Results 721 - 740 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
721 | Love and the Law | Rom 13:10 | Hank | 150631 | ||
Hello again, cklamhk. The discussion in this portion of Romans 13 concerns interpersonal relationships. See Romans 13:8-10. When Paul in vs. 10 says, "love is the fulfillment of the law" he is expanding on what he said in vs. 9, which in turn is an echo of what Jesus said in Matthew 19:18, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The point is this: when we treat others with the same love and care that we have for ourselves, we will not violate any of God's laws that are concerned with interpersonal relationships. Jesus said it this way in Matthew 7:12, "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." And look at how James says it, "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well" (James 2:8). The term "royal law" here can be translated "law of our King" or "sovereign law." The idea it is conveying is that this law is supreme, binding. ..... The next question you ask is how can love fulfill the Law? In Matthew 22:34-40, a group of Pharisees gathered together around Jesus and a member of the group, a lawyer, asked Jesus this question: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." --Hank | ||||||
722 | Governing Authorities | Rom 13:1 | Hank | 150628 | ||
Hello, cklamhk. Acts 5:17-29 provides a model for how a Christian should deal with civil authority. The conclusion of the matter is this: when civil law is in direct conflict with God's law, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). ..... I will not presume even to attempt an answer to your question 2 that begins with, "Why God...?" God is God. God is sovereign. How dare I presume to ask or answer why He does what He does? I am not sovereign. I am not omnipotent. I am not omniscient. I am not holy. He alone is. --Hank | ||||||
723 | Can it be wrong when it feels so right? | Rom 12:2 | Hank | 150624 | ||
Katebote: Your question: "Would it be wrong to believe something about the author of the Bible that couldn't be backed up with Scripture?" .... My answer, yes, Katebote, it would be very wrong. It would be presumption. It would be speculation. And there is no reason on earth to assume it would have an ounce of truth in it. The Bible says, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:2). Pray tell me how is man to know what the will of God is except by the word of God, the book we call the Bible? Where does faith in God come from? By believing what we want to believe about Him? No! The seminal source of faith is ultimately the word of God. The Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). --Hank | ||||||
724 | Why add "not" in NASB 95 Luke 21:34 | Luke 21:34 | Hank | 150620 | ||
eric_nelson: In regard to NASB's rendering of Luke 21:34, the difference between it and some other versions is one of syntax, not import. Let's use two additional examples, one from the English Standard Version (ESV) and the other from the New King James Version (NKJV). I have supplied all caps to certain words and inserted certain words in brackets for illustrative purpose. The ESV rendering of the verse is, "But watch yourselves LEST your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and ["lest" is implied here] that day come upon you suddenly like a trap." ..... Now for the NKJV rendering: "But take heed to yourselves, LEST your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and ["lest" is implied here] that Day come on you unexpectedly." ..... Now let's turn to the NASB: "Be on guard, SO THAT your hearts will not be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life and ["so that" is implied here] that day will not come on you suddently like a trap." ..... The verse in all three versions says the same thing and conveys exactly the same meaning, even though each translation says it in a slightly different way. I hope that this parsing serves to answer your question and to clarify by pointing out that the differences lie not in what is said but in how it is said. --Hank | ||||||
725 | contemparty music | Ps 33:3 | Hank | 150583 | ||
eowyn: So-called contemporary music, while decidedly not my cup of tea, is not necessarily "wrong" provided the lyrics conform to sound scriptural doctrines and provided it does not dominate the worship service by crowding out or eliminating corporate prayer and gospel preaching. If there is a hew and cry for this sort of thing among the congregants, then perhaps a balanced mix of contemporary "praise music" and traditional, time-honored hymns is a viable compromise. The biblical injunction, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40) is the key. A worship service should not resemble a hootenanny or a rock concert. A worship service should honor and glorify God and therefore should never be turned into an entertainment event or a stage performance. I attended a "contemporary" service recently and was never quite sure whether I'd been to a worship service or a rock concert. The noise was deafening and about all I took home with me from this service was a distinctly unpleasant ringing in my ears. --Hank | ||||||
726 | story of Absalom | 2 Samuel | Hank | 150523 | ||
poohkie: I could tell you the story of Absalom, but it would more to your advantage for me to tell you how to find the story of Absalom and thus be enabled to read it for yourself. Get a Bible concordance, look up Absalom and follow the trail that the references lead you to. Or you can use the "Get Bible Text" concordance that Lockman provides on this web page. ......Poohkie, please forgive me if I am wrong, but I get the spooky feeling about this question and others by you that appear on this page that they are part of your homework assignment. If this is true, don't you think you would gain more from your course if you dug in and did the work yourself? Back when I was in school, computers hadn't been invented and I was forced to do my own work. We didn't even have pocket calculators to do our thinking for us back then either, and were forced to use our minds to multiply 162 by 237. Imagine that! It's a wonder we survived at all, having to think and all, but we did survive somehow. It's been nearly 50 years since I sat in a classroom, and I'm still around to tell about it. So obviously doing one's own thinking is not toxic. Everyone should try it :-) --Hank | ||||||
727 | The Bible, Creators word or what? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 150442 | ||
katebote: Please read carefully and study diligently the following passages of Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Matthew 5:18; John 7:17; Hebrews 4:12; and 2 Timothy 2:15. Scripture itself answers man's questions about its authorship, its power and authority and its endurance for all eterntiy. God has made it abundantly clear that the Bible is His word. The Bible is not shrouded in mystery, is not arcane, and is given to instruct us in His righteousness and teach us His will, not to confuse, confound and befuddle us. ..... If you really would like to dig deeper into this subject, please acquire a copy of Josh McDowell's book, "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." It is readily available for under 20 dollars at on-line stores such as Amazon.com and CBD.com., or you can purchase a copy at your neighborhood Bible bookstore. It will answer accurately and in depth the questions you have posed in your post and will, I believe, lead you to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Book of Books, the Bible, God's inerrant and eternal word. ..... Another book that I would recommend to you is "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. God regenerated this one-time atheist, and he became one of the premier apologists of the Christian faith in modern times. It's an inspiring book to read and has the ability to dispel harboring doubts and turn confusion into positive confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Please try the book. And please continue to read and study the Book of God! ..... May your quest for God's eternal truth and good news message bear much fruit and bring the blessings of salvation, abiding hope, and God's peace to your life. Soli Deo gloria! --Hank | ||||||
728 | Mark 16:15-16 mean? | Matt 28:19 | Hank | 150431 | ||
alanh: This passage, Mark 16:15,16 and its parallel passage in Matthew 28:19and related passage in Acts 1:8 comprise some of the clearest and most straightforward messages in Scripture. What did Jesus mean? He meant, in these passages, what He always means; He meant exactly what He said. These passages are commonly called "The Great Commission" and this commission that He laid down to His disciples is clearly defined in these passages and it is no less applicable to Jesus' followers today than it was when He spoke the words. ..... If there is some specific word or phrase in this passage that you find difficult or troubling, I feel sure someone will be quite willing to assist you in your fuller understanding, but as for me I do not presume to be able to improve on these words of our Lord. But, again, if you have a more specific question about these passages, please do not hesitate to ask. --Hank | ||||||
729 | who became the 12th disciple after judas | Acts 1:26 | Hank | 150422 | ||
Matthias succeeded Judas Iscariot. See Acts 1:16-25. --Hank | ||||||
730 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150360 | ||
NYP: Yes, it is. By the way, if you'd like to read more about the TNIV from all points of view, go to Google and type in the two words, TNIV criticism ..... The battle over the TNIV rages on. --Hank | ||||||
731 | Rebuking using the pulpit. | Heb 13:17 | Hank | 150316 | ||
Rod, Doc is right: this Forum is not designed for or equipped to do personal counseling. Even if it were, it would need more information on the circumstances surrounding the case in question. For example, what gave rise to the pastor's rebuke -- is it a bona fide response to unbiblical teaching or behavior among the church's leaders, or is it more in the nature of a personal vendetta? (These are questions for your consideration and reflection; please do not answer them on this Forum!). In addition to the passage that Doc referenced for your study, please also refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 4:2. Is there a possiblity at least that your pastor was acting clearly in accord with his right and duty to obey as the shepherd of his flock what the Scriptures command him to do? (Again, a rhetorical question that you should not answer on this Forum). .... God be with you and bless you, your pastor and the church there in the Phillippines. Soli Deo gloria! --Hank | ||||||
732 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150227 | ||
Cannon45: __BEST BIBLE VERSION, PART 2__ For what it's worth, here's an alphabetical listing of the versions I use most frequently: Amplified Bible; English Standard Version (ESV); King James Version (KJV); New American Standard Bible (NASB); New International Vesion (NIV); and New King James Version (NKJV). My list is by no means exhaustive. There are other good versions. And there are is a growing number of of bad translations too. Before I purchase or use a translation, I always make it a point to read as widely as possible about it, asking such questions as, Who are the translators and what views do they have about the God-breathed inerrancy of Scripture? What is their translation philosophy: word-for-word, loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between (dynamic equivalency)? What do conservative Bible scholars and evangelical preachers and teachers think of this version? Do I like the style and am I confortable with the overall quality of this version? Do I find it generally clear or are some passages hopelessly obscure or ambiguous? Do it avoid slangy, folksy syntax? Does it make extensive use of ephemeral colloquialisms that may seem chic and faddish today but are not nearly as likely to endure as long as standard English. The "Cotton Patch" version is the best archetype of this kind of assault on both Scripture and the English language that I know of. And the "New World Translation" stands alone in its deliberate efforts to distort and pervert Scripture in order to promote and attempt to justify cultic heresies. ..... Finally, while I believe it an excellent idea to avail oneself of serveral good translations, I also recommend highly the choosing of one version as a "home base" with which one becomes most familiar and from which one memorizes Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
733 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150225 | ||
Cannon45: __BEST BIBLE VERSION: PART 1__ It always thrills my heart to hear anyone make any serious inquiry about any aspect of Scripture, because it indicates an interest in God's word -- and this is good! .... In regard to your question about Bible translations (versions), it might be helpful to state at the beginning that, objectively, there is no "best" version. There are, to be sure, good versions and bad versions. And there are favorite versions. But just because one man favors a certain version over all others does not mean that the one he favors is necessarily the best or the most accurate or even the most readable. All it means is that the one he chooses as his favorite is his favorite, and human beings tend to pick favorites for any number of reasons; and often they are subjective ones, whether one is willing to admit it or not. .... If one is looking for a perfect translation, he will not be able to find it. The only perfect record of Scripture existed in the original manuscripts, called autographs, none of which is extant today. So what we have are ancient manuscripts, some older than others, which are copies of copies that were made of the autographs, and these manuscripts do not always agree to the letter with one another. But the differences, minor and comparatively insignificant, do not affect to a degree worthy of serious concern the wondrous God-breathed message of the Scriptures. It has been observed that it is probably just as well that the original autographs -- the actual, physical documents which were written by the hand of some 40 men of God under the inspiration of His Spirit -- have not been preserved, for it they were, they could themselves become objects of worship leading to idolatry. ..... So, let's explore versions briefly. Not many years ago (certainly within my lifetime) no one ever asked "Which version is best?" There was a perfectly good reason for this. The King James Version was, for all intents and purposes, the only version in town for English-speaking Protestants. There were a few other versions around back then, in the 1930's and '40's, but none of them attained anything approaching the popularity and acceptance of the KJV. The King James was "the" Bible that preachers preached from, teachers taught from, and Protestants at large read from and memorized. For most, anything but the KJV was not really God's word. And a remnant of this sentiment exists still among a relatively small but highly vocal segment of Bible readers who have come to be called King James Onlyists. The King James is still the excellent translation that it has been for nearly 400 years, but for reasons other than the King James Onlyists usually give. ..... So how does one go about choosing a translation? While there are no hard and fast rules to which everyone would agree, I would like to set down here a few criteria in question form which far more scholarly people that I am hold to be of value. (1) Is the version faithful to the best of the ancient Bible manuscripts: does it render into English a transparency of the ancient documents, i.e., so far as is practicable, does it mirror in English the actual words of the original, or does it attempt to restate in English what the translators interpret as the meaning of the original? (2) Is the version translated into English that is reasonably clear and unambiguous: can I understand the language? (3) Was the version translated by a team of conservative scholars who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or is it the work of one person, or by a cult group that perverts Scripture through deliberate mistranslation? (4) Is it a loose paraphrase that takes huge liberties with the Bible text? ..... You observed that what you hear quoted most frequently is the KJV. I don't find this true in my neck of the woods. More and more I'm hearing quotations from other versions as well, and as time goes by I believe we may expect to see more of this. The KJV is nearly 400 years old and even though it is showing clear signs of linguistic obsolescence, it remains still a revered and trusted translation. I would be least among those who would toss it aside. Still and all, the purpose of any translation is, or should be, to make God's word available and understandable to a reader in his own language, the contemporary language that he speaks and understands. All living languages are in a constant state of change. Locutions that were perfectly clear to English-speaking peoples in 1611 are, many of them, foreign and significantly obscure in our time. There is an array of good translations available today. One should never limit himself to one translation. As beautiful and poetic, as revered and time-honored, as the KJV is, one should not adopt it exclusively for any reason, least of all for the false and inane notion that it is, as a translation, "inspired and inerrant." (More to follow in Part 2). --Hank | ||||||
734 | accepting a non-beleiver | John 6:44 | Hank | 150196 | ||
Sent By God: Evolution might be a good place to begin your witness to your friend who claims not to believe in God but who you suspect believes in evolution.. For a good, general background on evolution from a Christian perspective, try this web site: icr.org .... and a specific article that you might casually mention to your friend can be found at this URL: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-111.htm ..... This will lead you to an article called "The Splendid Faith of the Evolutionist" in which its author, Dr. Henry Morris, explores the idea that it requires considerably more faith to believe the message of evolution than it does to believe in God and the Bible. I pray that your ministry to your friend will bear much fruit. --Hank | ||||||
735 | How many times is love in the bible. | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150194 | ||
Jacquie: Now that we know, thanks to Tim Moran's research, the number of TIMES that the Bible uses the word 'love,' why don't we assign ourselves the task of discovering the number of different WAYS it uses 'love'? Good starting points might be these: (1) the love of Christ, (2) the love of God, (3) the command to love one another, (4) the command to love the Lord your God, (5) the command to love your neighbor as yourself, (6) the command to love your enemies, (7) and the command to love not the world or the things in the world. And in our materialistic culture, the saints should never allow themselves to forget that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (2 Tim. 6:10). --Hank | ||||||
736 | Does God have wings? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150192 | ||
MoreThanUseless: Does God have wings. Yes, the Bible does picture God as having wings in several passages, e.g. Ruth 2:12, Ps. 36:7 and Ps. 57:1, but we must never give a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms. .... The Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physcial features like His human or animal creation -- in spite of what Kenneth Copeland teaches about God: that He is about 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. ..... John Calvin said that God talks to us in baby talk, and anthropomorphic descriptions were part of that baby talk meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus taught that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). God is not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deut. 4:12). God is God and not a man (see Hosea 11:9). ...... God is anthromorphised in a number of ways in various passages of Scripture. In Exodus 33:24, for example, God himself speaks of His hand, back, and face. In Ezekiel 16:8, God uses the descriptive term, "I spread my wing over you." Is God anthropomorphising Himself in this way so that Jersalem will think He is a chicken? No, He is clothing His language in human terms so that human beings will be able better to understand Him and His message. A wise mother would not think of speaking to her toddler in a complex speech pattern or using an advanced vocabulary that she might use in speaking to an educated adult. She speaks to her toddler in language that he is capable of understanding. She talks to him in baby talk. And that, as Calvin has said, is how God talks to His children. --Hank | ||||||
737 | 5 ways Joseph was like Jesus | 2 Tim 2:15 | Hank | 149976 | ||
Hellboy666: Along with BradK, I'm also curious about your choice of such a hideous user name to identify you on a Bible study Forum. Have you read Revelation 13:11-18? ..... If your user name describes who you are, may God have mercy on you. If it doesn't -- and I hope this is so -- why not e-mail studybibleforum@lockman.org and ask them to change your user name? --Hank | ||||||
738 | A fresh mental and spiritual attitude? | Eph 4:23 | Hank | 149974 | ||
Ray, obviously Mark Seyler is still in the dark concerning what you mean by 'holy spiirit' -- and so am I. Once again I ask you to define your term in light of what Scripture teaches, if anything, about what you call man's 'holy spirit.' I've a fair idea -- and believe Mark does -- of what Scripture means by man's spirit and by God's Holy Spirit, but obviously neither of us knows what Ray means by man's 'holy spirit.' And, in compliance with established Forum guidelines, it is requested and expected of you to give a genuinely scriptural definition of your term (if you can), complete with book, chapter and verse. --Hank | ||||||
739 | people who have never heard the Gospel ? | John 14:6 | Hank | 149948 | ||
Gina: Jesus took the speculation and the guesswork out of the answer to your question in John 14:6, didn't He? So did Peter when he addressed the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:12. --Hank | ||||||
740 | anwer please | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 149946 | ||
KMG: Your question still lacks specificity. Since you show apparent reluctance to being specific, I'll risk being presumptuous by asking you whether you are alluding to having intimate sexual relations outside of marriage? If that's it, it's wrong. It's among the carnal sins that the Bible calls sexual immorality or fornication. You asked for Scripture and here's some: Read Acts 15:20; Romans 1:28-32; 1 Corinthians 6:13,18 and 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3. ..... When a single female and a single male spend week-ends together in the privacy of an apartment, it is possible, I suppose, that no intimacy will occur -- but is it likely? And is it prudent and wise for a Christian man and woman to expose themselves to this sort of temptation? Even if no immoral conduct is involved, does this not open up the possibility of diluting your witness to others? Review the words about temption in the prayer the Lord taught His disciples in Matthew 6, the prayer commonly called the Lord's Prayer. If you are looking for scriptural sanction for your behavior, you will not find it. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ] Next > Last [114] >> |