Results 1761 - 1780 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1761 | 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 | ||||||
1762 | Before Jesus, were people saved? | Rom 2:16 | Hank | 107305 | ||
There was never a "before Jesus" time! Read John 1:1-17 to gain a sense of the pre-existence of the eternal Christ. There was a time, however, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (see John 1:14). This is the Incarnation: when God became man. The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Yes, people were saved who lived before the Incarnation (see Hebrews 11). John the Baptist showed the way to the Christ and he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29). The Law never saved anyone. Jesus by the work He accomplished on the cross in the shedding of His blood made possible the forgiveness of sin -- past, present and future -- for God's people in every age and for all time. --Hank | ||||||
1763 | Prophet For This Age | Rom 3:4 | Hank | 82362 | ||
William Branham is not only the author of a large number of bogus prophecies that never found fulfillment, but he advanced some notoriously quirky beliefs and doctrines as well. For example, the Edenic Fall, according to Branham, was occasioned by Eve's adulterous fling with the serpent. If you care to learn about the other side of Branham and his false teaching, perhaps going to http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/home.htm will convince you to remove the rose-colored glasses with which you obviously have been viewing this faker and look at him and his legacy of chicanery with clearer vision. --Hank | ||||||
1764 | big sins / litle sins | Rom 3:23 | Hank | 5835 | ||
In human eyes, yes, there are clearly gradations of sin. We have "white lies" and "whoppers" for example. To steal an apple is not viewed as being as bad as stealing an automobile, and the punitive actions are not equal. Our legal system metes out varying degrees of punishment for infractions of civil and criminal law. But the Bible teaches that sin is sin, and the wages of it is death. Sin is disobedience to God's commands and brings condemnation no matter what "size" the sin or what form it takes. --Hank | ||||||
1765 | Are christians sinners or not? | Rom 3:23 | Hank | 69260 | ||
One of the clearest expositions of your question is set out by the apostle John (see the first two chapters of his first letter). His argument: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and the word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propititation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." [1 John 1:8-2:2 English Standard Version].... I think it's pushing semantics a bit far (like pondering what "is" is) to say that anyone who sins is not, in some sense at least, a sinner, be he a regenerated believer or not. Sin is sin and whoever commits it is a sinner. But underline the words forgive, cleanse, advocate and propitiation in this apostle's letter. --Hank | ||||||
1766 | stumble if followed God's plan? | Rom 3:23 | Hank | 129501 | ||
No, but who can do it? -- "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). --Hank | ||||||
1767 | Should I separate from a sinning brother | Rom 3:23 | Hank | 180597 | ||
Pilot - Unless your brother is exceedingly disruptive, I can see no earthly reason to ban him from your Bible study group. After all, if you allowed in the group only those who were without sin, your group would vanish quicker than it would take a microwave oven to warm up a cup of coffee. The Bible study group might be just what the Great Physician Himself ordered for your brother, for our Lord said that it is not those who are well but those who are sick that need a physician. See Matthew 9:12. And remember, Pilot, that Jesus said what He said in Matthew 9:12 in direct response to the criticism directed to Him by the Pharisees because Jesus had sat down to eat with tax collectors and sinners. --Hank | ||||||
1768 | Questions about Paul? | Rom 3:23 | Hank | 190810 | ||
Dear bibleisforever - Having considered various ways to approach your inquiries into Paul's definition of several key theological terms, I believe the best would be in the form of a recommendation that you read Paul;s letters, especially the one he wrote to the Romans. Surely no one can walk away from a careful study of Romans without having a keen idea of what the apostle means by sin, the law, faith, and justification. You might also pass along the recommendation to your friend that he too search the Scriptures for the absolutely authoritative answers to his questions. --Hank | ||||||
1769 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Hank | 10002 | ||
JVH, to your question of what separates Evangelicals from Catholics, one could submit a laundry list of issues and beliefs on which the two groups have a divergence of views running the gamut from mild to severe. But I would propose that the fundamental reason that there is a theological gulf betweeen the two that can be spanned only with the greatest difficulty, if at all, lies in the matter of what is considered the final authority for faith and practice. Evangelicalism is supported monopodially, as it were, with the Bible alone being considered the seminal source of authority in all matters of faith and practice. Catholicism, on the other hand, stands on a tripod whose legs are Scripture, church tradition, and papal authority. Whence come the marching orders is an enormously large issue and constitutes, in the view of this writer, the core differences between the two communions. --Hank | ||||||
1770 | Melchisedec restored tithing | Rom 4:3 | Hank | 171846 | ||
Bereaniam: This might be a good time and place to observe, in connection with your question, that the apostle Paul and his associate Silas were no doubt "well-respected preachers" in the eyes of some, but that didn't stop the Bereans from checking them out by searching the Scriptures daily -- see Acts 17:11. If the Bereans saw fit to compare the Apostle's teaching with Scripture, much more should we compare the teaching of today's preachers with Scripture! Being a "well-respected preacher" in our time is no guarantee that what he is preaching is sound doctrine. There are a lot of preachers out there who have built for themselves a virtual empire on rotten doctrine. One must always ask, "By whom is he respected?" Blind guides are respected by their blind followers. Even cult leaders are respected by the rank and file of the cult. Keep searching Scripture. Keep on saying to yourself, "a Berean-i-am!" --Hank | ||||||
1771 | Marriage Restoration | Rom 4:18 | Hank | 191237 | ||
RMontgomery - The theme of Romans 4 is justification by faith. I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly by your term "marriage restoration." Would you mind defining the term to make it more understandable? Thanks. --Hank | ||||||
1772 | Salvation by compulsion-Romans 5 | Rom 5:1 | Hank | 121853 | ||
formereverything: I'm not quite sure of what you're asking. What translation do you quote from? I consulted five major translations, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and ESV. None of them used "dominion" in this passage from Romans 5. Read on. Read all of Paul's arguments from Romans 1 through Romans 10. I find no evidence whatever that Paul is teaching any "salvation by compulsion." The term is meaningless to me; I have no idea of what it means to you, but I can't see it as being a biblical concept at all. Paul in Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and in 5:21 he draws the stark contrast between unregenerate and regenerate man: "so that as sin reigned (had dominion?) in death, even so grace would reign (have dominion?) through righteousness to eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." But there is no idea of "salvation by compulsion" in any of these passages. Compulsion involves the act or condition of being driven or urged by force. Where does the Bible teach that God forces His salvation upon anyone? "The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' Let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost." [Rev. 22:17]. Do you see any coercion, any "salvation by compulsion" in this Bible invitation? Our Lord said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." [Rev. 3:20]. Again, no coercion, no arm twisting, no hint of "salvation by compulsion." Man is a free moral agent, not a puppet. God does not "compel" him to believe. He does not force His gift of grace on man. He says, "Let the one who wishes take of the water of life without cost." --Hank | ||||||
1773 | Puppets? | Rom 5:6 | Hank | 9677 | ||
Puppets? Wist ye not, I wist not what thy question really is. But I have a guess it's about election and free will and that sort of thing. If it is, please use the Search feature and read to your heart's content. It is difficult to see any need to resurrect this tired old debate. --Hank | ||||||
1774 | What did Jesus do for us? | Rom 5:6 | Hank | 56453 | ||
KnightEJV: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." [Rom.5:8]. What more could He do? --Hank | ||||||
1775 | Isn't a righteous man a good man? | Rom 5:7 | Hank | 9531 | ||
Nolan, Paul's thrust here is that we were neither of these things -- righteous or good -- but sinners, and Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). To your question "Isn't a righeous man a good man?" a possible answer is that a righteous man would be likely to be a good man, but a good man would not necessarily be righteous. The Greek word Paul uses here translated "righteous" generally has the meaning of being in a right relationship, e.g., with God. The word translated "good" can be associated with doing good deeds, being benevolent, but not necessarily righteous. Perhaps this is the distinction Paul is making, but I offer this as a possibility only, with no warranties or money-back guarantees that this is the right interpretation..... But Paul's main point is clear and worth restating: Christ died for us -- unrighteous, no-good, helpless sinners. --Hank | ||||||
1776 | Clean Slate statement | Rom 5:12 | Hank | 150894 | ||
Jesusfreak: Doc has certainly given you two excellent responses with a lot of meat in each one. Your friend may simply be engaging you in mental gymnastics for his amusement, but then again he may be a serious inquirer. You know him; I don't. Do your best and don't be too quick to give up on him. After all, Saul of Tarsus thought he was some kind of a hot shot leading his goon squad around bushwhacking Christians until Jesus got a hold of him and set him straight. You don't know what God has in store for your friend. ...... As I read your post, it occurred to me that I would probably ask him somewhere along the line, "OK, buddy, so you feel we all got a raw deal. We all should have been issued a clean slate the day we were born. And if we had, tell me, how long do you think it would take each of us to mess up his clean slate? Do you know of anyone whose slate is still clean, anyone who has not sinned? If he pays any attention to what the Bible says, you might try introducing him to Romans 3:23: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." You can keep trying to ring his bell with various approaches. You can ask God's guidance. Your friend may not be ready for high theology. Keep it simple but don't engage him in argumentation. Scripture has more power than you do. Use it. Who knows? God may speak to him through John 3:16. We can carry the wood but only God can light the fire. --Hank | ||||||
1777 | why no law between Adam and Moses? | Rom 5:13 | Hank | 182600 | ||
buffy1 - May I offer you (and all other SBF questioners) a simple formula for asking a question? When the answer to a question is not known, no part of it should be assumed. Your first question in the battery of questions in your post provides a good example. You ask, "Why was there no law during the time from Adam to Moses?" You are assuming that there was no law and asking why was this so. But would you on examination be able to prove your assumption that there was no law during this period of history? Better to ask, "Was there a law during the time between Adam and Moses?" It must be established that there was no law before asking why there wasn't one. If the questioner has not established that there was no law, asking why there was no law doesn't make sense; it runs into a dead end and becomes a moot question. Questions based on assumptions or preconceived ideas are not good questions. They are in fact more closely akin to statements of opinion than honest questions seeking information. ...... The formula is simple. Ask a question, but make sure it is only a question, not a question freighted with such extra baggage as assumptions, preconceived notions, opinions or declarations. --Hank | ||||||
1778 | Hell | Rom 6:3 | Hank | 153761 | ||
faron, I think you know perfectly well what I was referring to, which was your vulgar usage in Post 153745 of a slang term for urination and, to make bad matters worse, you applied it to the Holy God. Shame on you! If you don't have better manners than to come on a Bible forum with such trashy language as that, you have no business being here! --Hank | ||||||
1779 | Public profession, explanation. etc. | Rom 6:4 | Hank | 2591 | ||
Only one, if I understand your question. "We have been buried with Him [Christ] through baptism into death" to "walk in newness of life." --Romans 6:4. The clear inference is we have thereby witnessed once and for all that we have become new creations in Christ Jesus. Paul is, of course, writing here about believer's baptism, water baptism, immersion, hence the metaphor "buried with Him." I somehow fear I've not fully spoken to your question. You may be talking about something else. Care to elaborate? | ||||||
1780 | What if you don't obey that command? | Rom 6:4 | Hank | 56404 | ||
Dear The Bible Is Right: "What if" questions always make me jittery, because they are usually somewhat hypothetical, and hypothetical questions don't invite concrete answers. Even so, I will rush in, this once, where neither angels nor wise men should tread, since I can lay no just claim to being either.... I have been a Christian for more than five decades and have known hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other Christian men and women and not once have I ever met a regenerate believer who did not obey the command to be baptized. Anyone who claims to be saved and continues to lead a life of sin and rebellion in open and willful disobedience to God's commands is a liar, a fake and a fraud. Now I don't believe for a moment in salvation by works -- salvation is an unmerited gift of God (grace) that is obtained through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. But I do believe most definitely in the new birth [regeneration], and that that regeneration brings about a profound change in the life of the new believer, not the least of which is a yearning to please God by living a life of obedience to His will. Following your "what if" one step further: If a regenerate believer were unable to be baptized because, for instance, he dropped dead before he had the opportunity to be baptized, the regenerate believer, by definition, would be saved because of what Christ accomplished on the cross..... Again, let me emphasize: Baptism is a command and I would never attempt to detract in any way from its importance. But it is an act of obedience, not a fact of salvation. But an outright, willful refusal by one who claims to be saved to obey such a clear command as baptism is not the hallmark of a truly born-again believer. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ] Next > Last [114] >> |