Results 481 - 500 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | What about early male puberty? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46398 | ||
Dear CalvinisticSouthernBaptist: The intent of this answer is not to enter into the fray of debate about the subject of masturbation, but to comment upon the 'according to surveys' fragment of your question. One could also cite, I suppose, surveys of one sort or another that 'prove' that virtually everyone has at some time lied, or fudged just a little on a school exam or his income tax, or stolen something (if nothing but a pencil from his employer), or lusted after a member of the opposite sex (or, in these times, the same sex). What one concludes from statistical reports does not and cannot answer the question, "Are these things that 'everyone is doing' right or wrong?" Does the fact that 'everyone is doing it' make it right? Can we justify our actions by surveys? Or is there another standard? Is there not a plumb line already set up, not by survey but by God, by which human beings should measure their conduct? I submit that there is and that Christians ought always to minimize the importance of these kinds of surveys and maximize the importance of God's 'survey' which is epitomzed in these words: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.".... from a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist --Hank | ||||||
482 | Why did Noah get drunk? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46522 | ||
Why do people in our time ply themselves with alcohol and proceed to get as drunk as fiddlers? I think in the answer to my question you will have the answer to yours. --Hank | ||||||
483 | Don't see what you are getting at??! | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46778 | ||
dsimk2002: I don't view it as necessary to assume that Noah had deep-seated problems that led him to "drink of the wine and become drunk" as the Scripture says in Gen. 8:21. The Bible merely relates that he got drunk; it doesn't say why he did it. --Hank | ||||||
484 | Tell it to me straight. | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46791 | ||
dsimk2002. I have already told it to you straight, my friend. The Bible doesn't say why Noah got drunk, and that is it. QED. As for my "talking down" to you or treating you like a kid, I can't possibly see how my two former responses to you could be taken in that manner. So, please save your barbed remarks for possible use in instances where they might be warranted. --Hank | ||||||
485 | God is in my heart but... | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46843 | ||
supan-lee: Have you sought professional help for your depression? If you are suffering from clinical depression (and I have no way of knowing that, of course), you should seek professional assistance. Depression can be treated, but you should seek professional advice; you are not wise to seek or heed advice given on this forum by well-meaning but unqualified people. I shall remember you in my prayers, and I'm sure other members of this forum will do the same. But please, do get qualified help within your community, not on the internet. May God be with you now and forever more. --Hank | ||||||
486 | What is Islam and it's way to salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 46984 | ||
Caleb, please go to Search and type in the word Islam. --Hank | ||||||
487 | Why not fill out profile? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 47195 | ||
Farout, you will likely get better results if you will e-mail your suggestion to StudyBibleForum@Lockman.org. --Hank | ||||||
488 | 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 | ||||||
489 | 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 | ||||||
490 | 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 | ||||||
491 | 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 | ||||||
492 | 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 | ||||||
493 | 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 | ||||||
494 | 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 | ||||||
495 | I need a Dictionary of origen of words. | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 50686 | ||
Brethren, someone has recommended the OED to you; that's fine; it's the definitive British masterwork of English dictionaries. But you may not wish or need to go as deeply into etymology as the OED will take you. In which case you may find a satisfactory and far less expensive alternative in the Webster's Collegiate. I believe the 10th Edition is the latest one out -- mine's the 9th. It provides much useful information on word origins (etymology). Additionally, you can learn about archaic words, a handy thing to know if you are a reader of the King James Bible. There's some interesting information about the word 'charity' as it is used in 1 Cor. 13 in the KJV; and 'suffer' and 'prevent' as they are used in the KJV meant something quite different in 1611 Jacobean English than what they mean today. Specialty dictionaries that deal with biblical words in their original tongues may have been the object of your question, and good suggesions have been offered you. Still and all, there is no substitute for learning the exact meanings of ENGLISH words first, if that is one's native tongue, because we won't understand any translation or explanation of what the root word means unless we have a clear and firm grasp of our own language. If I sound like a stickler for learning and using words and grammar properly, perhaps I am, but I do not mean it as a parade of pedantry. --Hank | ||||||
496 | Spontaneous Human Combustion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 50690 | ||
Sarabisangel, unless I'm much mistaken, Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC) is akin to the fanciful theory known as Spontaneous Generation, the home-spun definition of which is that if inert matter hangs around long enough, it gets bored and, under certain 'just-right' ambient conditions, takes a notion to come to life all by itself. Yes, it originated in someone's mind and that poor benighted creature should have been led off to the funny farm right then and there :-). For a quick read on how it all really did get going, turn to the first couple chapters of Genesis. It's an SHC story of sorts also, only the SHC stands for "So He Created!" -- He being God, of course. --Hank | ||||||
497 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 50889 | ||
Dear Justme -- Let's begin with an illustration. A sentence in modern German says, "Nach hause heute gehen wir nicht." A LITERAL word-for-word translation is this: "To house today to go we not." Sounds awkward in English, doesn't it? But to a German the construction is perfectly natural, normal, conversational German. But if we wanted to translate that sentence into English, we would better serve our English readers by putting it into natural English. Thus, instead of following the German rules of grammar and syntax, we would follow the same rules in English and translate the sentence, "We're not going home today." The first translation is more literal than the second, but it is choppy and unnatural English. The second translation, while less literal, is nevertheless quite accurate and does say in a word-for-word manner in English what the word-for-word says in the German. The second translation is therefore not a paraphrase even though it is not rendered in the literal word order of the orignal German..... So it goes with all translations. Each language has its idioms, its own peculiar rules of grammar and syntax, its unique vocabulary -- all of which must be reckoned with by translators. Thus to call any single version of the Bible the best, the most accurate, the most readable, etc. is always a judgment call and thus somewhat subjective. But there are guidelines. There are essentially two schools of translation: [1] Word-for-word, insofar as this is possible and [2] Thought-for-thought. In the former, the translators strive to present in the receptor language as much transparency as possible of the donor language, e.g., from Greek into English. In the latter, the translators attempt to access what the original writer meant by what he said and cast his thoughts into the receptor language without being overly concerned with trying to replicate his exact words. The New International Version and the New Living Translaton have found favor with Bible readers who aren't fussy about word-for-word accuracy, but who want a Bible that reads smoothly and is relatively easy to understand. On the other hand, the King James Bible, the New King James Version, and the New American Standard Bible are among the favorites of those who wish their Bibles to say as closely as possible what the original authors said in their own languages. This, Justme, is as close as I can come to answering your question, which is a good one but on which you will likely not get a universal consensus of opinion. --Hank | ||||||
498 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51043 | ||
Grace and Truth: You ask of Joe: "Would you teach what the Bible says in Mark 16:16?" I ask of you: Would you expand your texts and teach, in addition to Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, ALL that the Bible says about salvation? --Hank | ||||||
499 | comformations | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51351 | ||
chess23389, I've read the three questions you have posted, this one and the other two that remain unanswered on the board, and I must confess: You've stumped me! I have no idea at all what you are asking. Is there a way that you can revise and clarify your questions and, if you care to, repost them? Sorry, but I did try :-) --Hank | ||||||
500 | Hebrew Scholar needed! | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51583 | ||
Mommapbs, out of the largess of my Arkansas heart, I'll be glad to give you my usual dazzling but less-than-brilliant and not-ready-for-prime time exegesis of the so-called two accounts of creation. The two accounts theory is wrong in my humble [but correct!] opinion..... God got everything right the first time around.... If you will be so kind, please place ID #48211 in the little box and give the enter key a gentle goose and presto! you will be ushered into the hushed presence of my post on the subject...... And by the way, the guy whom Norrie reported as believing that God later made a few animals just for Adam's amusement must indeed have a wry sense of humor; surely he can't be serious! But, come to think of it, we read from time to time some stuff on this forum that is no less nutty than this, don't we?.... I do hope you find my little essay on the creation account to be of some small help to you, Mommapbs. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [114] >> |