Results 381 - 400 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Does this explain Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4221 | ||
The creed of the venerable Saint Athanasius is stated with great beauty and felicity. A good deal of the language is reminiscent of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. I'm in basic agreement with this creed except for the statement, "And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting." This statement mirrors a tenet of Roman Catholicism, a view not shared by many Protestants. It clashes sharply with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, exclusive of works. A seminal passage to support this doctrine is Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as the result of works, so that no one may boast." His creedal statements regarding the Trinity are eloquently phrased, enlightening, and seem to be thorougly based on scriptural teaching. Thanks for posting. --Hank | ||||||
382 | Wow! Where did that come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4353 | ||
Apparently the King James Version translators fell into the trap set by Tyndale in giving us "Jehovah" for the tetragrammation YHWH. Jehovah is a hybrid linguistic contrivance that is the result of an "ignorance gap" by the translators, both Tyndale and the King James committee, of the Hebrew language and customs. They did well with what they had, but much more has been added to the lore of the ancient languages and customs since 1611. YHWH, the name itself, was considered by the Hebrews as too holy to utter so the Hebrew word adonai (Lord) was substituted when the text was read. Most modern translations have set Lord in upper-case type, LORD, to indicate YHWH is meant. The designation "tetragrammaton" is from the Greek, meaning "four letters". --Hank | ||||||
383 | When were angels created? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4355 | ||
Uncle Charlie, I have no better answer, and can offer no more specific a time frame, than Genesis 1:1 We may have ideas or a private interpretation of some kind, but will they wash in light of revealed truth? That the angels are created beings is a given. Precisely when God chose to create them, that is a mystery. The time and place of origin of the serpent in the garden of Eden, for instance, is ample food for thought. All manner of views have been advanced; is any the absolutely correct, definitive one? I wonder -- and I am not in the least being critical of your question -- but I wonder if we all of us at times, allow the indvidual trees to obscure our overall view of God's abundant orchard of eternal truth. I've seen preachers allot the better part of their sermon time to the attempt to explain some minor background detail of one of Jesus' parables at the expense of utterly missing the point that the parable sought to make. --Hank | ||||||
384 | DINOSURES OR ALIENS IN BIBLE ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4411 | ||
Please use the "Search" feature at the top left of your screen. Type in "dinosaur" and also "dinosour". You will find more than 20 entries regarding these creatures. The word "dinosaur" -- the correct spelling -- has been misspelled on this Forum in a number of innovative ways. -- Hank | ||||||
385 | DINOSURES OR ALIENS IN BIBLE ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4413 | ||
Please forgive my oversight. Your question concerned aliens in addition to dinosaurs. Save for angels, which are not aliens from another planet but from heaven, the subject of extra-terrestrial aliens as we usually define the term, is alien to the Bible. --Hank | ||||||
386 | JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4695 | ||
Is it fair to say that Joe throws oneness into heresy by what he said? To accuse another of heresy is serious business. Should not one rather re-examine what oneness really means and what heresy really is? --Hank | ||||||
387 | Reformation Bible Episcopal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5132 | ||
Shorty, if the Geneva Study Bible you are referring to is the one edited by R.C.Sproul, then the doctrinal notes would likely be more in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. --Hank | ||||||
388 | DOES YOUR PASTOR BELIEVE THE BIBLE? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5159 | ||
These statistics are very alarming, that's for sure. One would only hope that somehow the survey is in error, but it in fact may not be. The churches are in deep trouble across the land, not unlike the Israelites were of old when they chose to abandon God's truth and go chasing after false gods. It bodes ill when churches themselves become a prime target for, not the source of, evangelism and revival. Thanks for sharing this message, albeit frightening and disconcerting. It's something real Christians should be aware of, pray over, and take whatever steps they can to bring the church and its leadership back to the revealed, inerrant truth of God's word. May we never forget 2 Timothy 3:16. It's good to hear from you again, Hugger. --Hank | ||||||
389 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5591 | ||
Nolan, our English word "baptize" is a transliteration of the Greek word "baptizo." The following definition is from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible; Spiros Zodhiates, executive editor; AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN: "Baptizo, to immerse, submerge for a religious purpose (John 1:25); to baptize or immerse in or wash with water in token of purification from sin and from spiritual pollution." Paul in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 uses the term "buried with Him (Christ) in (or by) baptism." Clearly this indicates immersion; it is inarguable to suppose that "to sprinke" or "to pour" are synonymous terms for "to bury." --Hank | ||||||
390 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5637 | ||
This is, or is supposed to be, a Study Bible Forum, Cephas. What is to be accomplished by "weird" questions that can only be addressed by "weird" answers, neither of which fall within the parameters of God's word? --Hank | ||||||
391 | Babies/Those Who Haven't Heard Destinies | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5989 | ||
Steve, to your first question, "What is the criterion for going to heaven?" my answer would have to reflect what Jesus said in John 14:6. Your second question about babies going to heaven being conditional is beyond my scope, because I'm not not sure what you mean by "conditional." Are you talking about election?....Your next question asks at what age do children know right from wrong? Since the concepts "right" and "wrong" may mean different things to different people, would you permit me to reword it thusly: "At what age are children able to respond in a meaningful way to the message of the Gospel of Christ?" Certainly no infant yet has this ability. At what point along the time line of his life a child attains this ability would vary, it seems to me, from child to child. There is no absolute rule of thumb that I know of....And to your final question, "Did I believe too early?" my answer must be that that is for you to say. --Hank | ||||||
392 | Would you explain your action? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 6010 | ||
EdB, Truly can I sense your concern about the voting matter involving the person who calls himself orthodoxy. While you may be right in your assessment that it was, in your view, unwarranted -- I come not to address the merits or demerits of this question -- I submit that the the voting process is, and of right ought to be, by secret ballot, a procedure we hold dear in the United States. Were it otherwise and each voter were to be compelled to "sign his name" to his vote, it would create an atmosphere that no one, I believe, wants to see on this forum. Here's the scenario: A casts an unfavorable vote on B. B then does the same for A. C, D, and E think A is being unfair to B, so they gang up against A and give him more bad votes. Before you know it, we have a voting war raging. Lockman has chosen, and I think wisely, to set up the rating system by secret ballot. I do not know who the voter (or voters) was in this instance and would in no wise publish it on this forum even if I did, because it would do no good and merely result in ill-will and dissention, neither of which we covet in any manner. I believe the ratng system that Lockman has installed can be good provided it is used fairly and judiciously. No one should vote out of spite, vindictiveness, or in anger at another forum user. Neither should one cast an unfavorabe vote merely on the basis that what was said was not necessarily wrong, but it did not parallel the voter's personal view of the issue. But one should not hesitate to cast an unfavorable ballot to a posting that is clearly meant to incite divisiveness, promote and abet false doctrine, or in any manner seek to blaspheme God or His holy word. EdB, I hold you in esteem as a Christian man of honor; I respect your viewpoint on this issue and empathize with you in your frustration. But nonetheless I think that calling for the voter (or voters) to come forth and "fess up" would not serve the best interests of the voter, orthodoxy, or this forum.....The issue at hand is in regard to unfavorable votes, but please let me say a word about favorable votes also. They have a place too. I think I've voted only about three times. Two were favorable and the other was unfavorable on a posting that I saw as an outrageous attempt to incite divisiveness. But the two favorable votes I've cast -- and there should have been more -- were one way to express my thanks for a particularly well-prepared, accurate and lucid answer or note. Perhaps a favorable vote may be better in some instances than a pat-on-the-back posted note. And lastly, EdB, I quite agree with you, everyone carries some denominational bias -- everyone, at any rate, who professes to belong to any church. And isn't it remarkable the number of Christians who are willing to admit, in all humility of course, that theirs is, after all, the right view? --Hank | ||||||
393 | How can a Christian overcome a bad habit | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 6235 | ||
Well, JVH, I don't believe "willpower" has much to do with breaking a bad habit. Those of us who have had any experience with trying to break bad habits and keep New Year's resolutions will likely agree that human "willpower" alone is seldom effective, if at all. I like the word "abide" -- it has various meanings in Scripture, but generally means to wait, to rest, to stand firm. A minister whom I know once had a mountainous problem with alcohol, both before he became a Christian and for a short time afterward. Here is a condensed version of what he had to say about his "demon." "I made resolution upon resolution not to touch alcohol again. I promised God I would stop drinking. Each day I repeated a little mantra to myself that I would not drink. But I continued to drink, even after I became a Christian. Finally it dawned on me what I was doing wrong. There was too much 'I will' in my life and even in my prayers, and not much 'God will'. I was not abiding in Christ (John 15:4) in the sense of resting in Him, surrendering my will totally to His, and simply waiting upon the Lord to deliver me from my bondage. I was still trying to do the job myself and was powerless to do so. The Lord delivered me only when I gave my life completely to Him." I love that testimony and it is true. In Matt. 17:21 Jesus said, speaking of demons, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." I believe that the prerequisite to breaking any bad habit or addiction is, firstly of course, to want to; it is unthinkable to pray for something we do not want. After wanting comes surrender to God's will, prayer, and then simply to abide, to wait, and to trust, to have absolute faith in God. Jesus said in Matt. 17:20 that faith the size of a mustard seed can remove mountains. And bad habits and addictions can become real mountains in our lives. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said we should not worry about our lives, but seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Putting God first in our pecking order is primary to breaking bad habits and in being empowered to live abundantly. To anyone who has the "demons" of addictions or other undesirable habits chipping away at his very life and bringing him to hopelessness, misery and despair, the words of Jesus in Matt. 19:26 "with God all things are possible" point to a clear and sure way out of the mire. --Hank | ||||||
394 | Why no gender-neutral language in NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8490 | ||
The answer to your question about why the more literal and (generally) more conservative translations do not use "gender neutral" language is that the languages from which they are translated did not use "gender neutral" language. We have no gender-neutral third person singular personal pronouns in the English language. The word "it" hardly can be used to describe human beings. So translators, in order to translate "gender-neutrally" are compelled to resort to various lierary devices; namely, to recast the sentence by using a construction that is different from the original languages, or to pluralize the personal pronouns so that "he" becomes "they"; "he", "them" etc. Where the original text says, for example, "adam" (man) they must resort to such terms as people, persons, or mortals. As rich and as versatileas our English tongue is, it does have its weaknesses. But even so, the language has flourished for years and even the simplest of folk understood perfectly well what Jesus meant when He said "Man shall not live by bread alone." Only recently has this become an issue. --Hank | ||||||
395 | Why did the NASB change JEHOVAH to Lord? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8675 | ||
Dear Sojourner: The most reliable and definitive answer to your question regarding the NASB's translation of Yahweh (Jehovah) can possibly be obtained by asking the Lockman Foundation. You can email your question and concern to them at Lockman@Lockman.org. I feel sure they will be quite willing to assist you. --Hank | ||||||
396 | What was the first language of Adam/Eve? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8689 | ||
Without doubt, dear gubber, you've posed an intriguing question! The Bible gives us no hint whatever about the language of our progenitors, Adam and Eve, but it at the same time makes it quite clear that they had the ability to communicate -- with God their Creator, with the serpent their adversary, and with each other. Linguistics offers us little real help. It surmises that the first means of communication was oral, but did not consist of language as we know it today. They call it, for want of anything else to call it, paralanguage -- voice sounds like grunts, hisses, giggles, etc. used in conjunction with various gestures (body language). From these beginnigs eventually came a more sophisticated form of oral language and, later still, various written forms. But this is, I re-emphasize, merely linguistic theory. It does not square with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve..... But perhaps we can be somewhat more enlightened by the Old Testament account of the time when there was one world language. Nimrod ruined it all by building a tower to reach heaven. But God stepped in and made the workmen speak different languages. So the Tower of Babel was never finished..... Now is it far-fetched to believe that the same God who could confound the language at the building site of the tower (by, in effect, creating new languages) would have any problem with endowing Adam and Eve with language skills when He created them? The Spirit of God performed nothing short of of a linguistic miracle on the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. This God who by the might of His word spoke the heavens and the earth into existence, ex nihilo, could surely have empowered, and did empower I believe, His first children with the gift of speech. We don't know what the name of the language was, or even whether God assigned a name to it, but we must conclude that it encompassed far more and was considerably more advanced than the gutteral grunts and growns that are popularly -- but unbiblically -- assigned to the language of the so-called cave man. The vocabularly must have been indeed quite rich and extensive. After all, God gave Adam the job of naming the animals -- a task requiring a great deal more than assorted grunts! --Hank | ||||||
397 | literalness between NAS77 and 95 | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 9489 | ||
The 1995 Update of the NASB was an effort to render into contemporary English a smoother, more natural translation of the the ancient texts. While some passages may be less "literal" it doesn't necessarily follow that they are less accurate. Literalness and accuracy are not the same things. For example, in contemporary French, a literal translation of the French for "What's your name?" would be, "What do you call yourself? In German, a literal rendering of their way of saying, "We're not going home." would be "We go not to house." To say "We're not going home" instead of "We go not to house" certainly does not sacrifice accuracy, but it does render into the receptor language a more natural, less wooden, construction..... From what I've read from the translators' notes about the 1995 Update, this -- the smoothing out of certain passages in order to make them more readable, without sacrificing accuracy -- was their aim. No less accurate but perhaps somewhat less literal in precise word order and syntax. It remains according to the publisher the most literally accurate of the English translations. --Hank | ||||||
398 | Is the Ecumenical movement good? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 10077 | ||
Certainly not, Nolan, merely for the sake of appearing united, or of being united superficially in name only, but divided in core beliefs. Real unity of Christians involves a great deal more than signing on to an ecumenical movement. The views of conservative Christians frequently differ markedly from those of liberal Christians on certain issues, and the polarity appears to be getting stronger rather than weaker. Unity of believers is a worthy goal, not to be dismissed lightly, because for it our Lord so fervently prayed. But I really don't see as reality the achieving of a worldwide Christian church living in unity and cooperation in our time -- certainly not left to our own devices. But Christians should never cease to pray for unity. Nothing, of course, is impossible with God. --Hank | ||||||
399 | Why does everything happen in thirds? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 10085 | ||
Nay, I see that this is your first post to the forum and, honestly, we'd like to be able to answer, or try to answer, your question. What did you have in mind about everything happening in thirds? If you'd like, please feel free to post again with more detail about your question and some of us will give it our best. --Hank | ||||||
400 | Who practices a oneness doctrine? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 10370 | ||
MGB, the "Oneness" doctrine has been one of the most discussed issues ever to come before the forum. Please use the Search function, type in "oneness" and you will be able to view more than 100 postings that address both sides of the issue. Welcome. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [114] >> |