own, use, and recommend highly. His annotations on Genesis are the finest I've ever come across in any study Bible. His notes throughout are orthodox, moderately Calvinist in soteriology, and reflect a high view of Scripture. I'm personally acquainted with Dr. Henry Morris' son, Dr. John Morris, who is now president of ICR. They are based in El Cajon, California. --Hank | ||||||
519 | Confronting another about sin | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 165473 | ||
You and your married woman friend must be very young: Mature people don't usually speak of developing "crushes" -- that's a word we used as high-school teenagers. Young man, you're messing around with fire with this wife of another man -- and a mother yet! Wake up, get counsel if you require it and encourage the woman to get counsel too -- both of you could very likely use some mature guidance -- but at all events break off this relationship with this married woman and mother totally, cleanly, permanently, and quickly before you both get severely burned! Don't dally around. Do it now, today! --Hank | ||||||
520 | is the typeology correct? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 165441 | ||
Happy New Year, Chusarcik! Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was certainly big on the theory or doctrine of biblical typology, issued two warnings on the subject: "(1) nothing may be insisted upon as a type without explicit New Testament authority; and (2) all types not so authenticated must be recognized as having only the authority of analogy, of spiritual congruity." Concerning types he further observes, "Types occur most frequently in the Pentateuch, but are found, more sparingly, elsewhere. The antitype, or fulfillment of the type, is found generally in the New Testament." This is an excerpt from Scofield's annotation on Genesis 2:23 that appears in the New Scofield Reference Bible (KJV), 1967 Edition, (Oxford University Press). Perhaps Dr. Scofield's guidelines will prove helpful to you. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [114] >> |