Results 1481 - 1500 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1481 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 13446 | ||
Greetings RWC! I am still working through this very difficult passage, but let me give you a brief summary of what I think this passage is saying. I haven't settled on this interpretation yet, but I am leaning toward it. There are a couple of givens that must be considered as we look at this passage. 1) God created man and woman equal. The word used to describe Eve is an "equal power." When Adam named the animals, he found no suitable partner, so God created a partner for him. 2) Scripture constantly affirms that women are equal to men spiritually. Contrary to their culture, Christians allowed and encouraged women to take part in minsitry. There are numerous examples of this. 3) The word "quiet" here refers to a settled or peaceful spirit, not a lack of talking. 4) The word "authority" refers a "taking of power." 5) The passage mentions children, so I think it is refering to husbands and wives. I can go into more detail on these points later, but with them in mind, here is my summary statement. Many at Ephesus seemed to have fallen under the influence of some false teachers. The women in particular seemed to have been guilty of this. In fact, they may have been among the leader in promoting the false teachings. The false teachings seemed to have revolved around the role of women in the church. It may have been that the women were being taught to abandon their traditional roles altogether in order to be saved. Thus Paul's basic argument could be understood in the following way. Women are to be submissive to their leaders and their husbands, not unruly. It is not right to attempt to wrest power away from those who are legitimately exercising it. In fact, they should learn quietly from these leaders. After all, look at what happened to Eve when she got out of bounds. So instead of abandoning your role in your family, you will find salvation, as you fulfill that role. Not meaning that they are saved through it, but they are saved, while living it. This is a very rough sketch. I certainly don't have all of the answers. This passage has been an extremely difficult one throughout the history of the church. Almost every commentator you check will have a different take on it. But this seems to make sense of the context of the passage and the balance of Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1482 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Morant61 | 6978 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is nothing wrong with taking the Bible literally. The problem is that we often read things into the Bible that aren't there. Taking the Bible literally simply means to take the Bible for what it actally says, not what we think it is saying. For instance, in the current thread, the debate is over the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:2. There is nothing in the verse that says an overseer must be married. The word 'marriage or married' is never used in the passage. However, many have interpreted a phrase that basically means "faithful to his wife" as meaning marriage is a qualification for service. Notice that verse 3 says that he must not be a lover of money. Are we then to say that an overseer must have money? How about v. 4, which deals with children? Must an overseer also have children in order to lead? I agree with one of JVHO212's posts, here he made the case that the issue is not marital status, but the moral conduct of the leaders. I do appreciate the reminder to watch our tone in the debates we engage in. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1483 | Not given to wine, | 1 Tim 3:3 | Morant61 | 71833 | ||
Greetings Fair! The words 'not given to wine' are a translation of two Greek terms: 'ouk' (not) and 'paroinos'. 'Paroinos' is translated in most translations as simply 'given to wine' or 'drunken'. It is only used twice in the New Testament (1 Tim. 3:3 and Titus 1:7), so there isn't much context to help with defining the term. It is a combination of two words 'para' (near) and 'oinos' (wine). So, some would argue that this term does not refer to drunkness but to the practice of being near places where wine is served. For instance, I found the following quote on the internet: ************************* Albert Barnes, a respected New Testament commentator, explains the meaning of paroinos, saying: "The Greek word (paroinos) . . . means, properly, by wine; that is, spoken of what takes place by or over wine, as revelry, drinking-songs, etc. Then it denotes, as it does here, one who sits by wine; that is, who is in the habit of drinking it. . . . It means that one who is in the habit of drinking wine, or who is accustomed to sit with those who indulge in it, should not be admitted to the ministry. The way in which the apostle mentions the subject here would lead us fairly to suppose that he did not mean to commend its use in any sense; that he regarded it as dangerous and that he would wish the ministers of religion to avoid it altogether."56 The meaning of paroinos as "near wine," that is, near a drinking place, is supported by ancient and modern Greek lexicons. The Lexicon Graeci Testamenti Alphabeticum, published in 1660, defines paroinos in Greek and Latin as "para to oino, apud vinum," which may be translated "near or in the presence of wine."57 Liddell and Scott define the related word paroinios as "befitting a drinking party."58 ********************** Source: http://www.northwood.edu/"tilde"grover/sb-alc.txt Note: Replace the "tilde" in the above address with the actual symbol for the tilde. I would tend to believe that this term does mean something like the above, but I really don't have the resources to check into it more fully. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1484 | Women as Deaconness, can they? | 1 Tim 3:11 | Morant61 | 129561 | ||
Greetings Charles! Without getting into the whole woman in ministry debate, we know from Rom. 16:1 that a woman can be a deaconess because Phoebe is called a deaconess in Scripture. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1485 | How old were Timothy and Titus? | 1 Tim 4:12 | Morant61 | 122315 | ||
Greetings Dlcsharp! Scripture does not actually give an age for these two men, but there are a couple of clues concerning Timothy. 1 Tim. 4:12 says, "Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." And, Timothy is warned in 2 Tim. 2:22: "Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." The word for 'youth' here indicates the passions of an adolescent. So, I would say that Timothy was quite young. I know of no Scripture which gives a clue to Titus's age. Though, my general impression is that he was probably older than Timothy. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1486 | Choose according to preference? | 2 Tim 1:12 | Morant61 | 165826 | ||
... | ||||||
1487 | A proper approach to studying scripture? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 9019 | ||
Greetings Zyph! I think you have hit the nail right on the head! In my exprience, the biggest problem facing people when they try to interpret a verse is a lack of context. We live in a society of instant everything, so we don't want to take the time to dig into the passage and find what the author was saying. So, when we examine a verse, we should first start with the context of the book or letter. Read the entire book - in one sitting if possible (I recommend a total of at least three readings to my students)! Outline the flow of thought! Then examine how the passage in question fits into the larger context of the book or letter. Once that is done, compare the passage with the even larger context of the entire Bible. This doesn't necessarily mean that no one will ever again disagree on how a verse or passage should be interpreted, but at least we will have made an attempt "to rightly divide the Word of Truth!" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1488 | Is Bible study important? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 109216 | ||
Greetings Hank! Excellent question my friend! This question could only be adequately addressed with a book, but here is my short answer. Peter made it clear that the content of our faith is truth, not fables. He said: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." - 2 Peter 1:16. As we have seen on this forum so many times, almost any thought or idea is too often placed on the same level as Scripture. However, Peter said of Scripture: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:20-21. The words of Scripture are not just fairy tales made up to entertain us. Rather, they are the direct self-expression of God. What does that mean for us? Here is what Paul said of Scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim. 3:16-17. So, if we want to be 'thoroughly equipped' in this life, our training must come from God's Word, not just human opinion. What use is Scripture? Paul answered this question with a very simple chaistic structure in 2 Tim. 3:16. It is useful for: 1a) Teaching (the teaching of doctrine) 1b) Rebuking (the correcting of false doctrine) 2b) Correcting (the correction of life styles) 2a) Training (the teaching of life styles). So, anything we need to know about how to live or what to believe is found in Scripture. This is why Paul said in 2 Tim. 2:15: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" Since Scripture is God-breathed, and contains all that we need for faith and practice, how can we do anything but spend the time necessary to 'rightly divide' it? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1489 | Peace...? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 121834 | ||
Greetings Zsuzsi! As someone who has been both called and ordained, I would like to address this issue. Ordaination is never mentioned, nor commanded in Scripture. What is mentioned; however, is the concept of one's call being recognized and authenticated by the Church. 1 Timothy 4:14 seems to refer to such an event concerning Timothy, when the elders layed hands upon him. Acts 6:6 refers to the calling of the seven to minister to the widows in the Church, and again the leadership laid hands upon them. Acts 13:1-3 mentions the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas by the Church elders under the direction of the Holy Spirit. What I am trying to say? Simply this: One's call comes from God, but 'ordaination' is the Church's recognition and authentication of one's call. So, an individual really can't 'ordain' someone. Only a body of believers can ordain someone. In the context of the orginal post of this thread, ourfathersheart's local church could offically recognize the call of these young people and commission them for ministry, but it would not really be appropriate for ourfathersheart to do it by himself. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1490 | agreed? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 160172 | ||
Greetings Jimmy! Not agreed my friend! You have added words to the Scripture that are not there in the first place. The context of the passage is quite clear. Jesus is speaking to His disciples (there were no muslims then). He says that they will be driven out of the synagogue, which they were in the first century. He also says that they would be killed, which all of them but one were. To add the thought that this passage is speaking of Muslims is the worst kind of eisgesis. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1491 | Greek word | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 169945 | ||
Greetings Dolly! Here is what Strongs says about this word: 1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways 1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right 2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly It was the word that would hae been used of a tent maker who correctly cut the material for the tent. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1492 | Is the Holy Spirit ever feminine gender? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 210277 | ||
Greetings SSC! Allow me to repost a section from an older post dealing with this topic. ************ The 'gender' of nouns is more a function of form than anything else. What do I mean by this? Nouns must have a form connected with them, thus some nouns are masculine, some nouns are feminine, while others are neuter. In some cases, the reason for the gender is obvious. For instance, 'man' is masculine, while 'woman' is feminine. :) In other cases, though, the reason is not apparent. 'Spirit' is neuter in form. Thus, grammatically, all of the articles and pronouns which have it as their antecedent must also be neuter in form. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is not a person. It simply means that the form of the word is neuter. Interestingly, since the form of the word is neuter, grammatical rules require that all of the pronouns that refer to 'spirit' must also be neuter in form. However, in many instances, the pronouns are not neuter, but masculine. Two of the examples you used in your post incorrectly identified the pronoun as neuter when they were in fact masculine in form. The two examples are: John 14:26, and John 16:13-14. In both of these passages, 'ekeinos' is in the masculine form. Why would Scripture break the 'rule' in these cases? I believe it is because the Scripture writers were hesitant to use the neuter form for the Holy Spirit, Whom they certainly viewed as a person and not a thing! p.s. - I wanted to note that my other example (Eph. 1:14) has some textual variants involved, but John 16:13-14 do not. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran *************** There is a move among some to attempt to make the Holy Spirit the feminine part of God. The argument is mostly based on the fact that the Hebrew word for 'spirit' is feminine. However, as I noted in the above repost, gender is more a function of form than anything else. Just because a word is 'feminine' in Hebrew does not make the Holy Spirit a woman. :-) I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1493 | Did Lucifewr have a brother? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 224284 | ||
Greetings Sharry! If memory serves, the Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. But, as Brad has already pointed out, there is no Scripture to support this notion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1494 | Is the Greek Interlinear correct? | 2 Tim 2:26 | Morant61 | 32000 | ||
Greetings Aquila! 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! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1495 | 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 |
||||||
1496 | Why is "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 in | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 8055 | ||
Greetings Bud! This thread is a little old, but I just came across your question. I cannot shed any light on why the Amplified Bible changed their format, but I can shed a little light on the Greek text of this verse. There is no "is" in the verse. 2 Tim. 3:16 literally reads: "All scripture God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," It is not uncommon situation in Greek to find no verb in a sentence. In those cases, the translator must decide what verb should be supplied and where. In this case, it is clear (in my opinion) that the verse should read "All Scripture is...." The reason is simple. 'God breathed' and 'profitable' are both adjectives that describe 'scripture.' To add the 'is' after 'God breathed' would be very ackward. I hope this helps. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1497 | Spirit teaches, but are we good students | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 32244 | ||
Joe! I'm surprised at you! Obviously the one with which we agree is being led by the Spirit! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1498 | What does inspiration mean? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 94212 | ||
Greetings Charis72! Allow me to respond to your question with an older post. ************************************** I think that the issue which began this thread really was the issue of how does inspiration work. How and in what manner is the Bible the Word of God? The theologian Milliard Erickson defines inspiration in this way: "By inspiration of the Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God." It is this influence of the Holy Spirit that makes Scripture more than just a history book. This is where I differ with many modern theologians. We have tried to dig so much into the human side of Scripture (motives, structure, culture) that we have neglected the Divine side of Scripture. My understanding of the inspiration can be summed up under the following terms. 1) Inspiration is Verbal: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends even to the words chosen. The writers didn't always even understand what they were writing. They didn't always have all the facts, but the Holy Spirit gave them the words. 2) Inspiration is Plenary: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends not only to the words, but it covers all of Scripture. There are some who believe that the parts of Scripture that deal with spiritual issues are "God's Word," but everything else is simply human. I reject this view. Everything in the Bible is there because God willed it. 3) Inspiration is Confluent: Having said all of the above though, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit simply dictated the Bible to the authors. Rather, God worked through them in such a way that their personalities, style, ect... shine through. This view is consistent with 2 Tim. 3:16. 2 Tim. 3:16 makes it clear that Scripture has God as it's ultimate source, in that it is literally "God-breathed." I have said all of this that I might apply it to your question. Scripture was never presented to it's readers or hearers as just another biography, history, or sermon. It was always presented as "Thus saith the Lord." Therefore, I think we err if we assume that each detail in Scripture must have had a human source of information. There is much in Scripture that is recounted by eye-witnesses, but there is also much (Like Revelation or all Prophecy) that comes directly from the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1499 | Clarification | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 94450 | ||
Greetings Charis72! To me, the answer is found in the word 'confluent', which simply means that Scripture is in a real sense the product of two wills (God's and the human writers). In dictation, God would simply dictate the words and the human writers style, personality, vocabulary would be invisible. In a confluent theory of inspiration, every 'word' is inspired by God, but God also allows the 'human' author's personality, style, and vocabulary to shine through. Though I would not begin to compare preaching and Scripture, I have seen a similar effect while preaching. The Holy Spirit will bring something to my mind that I wasn't even planning on saying, but when it comes out of my mouth, it always comes out in my style, not someone else's. :-) So, this theory differs from dictation in that two wills are involved, not just one. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1500 | How many words/verse are in the Esther? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 131003 | ||
Greetings Ejblessed! I don't have the ability (without manually counting them)to determine how many words are in Esther. However, there are 167 verses in Esther. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ] Next > Last [83] >> |