Results 181 - 200 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | satan sent to hell | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 148289 | ||
Greetings Carolkalt! The short answer to your question is nowhere! :-) The common view of Satan ruling hell is a myth. Scripture does not teach that Satan is currently in hell, nor do the terms 'hell' and 'Satan' ever appear together. What Scripture does say is that there is an eternal fire prepared the Devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). And, Rev. 20:10 does record the future and final fate of the Devil. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
182 | Tim - Is Theos singular (Rom 8:28)? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 148607 | ||
Greetings Searcher! Singular! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
183 | Popes predicted since 1143AD | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 148632 | ||
Greetings Regguh! So correct? You are joking right? The 'prophecies' listed in this writting are so vague that they could mean anything, which it how they are applied! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
184 | FigureNUDES -n- Bible verses that apply? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 149674 | ||
Greetings Curtis! This really isn't an appropriate topic for this forum. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
185 | How many times is love in the bible. | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 150147 | ||
Greetings Jacquie! The word 'love' occurs 551 times in 505 verses in the NIV. All forms of the word 'love' (loves, loved, ect...) occur 787 times in 687 verses in the NIV. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
186 | Will you accept this challenge?? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 150944 | ||
Greetings AO! May I throw in a couple of quick points? 1) You picked an easy verse in John 3:16. I would not expect any great difference in translation with this verse. The real trick comes when one has a verse that has 'implied' verbs and clauses. ;-) 2) There really isn't a 'shall' and 'should' in Greek. But, I would agree with you that John 3:16 would be better translated as 'should not perish'. However, the context of the verse makes it quite clear that 'believing' is a prerequisite. 3) Since God's Word was written in Hebrew and Greek, would not one who studies these languages and the Word of God in these languages be learning more about God's wisdom? ;-) 4) I concur with Hank's assessement though. You would not believe the number of times that someone who did not know these languages and simply looked something up in Strong's then proceeded to tell us how all of the scholars got it wrong. ;-) 5) The Living Bible is not a translation. It is a paraphrase. 6) Finally, I would agree that we all should challenge everything that we read and are taught. However, if we are going to challenge the work of scholars, it had better be based upon more than just our opinion. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
187 | Can I purchase this forum program? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 153068 | ||
Greetings Serynn! There is a free bible program called 'E-sword' that allows you to write your own personal notes for verses. Plus, it has a lot of free resource materials. Look up 'e-sword download' in your search engine to find the site. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
188 | Should we take the bible literally? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 154870 | ||
Greetings Diomede! First of all, can you supply us with an example of an issue where the NT says one thing but means something else for today? Secondly, most people misunderstand what taking the Bible 'literally' literally means! :-) Taking the Bible literally simply means to take it in the way it was intended. If a passage is narrative, take it as a narrative. If a passage is a poem, take it as poetry. If a passage is a joke, take it as a joke. :-) So, the broad answer to your question is that all of the Bible should be taken literally. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
189 | THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155176 | ||
Greetings Obi1! You wrote: "You contradict yourself; A church is a building ! baptists, methodists, pentecostals, catholics and protestants etc,etc, all have names, or ?" Actually, the church meets in a building, but the building is not the church! :-) Acts 8:3 says, " But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison." How did Saul destroy the church? Did he burn down buildings? No! He drug off men and women. :-) Acts 12:5 says, "So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him." Did buildings pray or did people pray? Acts 14:27 - "On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles." Did Paul gather building together or people? In Romans 16:5a, Paul commands, "Greet also the church that meets at their house..." Were they to greet a building? Did the building meet at their house? There are more, but these should be sufficient to prove that the building is not the church, the people who belong to the Lord are the Church. And, there is only ONE CHURCH, no matter how many building it may gather it. :-) p.s. - Someone else asked you if you were a Mormon and you never responded. Would you please answer the question? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
190 | Persicution | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155254 | ||
Greetings Obi1! You need to keep searching then my friend! :-( The book of Mormon is nothing more than a plagerized copy of a novel that Joseph Smith stole from someone else. Talk about doctrines of men! Secondly, Mt. 16:15-20 never once uses the word 'restoration'. Finally, what evidence do you have that the Bible is incomplete? What evidence do you have that the Bible has been changed to suite the doctrines of men? What are the keys? Verse 19 makes it clear that the keys are the authority that Christ is giving to the church (the people, not the buidlings). :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
191 | BIBLE (mens ) FAULTS | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155257 | ||
Greetings Obi1! First of all, 'Lead us not into tempation' is what Jesus said. If you don't like it, you will have to argue with Him about it. :-) Secondly, how do you know that 1 and 2 John were written after Revelation? Even if this were true, the order of the books of the Bible is not chronlogical. So, what does it matter that Revelation comes after 1 and 2 John? Finally, where is there a limit placed upon the number of times that the Bible can be translated? :-) A translation is simply taking the words of the orginal source document and putting them into the receptor language. So, a translation might take the Greek NT and translate it into English, Latin, or German. This would involve three seperate translations, but it does not change the text of the original document. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
192 | A Pastor wants paid for going and coming | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155364 | ||
Greetings Grace! The Bible doesn't deal with travel expense reports! :-) The question is whether or not the church agreed to pay the pastor's travel expenses. If it is part of his 'contract', the church is obligated to pay it. It it is not part of his contract, the pastor can claim the mileage for a deduction on his taxes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
193 | canonized | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155365 | ||
Greetings Obi 1! Why would you have a problem with the early church creeds when they were accepted relatively quickly after the time of Christ? You don't seem to have any problem with the teachings of Mormonism, yet they were produced thousands of years after the time of Christ. p.s. - You did not include a Scripture reference for your question. About which verse or verses are you inquiring? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
194 | PERSECUTION | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 155393 | ||
Greetings Ob1! Questioning your beliefs is persecution, but your questioning our beliefs is not? :-( I pray that you will find a relationship with the real Jesus Christ, not the fake version promoted by the Mormons my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
195 | Why did temple exist for 40 more years | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 156280 | ||
Greetings Igo! The short is that the Jewish people in general did not accept Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, His death was meaningless to them in terms of the temple. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
196 | ... | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4071 | ||
In Luke 22:31, Jesus says that "Satan has asked to sift you as wheat (NIV).) The 'you' in this verse is the 2nd person, accusative, plural pronoun. Therefore, Jesus in saying that Satan has asked to sift all of the Disciples. But, in verse 32, Jesus says, "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail (NIV)." In this instance, the pronoun is the 2nd person, genative, singular pronoun. Thus, verse 32 refers only to Peter. In both cases, the pronoun is the same expect for case and number. I hope this helps. Tim Moran |
||||||
197 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4149 | ||
Greetings! I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, so I might be repeating old material. If I might make an observation, I believe that you are taking the Bible literally only when you understand the original context and then apply it appropritately. Given the original context, the exact historical situation might not be be same, but the underlying principle in the text may still apply. For instance, In 1 Cor. 8, Paul addresses the issue of eating meat offered to idols. This is not a problem that we face today, however the principle of 1 Cor. 8:9 (not using your freedom is such a way that a brother is made to stumble) does apply. Thus, while not every historical situation may apply to today, the Biblical principles certainly do. Tim Moran |
||||||
198 | JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4747 | ||
Greetings RevC: I have been following your dialogue about the Oneness belief. Most everything you say about Jesus, a trinitarian would accept as well. The only point of contention is whether or not there are three distince Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Godhead (the Trinity) or whether these three terms all refer to one Person (Jesus Only). With this in mind, I would like to address question # 4 in your list. Look at Luke 22:42! Jesus is in the garden preparing to face His death. As the incarnate Son, He prays to His Father, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." My answer to your question # 4 is that the three terms definitetly refer to three distint Persons, not simply three offices or modes. In this prayer, Jesus is praying to someone else - His Father. He asks for one thing (the cup to be taken from Him), but yields to the will of His Father instead. If there are not three Persons in the Godhead, how do you explain this verse? Was Jesus praying to Himself? If there are not three Persons in the Godhead, how could Jesus yield to someone else's will? He clearly states His will, but chooses to comply with His Father's will instead. The simplest and most logical explanation of this verse is an interaction between two members of the Godhead, each unique and distinct from the other. I look forward to your reply! Tim Moran |
||||||
199 | Do We Worship On Our Knees Only? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4857 | ||
Greetings, Could you provide some specifics for your question? Broad questions are difficult to discuss. For instance, what words for worship did you study? What translations are in error? What teachings have you heard that were in error? This sounds like an interesting topic! Tim Moran |
||||||
200 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4909 | ||
Greetings, I just came across your question. I am an Arminian, so let me take a shot at answering your question. Calvanists and Arminians disagree on several crucial points. One of those areas of disagreement concerns the extent of the atonement. Calvinists believe that on the cross Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only. Hence, the term 'limited atonement.' Arminians believe that on the cross Christ potentially atoned for the sins of the entire world. Hence, the term 'unlimited atonement.' This does not mean, however, that Arminians believe that everyone will be saved. The atonement at the cross is for everyone, but effective only for those who respond to God's grace in faith. Thus, God's foreknowledge of who will be saved does not limit the atonement. The 'unlimited' part of the phrase refers to those for whom the atonement is available, not to the actual number of the atoned. I hope this helps! Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [83] >> |