Results 761 - 780 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
761 | Is it true we should put spouse b4 child | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 178747 | ||
kriss - Chapters 5 and 6 of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians addresses family relationships. Therein you will find biblical instruction to husbands, wives and children; and perhaps the answer to your question. --Hank | ||||||
762 | gap therory | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 187986 | ||
chach - Thanks for your question which, by the way, is one that turns up fairly frequently on SBF. Therefore, please allow me to name a couple of sources that you may find helpful. The first is an article by Dr. Henry Morris called, "Why the Gap Theory Won't Work." You can find this article by going to http://icr.org/article/826/ ..... Dr. Morris calls the Gap Theory "one of the popular devices for trying to accomodate the evolutionary ages of the geologists and astronomers." ....... Two posts from SBF archives may be of interest to you also. They are posts 8321 and 17576, which you can access by entering the post numbers, one at a time of course, in the box under Search. ....... The Gap Theory is a man-made contrivance which, not unlike other fanciful theories, has no foundation in Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
763 | heaven(s)? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 194550 | ||
Hello, Candy7777 :: Thanks for your very first post to Study Bible Forum and we bid you welcome. The word in Genesis 1:1 that is translated "heavens" is the Hebrew "shamayim (Strong's 8064). It can mean heaven, heavens, highest heavens, sky, horizon, etc. depending on context. Gen. 1:14 speaks of the expanse of the heavens (shamayim) and this same Hebrew word in Gen. 1:26 is translated "sky." ...... Gen. 1:16 speaks of God making the two great lights (sun and moon) and the stars and (1:17) placing them in the heavens (again, the same word, shamayim, appears in the Hebrew manuscript. ...... Thus incorporated in the Gen. 1:1 phrase, "the heavens and the earth" is a summary statement of all of God's creation, i.e., the entire universe, all things. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone'" (Isaiah 44:24). What a marvelous passage from Isaiah this is, a perfect complement to the majestic Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ..... If foolish man would only believe these magnificent statements from God's word, he would have no trouble believing the rest of Scripturre nor would he waste his precious time toying around with vacuous and flimsy theories such as evolution. --Hank | ||||||
764 | Evolution vs Creation | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 213856 | ||
The question itself contains assumptiona amd speculations contrary to sola scripture, a doctrine to which this Forum subscribes. Moreover, it is similar to some of your previous questions which have already been addressed on the Forum. Furthermore, questions of this stripe only serve to foster speculative responses and are not generally edifying and not in line with the aims and guidelines of SBF. Sorry. --Hank | ||||||
765 | Evolution vs Creation | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 213857 | ||
You might try icr.org. It's a web site dedicated to promulgating a conservative Christian view of creation and allied subjects. --Hank | ||||||
766 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 19909 | ||
The folks at the Institute for Creation Research, among other groups, have compiled a set of arguments that are at least as equally persuasive that the Gap Theory is full of gaps. (icr.org). What continues to amaze me is what a fuss the gap theorists make of the translation of a single word of Scripture, the Hebrew hayetah of Genesis 1:2, which they insist on translating became instead of was. I can think of no other portion in all of Scripture in which so elaborate a theory has been founded on so weak a premise. --Hank | ||||||
767 | Holy Spirit Present at Creation? | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 74520 | ||
Not only did God the Holy Spirit participate in creation [Gen.1:2], but so did God the Son [see John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; and Hebrews 1:2]. Look also at Gen.1:26: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness." And look at Gen.3:22: "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold the man has become like one of Us'" These are among the first clear indications of the triunty of God. The very name of God, Elohim, that is used in Gen.1:1 is a plural form of El. So we reach the conclusion that if the Trinity exists now (as orthodox Christian theology firmly attests), then the existence of the Trinity, or triune nature of God, it being one God manifest in three Persons, has always existed and will always exist, because God is eternal, unchanged and unchangeable. --Hank | ||||||
768 | Explain the Gap theory | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 116959 | ||
ministermay: The "Gap Theory" postulates that there was an indeterminate period of time between the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The crux of the argument hinges on the Hebrew word hayetah in verse 2, whether it should be translated was, as most English Bibles, e.g. NASB, do; or whether it should be translated became, as the gap theoreticians contend. Charles Ryrie (Study Bible) offers this observation on and explanation of the text, "The earth was formless and void." Says he, "Some understand a 'gap' of an indeterminate period of time between verses 1 and 2, and translate 'became' rather than 'was.' Although the Hebrew word may mean 'became' (as in Gen. 19:26), the construction of the clause does not support a consecutive statement describing something that happened subsequent to verse 1 ('and') but rather describing something included in verse 1 ('but'). In other words, the initial creation was formless and empty, a condition soon remedied. The phrase means that at this point in God's creative activity the earth was yet unfashioned and uninhabited." .... I agree with Ryrie who along with a host of other biblical exegetes see the gap theory as having extremely weak scriptural support, if indeed any at all. --Hank | ||||||
769 | Where did this light come from? | Gen 1:3 | Hank | 74532 | ||
The light of Gen.1:3 came from God. Go back two verses to Gen.1:1. See also 2 Cor. 4:6 and Rev.21:23. --Hank | ||||||
770 | why did God have to create light? | Gen 1:3 | Hank | 77685 | ||
Scripture is mindful of a distinction between spiritual light and physical light, do you not agree? Therein lies your answer, I believe. --Hank | ||||||
771 | Perhaps I don't understand these verses | Gen 1:3 | Hank | 144706 | ||
bruren 777 ::: The "light" of Gen. 1:3 and the "lights" of Gen. 1:14 are indeed two separate events that occurred at different times; the former on day one of creation and the latter on day four of creation. The "light" of Gen. 1:3 has been variously explained. One of the best explanations I've seen comes from a scientist who is also a committed Christian and able apologist for creationism, Dr. Henry Morris. Writing on Genesis 1:3 and 14, Dr. Morris says: "On the first day [of creation], God had said, 'Let there be light' (Hebrew or). Now He says, 'Let there be lights (Hebrew ma-or). Light energy was activated first [v.3], but now great masses of material (part of the 'earth' elements created on the first day) were gathered together in one of the firmaments, or spaces, of the cosmos -- the space beyond the waters above the space adjacent to the earth. These great bodies were set burning in complex chemical and nuclear reactions, to serve hencforth as light-givers for the earth. The existence of visible light (Gen. 1:3) prior to the establishment of the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16) emphasizes the fact that light (energy) is more fundamental than light-givers. God could just as easily (perhaps more easily) have created waves of light energy as He could have constructed material bodies in which processes function which generate light energy. The first is direct (since God is light), the second indirect." ..... Excerpted from notes on Genesis 1:3 and 1:14: Defender's Study Bible, Annotations by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D: World Publishing. --Hank | ||||||
772 | genesis1:12seedreproduceafteritskind? | Gen 1:12 | Hank | 69301 | ||
So it says, so it teaches. --Hank | ||||||
773 | wher did the fowls came from | Gen 1:20 | Hank | 77688 | ||
There is no statement in Genesis 1:20-22 from which one could infer after a careful and accurate reading that fowls had their origin in, emerged from, or evolved out of, water. --Hank | ||||||
774 | evolution and the bible | Gen 1:21 | Hank | 167985 | ||
chris4him: Your question is: "Can a person believe in evolution and the whole inspired word of God?" ..... My answer is: Absolutely not! Compare the opening chapters of Genesis with Darwin's godless theories. There is no way possible to make God's truth and Darwin's lies coalesce. --Hank | ||||||
775 | Why have kids when... | Gen 1:22 | Hank | 53686 | ||
In the Andes -- For some reason I've always had a rather jaundiced view of these 'what if' questions. They can encompass almost everything under the sun. What if a child should be born with serious and irreversible birth defects? What if a child should contract terminal cancer at the age of five?..... And, "I'm not going to fly to the west coast to visit my family -- what if the plane should crash? I'm not going to drive to the grocery store -- what if I were involved in a fatal car accident? I'm not going to take a bath -- what if I slipped and cracked my skull on the bath tub?".... No, friend, the Christian walk is a walk of faith in the providence of God. It should never be characterized by giving counsel to our fears or by playing the 'what if' game with our lives. "Therefore I say to you," said Jesus, "do not worry about your life .... but seek first the kingdom of God." (cf. Matt. 6:25-34). --Hank | ||||||
776 | God speaking of Himself as "US" | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 4486 | ||
More probably, "this is the first clear indication of the triunity of God" (MacArthur Study Bible, note on Gen.1:26) The context of Gen. 3:22 "Behold the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" would seem to support the triunity idea more than the idea that God in these passages was addressing created beings, such as angels. The plural pronoun used in reference to God also appears in Gen. 11:7 in connection with the account of the tower of Babel. Your reference to Gen. 18:17,18 appears to be in error; it does not concern itself with the item in question. It is interesting to note that the verse immediately following Gen. 1:26 reverts back to the singular pronoun, "God created man in His own image." In any event, we can be absolutely sure, in light of the overwhelming evidence the Bible presents to the contrary, that these verses do not support the doctrine of polytheism. --Hank | ||||||
777 | Was Adam a White Man | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 4829 | ||
Gen. 1:26 comes as close as the Bible ever gets to revealing to us the physical attributes of Adam. Perhaps it's just as well. Theologically, it's a moot question anyway. If we venture out into extra-biblical sources, we can get all sorts of "answers" -- but of what value are they, really? We can subscribe to the happy theory that we all came from slime in some primordial swamp, and thereby be able to say that Adam was green, if that is the color of slime. Or we can do Adam in handily by buying into various brands of "higher criticism" of the Bible being bandied about in our time, which are eager for us to believe that the Genesis story of creation is nothing but fanciful myth and fairy tale passed down from generation to generation and woven into the folk-lore of a simple-minded people who were gullible enough to believe almost anything. The issue always turns to the matter of faith. Do we believe in a God who is Sovereign and who reveals His purpose and will for our lives through the Bible, or must we continually seek in our own feeble way to find fallible human sources to supplement and approbate what He has revealed in His Word? The Christian world is not measured by line and rule but by faith. If we feel that the eternal truth of God must be helped along by our weak and pale efforts, then perhaps we need to take a closer look. The God of the universe is simply not that small. --Hank | ||||||
778 | what is his image? | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 5269 | ||
Good question, Buf. God made man in His image, but what is God's image? Since we know God to be spiritual and not of flesh and blood as we, His image must necessarily be measured by spiritual attributes. But God is transcendent; there is none like Him; there is no basis for comparision; there is no meaningful way to say, "God is like this or like that." In the words of 1 Samuel 2:2, "There is no one holy like the LORD. Indeed there is no one besides You, nor is there any rock like our God." In many places throughout the Bible, God is variously described as the Creator, as being full of grace, as holy, as loving, as sovereign. Jesus is the best example we have, or will ever have, of what the Father is like. Philip asked Jesus to show him and the other disciples the Father in Matthew 14:8. In the next verse Jesus tells Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." It follows, then, that the more we know about Jesus the better the image we have of the Father. So, Buf, as a line in an old hymn puts it, "More about Jesus would I know, more of His grace to others show; Spirit of God my teacher be, showing the things of Christ to me." There is a good thought for the saints, laden with hope, in 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." How awesome to consider that one day we shall meet the Almighty God face to face! --Hank | ||||||
779 | In Gen 1.26, God refers to us and our.. | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 65369 | ||
Hello, zerotheory. Welcome, and I trust your user name bears witness that you prize truth over theory! The words 'Us' and 'Our' of Genesis 1:26 are the first clear indication in Scripture of the triunty of God. However, even in Genesis 1:1 which begins with "In the beginning God..." the Hebrew name translated 'God' is Elohim, a plural form of El. See also Genesis 3:22 and 11:7. And please note the bracketed explanation that the Amplified Bible gives to Genesis 1:26. So you see that the existence of the Trinity didn't just suddenly be revealed (and it certainly didn't just suddenly become a reality) at the time of Jesus' baptism, [see Matthew 3:16,17], although this passage clearly delineates all three Persons of the Trinity. Pagan religions are known to accuse Christianity of being polytheistic, saying that Christians worship three gods. The Bible does not teach that there are three gods. It teaches that there is one God who manifests Himself in three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. --Hank | ||||||
780 | CLARIFICATION of Gen. 1:26 | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 137143 | ||
Tamed - Genesis 1:26 is the first clear indication in the Bible of the triunity of God -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. (See also Gen. 3:22 and 11:7). The very name of God (Gen. 1:1) is Elohim in the Hebrew, a plural form of El. The distinctive and essential Christian doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic, as detractors maintain, but wholly monotheistic -- one God in three Persons. The Amplified Bible (q.v.) gives an excellent rendition of Gen. 1:26 --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Next > Last [114] >> |