Results 301 - 320 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 185244 | ||
Greetings! There are many different understandings of these particular words and their use and meaning in Scripture. For the Arminian perspective on this issue, I would recommend the books: "Life in the Son", and "Elect in the Son" by Robert Shank. They are both published by Westcott Publishers. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
302 | They are married,is it sin to have oral? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 185137 | ||
Greetings Yowege! This would probably be a question better discussed with your pastor. Having said that, let me give you a couple of pointers. Oral sex is never once mentioned in Scripture, either to be condemned or condoned. However, as a pastor, I get to deal with questions like this in pre-marital counseling. Here is my basic rule. Anything is allowed within marriage as long as it is: 1) Not condemned by Scripture (like adultery). 2) Mutually consensual. 3) Not physically harmful to either partner. If you want to explore these sort of issues in more detail, I would recommend a book by Tim and Beverly LaHaye called "The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love". You can pick it up or order it at your local Christian bookstore. It only costs about six dollars. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
303 | Does my view violate context or grammer? | Gen 27:33 | Morant61 | 185095 | ||
Greetings Atdcross! I would advise extreme caution with the TEV since it is a paraphrase, not a translation. Here is a literal translation of Heb. 12:17: "you know (pl) for that even afterwards being willing to inherit the blessing he was rejected, a change of mind for a place not he found although with tears after seeking it." Based upon the Greek alone, one could argue that the change of mind or of purpose that Esau sought was his own, but his decision could not be changed. However, based on the Genesis account, one could argue that the change of mind Esau sought was of his father. Either way, the passage does not deal with a defective repentance, but rather with a decision that cannot be changed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
304 | Whose "repentance" in Heb 12:17. | Gen 27:33 | Morant61 | 185036 | ||
Greetings Lookn4ward2Heavn! In the Greek, there is only one subject in the immediate context to which the repentance could refer, and that is Esau. God is not mentioned in these verses, so He could not be the subject. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
305 | What's the full meaning of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:6 | Morant61 | 184693 | ||
Greetings Ladams! There are many posts dealing with this issue on the forum. You should use the search feature to find some of them. Here is a post that I have posted on this issue in the past. **************** Thanks for your patience! I was hesitant to go beyond what I wrote because of the difficulty of the verse. So, I have been doing some more research. Here is what I have concluded! The problem with Heb. 6:6 is that all of the verbs in this verse occur only one time in the New Testament. This makes it very difficult to be dogmatic about what they mean, since we have no context to compare them with. With that in mind, I believe the following: 1) That the author is writting to Christians, not pagans or hearers only! 2) That this passage is describing a continuing attitude or action! 3) That the person who persists in this attitude is lost! 4) That any sin or attitude can be repented of! Let's look at the progress of the passage. Beginning in verse 4, the passage says that it is impossible to renew to repentance those who: * have been enlighted (aorist participle). * have partaken of the heavenly gift (aorist participle). * have shared in the Holy Spirit (aorist participle). * have tasted the word of God (aorist participle). * have fallen away (aorist participle). The key, I think, is found in the last two verbs. I believe that they give the reason why these people cannot be brought to repentance again. These two verbs say that: * they are cruciying afresh (present participle). * they are exposing Him to public disgrace (present participle). All of the other verbs are aorist participles. They describe past actions. These last two are present participles describing present actions and attitudes. I think that the people described here are similar to those in Heb. 10:26 and 10:29. They are believers who despise the blood of Christ and wilfully sin against Him. The context of Heb. 6:7-8 would seem to support this. But, here is the key point. The impossiblity of renewing them to repentance seems to be tied to their current and ongoing attitude. I don't see anything is the passage that indicates that such a person can never be saved again or can never repent. It is impossible now, because they are crucifying, they are publicly shaming Christ, and they are sinning wilfully. If that attitude changes, I don't see any grammatical reason why they could not repent. One of the basic rules of interpretation is to let clear Scripture interpret less clear Scripture. Heb. 6:6 is not real clear. But, 1 John 1:9 is clear. No where else in Scripture are we told that it is impossible for someone to repent. Therefore, I would say that Heb. 6:6 desribes the lost condition of those who are actively and currently rejecting Christ wilfully. As long as they remain in this state of rejection, it is impossible for the to repent, since salvation is found only in the Christ they are rejecting. If they have a change of attitude toward Christ, I believe that this passage would no longer apply to them. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran ************** I hope you find it helpful! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
306 | Can the Devil understand us when we pray | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 184687 | ||
Greetings Taby815! There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that the Devil cannot understand a prayer in tongues. Further, there is nothing that indicates that the Devil can block our prayers. Go ahead and pray boldly, there is nothing that Satan can do about it! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
307 | Rom 10:9-10 ??? | Rom 10:13 | Morant61 | 184685 | ||
Greetings Acts1126! Rom. 10:9-10 constitutes a prayer for salvation in that 'calling on the Name of the Lord' is a prayer. :-) As for the two verses you cite, John 9:31 is that statement of a pharisee, not a teaching of God; while Is. 59:1-2 deals specifically with the relationship between God and Israel, and even then, this situation was not permanent. The "Sinner's Prayer" is not found as such in Scripture, but it is a compilation of many Biblical concepts. The closest parallel to it is found in Luke 18:13, ‘‘But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 ‘‘I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Here we have a clear example of someone praying a 'sinner's prayer' and Jesus saying that he went home justified. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
308 | John 5:7 ? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 183559 | ||
Greetings Seedling! To answer your question, it is important that you understand how we get the Bible that we are reading today. The Bible is a collection of books written over a long period of time by many different human authors (but only One Divine One). All of these books were written in Hebrew and Greek, with one small section of Daniel being written in Aramaic. Furthermore, not all of the manuscripts (or copies) of these original books are as accurate as others. So scholars examine the manuscripts to find the best evidence for what the text actually said when it was originally written. In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, there is a only a handful of manuscripts, none of which were copied prior to about the 10th century, that actually provide evidence for the existence of 1 John 5:7-8 in the original book of 1 John. Therefore, all modern editions of the Bible leave out these verses because there is not enough evidence to include them. Now, as to the person to whom you are trying to witness, his (or her) argument is illogical. A copyist error in a handful of manuscripts made over a thousand years after the writing of the original book does not mean that the entire New Testament is false. :-) That would be like me saying if you hand copied the declaration of independence and made a mistake in producing the copy that the original declaration of independence is unreliable. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
309 | The poisonous strew represents Jesus | 2 Kin 4:38 | Morant61 | 183274 | ||
Greetings Angelscards! It could be, but I am always hesitant to identify something in the OT as being a type of Christ if Scripture itself does not identify it as such. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
310 | Seeing God's face, no one has seen God? | John 1:18 | Morant61 | 183273 | ||
Greetings Nicky! Here is a repost of one of my old posts: ************ "Face to Face" is a figure of speech which indicates an intimate relationship. Num. 12:8 defines what the phrase "face to face" means: " With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”" However, it doesn't contradict John 1:18. No one, other than Christ, has ever seen God in all of His glory. Individuals, like Moses, have seen partial manifestations of God. But, none has ever seen God's as He really is. None could! Ex. 33:20 says, "But,” he said, ‘‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”" ********** So, while many individuals had visions of God or even some some sort of manifestation of God, no one ever had a full revelation of His true nature. However, Christ has made Him known. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
311 | gift of tongues- t/lation of 1Cor14:2 | 1 Cor 14:2 | Morant61 | 183242 | ||
Greetings Chris! In Greek, nouns can be articular or anarthrous (without a article). There is no indefinite article in Greek. So, the mere absence of a definite article does not necessarily mean that 'theos' can be translated as 'a god'. What does the context tell us? 1 Cor. 12:2 speaks of the Corinthians being carried away by dumb idols, but verse 3 contrasts the leading of the Holy Spirit with their previous situation. The phrase 'Spirit of God' in 12:3 is also anarthrous. So, clearly the context of these three chapters has to do with God's gifts. But, if someone were to get to hung up on this anarthrous issue, look at 1 Cor. 14:28 where Paul again repeats that a speaker in tongues should keep quiet and speak to God. However, this time he does use the definite article. My last observation would be that normally, when Paul speaks of 'a god' or 'gods', he includes some sort of disclaimer (like - we know there are no other gods). I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
312 | in verse 26 whose will God's or Satan's | 2 Tim 2:26 | Morant61 | 183010 | ||
Greetings Bjandy! I would concur with Mark's response. Here is a part of an older post of mine that explains why I agree with Mark. ********** I wish there was a way that we could actually type in Greek on this forum. It would make looking at questions like this easier. Either of the pronouns could refer to either Satan or God. Contextually, I think it is best to take them both as references to Satan. Here is why: The text of 2 Tim. 2:26 is referring to those who oppose Timothy in verse 25. The verse literally reads: "and they may regain their senses from the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto that one's will." (My literal translation) As I mentioned earlier, there are three ways of reading this last clause. 1) All of it refers to Satan. 2) All of it refers to God. 3) The first part refers to Satan, and the second pronoun refers to God. Option 3 doesn't make a lot of sense. The only point in it's favor is the fact that two very different pronouns are used. However, this may simply be for the sake of variety and emphasis. Option 2 would make sense, except that those who opposed Timothy haven't yet repented. Therefore, could it really be said of them that "they have been take captive" by God to do His will? Option 1 seems (in my opinion) to make the best sense. It is Paul's hope that those who oppose Timothy make come to repentance and come to their senses, for they have been taken captive to do Satan's will. Thus, option 1 makes sense: a) Contextually. b) and Grammatically, since the nearest antecedent is the Devil. I would not be dogmatic about this point, but I think option 1 fits best! ***************** For added support, here is what the Net Bible Commentary says about this question. **************** "for that one's will," referring to the devil, but with a different pronoun than in the previous phrase "by him." Some have construed "for his will" with the earlier verb and referred the pronoun to God: "come to their senses and escape the devil's trap (though they have been captured by him) in order to do His will." In Classical Greek the shift in pronouns would suggest this, but in Koine Greek this change is not significant. The more natural sense is a reference to the devil's will. ********** I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
313 | Matthew 11:17 or Luke 7:32? | Matt 11:17 | Morant61 | 182894 | ||
Greetings John! Here is the text of Matt. 11:16-19 in the NIV: *********** ‘‘To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 ”‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” ******** Basically, Mt. 11:17 and Luke 7:32 are both simply saying that the people were not satisfied with anything. They were not happy with John when he did not eat or drink, and they were not happy with Jesus when He did eat and drink. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
314 | Unitarian Universalism? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 182835 | ||
Greetings Vincent! If you are interested in a cult that believes everything except the Bible, then the Unitarian Church is the place for you! :-( Here is a quote from: http://www.gotquestions.org/ unitarian-universalism.html that gives a quick summary of their beliefs. ************* What is Unitarian Universalism? Question: "What is Unitarian Universalism?" Answer: Unitarian Universalism is a fairly small, yet widely influential, cult. Having under 300,000 registered members, mostly in the United States, they are becoming more and more popular. Relativism, tolerance, and alternative lifestyles are all buzz-words promoted by Unitarian Universalism. The Unitarian Universalist name comes from their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and their belief that all human beings gain salvation--the mere idea someone might go to hell is not compatible with the character of a loving God. Its roots go all the way back to the sixteenth-century when Unitarian beliefs became popular during the Reformation. Unitarianism thought and Universalism thought were merged together during the late eighteenth-century in America during the Age of Reason. The intellectual elite of that time refused to believe in such biblical teachings as total depravity and eternal damnation, but rather embraced the idea of a single loving God who would never cause someone to suffer. Adherents of Unitarian Universalism base their beliefs primarily upon their own experiences, and are not committed to any one religious system. They believe that each individual has the right to decide for themselves what to believe in, and that others should not infringe upon this right. As a result, one such believer might lean toward liberal Christianity, while another might lean toward New Age spirituality. There is no real dogma beyond tolerance. They reject the Bible as being the Word of God, equating it with barbaric writing that has little to do with modern man; it is a book of myths. As such, they reject the Bible's portrayal of a Triune God, leaving the concept of God up to each individual's imagination. To Unitarian Universalism, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason. Most sayings of Jesus recorded in the Bible are regarded as embellishments on the part of the authors. Jesus did not die to save mankind from sin, as man is not a fallen sinner. Emphasis is placed on humankind's capacity for goodness. Sin is completely relative, and the term itself is rarely used. Man saves himself through personal improvement, salvation being a purely worldly experience, a "waking up" to the world around oneself. This is very important, for death is final. Most Unitarian Universalists deny the existence of an afterlife, so all we have on earth is all we'll ever get. Unitarian Universalism has nothing in common with biblical Christianity. It is a false gospel; its teachings are contrary to the Bible, and its members strongly oppose traditional, biblical Christian beliefs (while purporting to be free of discrimination or prejudice of any kind). The Bible clearly refutes Unitarian Universalism on all the major points of its teachings. Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, revised and updated edition. ************ I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
315 | talking with the woman with no husband | John 4:18 | Morant61 | 182316 | ||
Greetings Sunam! John 4:18 says, "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." (NIV) The statement implies that she was in some sort of illegitimate relationship with a sixth man. It could be that she was living with him in open sin without actually being married. It could be that she had not divorced her previous husband so that her 'current' marriage was not legally valid. Either way, she was not married to the man she 'had' now. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
316 | Alexandrian texts better? | 2 Thess 2:2 | Morant61 | 182280 | ||
Greetings TP! The basic reasons for the preference that many show to the Alexandrian text are: 1) Age: These manuscripts are much older than the copies we have from the other texts types. 2) Care: These copies were generally done by trained scribes who took great care concerning accuracy. 3) Completeness: The earlies complete NT texts that we have are from the Alexandrian family. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
317 | Do the Majority of Texts have "Christ"? | 2 Thess 2:2 | Morant61 | 182278 | ||
Greetings TP! Great question my friend! Basically, textual criticism says that texts should be weighed not counted. For instance, let's use an easy hypothetical to make a point. Suppose that you and I were both copyists. You were a trained and careful copyist who produced a copy of the original NT in the 2nd century. Over the years, only 100 copies of your copy were ever made. I was not a careful copyist, and I produced a copy with many mistakes. However, I had lots of friends, so a 1,000 copies were made of my copy. Which family of copies would be more reliable, my family of a 1001 or your family of 101? This is why one cannot simply count the manuscript copies. The Majority text used the approach of simply counting the texts. However, the majority of the texts were from later dates and not as accurate (broadly speaking). So, in this case, the 'majority' reading may be quite inferior to the 'minority' reading. This seems to be the case in that the textual apparatus does not even list a variant reading for 2 Thes. 2:2. I hope this helps! p.s. - The text of the KJV is basically just the majority text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
318 | Better Greek Translation for 2 Thess.? | 2 Thess 2:2 | Morant61 | 182272 | ||
Greetings TP! I just looked up 2 Thess. 2:2 in my Greek apparatus and it does not even list a variant reading for the verse. It simply reads 'day of the Lord'. This means that the textual evidence is so overwhelming for this reading that the committee did not feel the need to even list any variant readings. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
319 | But what makes them the same creation? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 182209 | ||
Greetings Xina! Several people have already responded to your main question concerning chapters one and two. They are correct in pointing out that chapter two simply highlights the creation of man in much more detail. So, it is not correct to say that there are two accounts, but one account repeated in more detail. For instance, notice that Gen. 2:5 says that there was no man to work the ground. Concerning Gen. 1:26 you quoted: ""Also go back and read the account of Creation in Genesis. Pay particular attention to Chapter 1 vs. 26. Notice that God did not say let us create Adam, but instead said, "man". Besides this pointing to the ligical conclusion that if man needed creating, then he (man) did not yet exist; the information in the previous verses clearly do not mention man."" It is important to note that the word for 'Adam' is the word for 'man' used in Gen. 1:26. They are the same word in Hebrew. Have a great day! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
320 | Adam first man or first man in Eden? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 182144 | ||
Greetings Xina! Jeff gave you an excellent response. However, I would add a couple of points. Consider the following Scripture. 1 Cor. 15:45 says, " So it is written: ‘‘The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. " Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [83] >> |