Results 221 - 240 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Question about the Bible! | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 12442 | ||
Just clearing the fluff away! |
||||||
222 | Psalm 111:9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13293 | ||
Greetings Johnny! As a pastor myself, I would love to be called "Most Awesome Pastor!" :-) Allow me to briefly address two of your points! 1) Calling Priests Father: I understand where you are coming from, but I just don't see this as a major issue. Many of these titles were meant to show respect and have different connotations now then when they were originated. I personally would avoid the use of "Father" for clergy, but I have no problem with my son or daughters calling me father. 2) The KJV Translation: The KJV was and is a beautiful translation. However, it was translated in the same way as every other translation. You said of the KJV that "this translation is translate word by word from the original scripture according to what is written and not according to the understanding of the translator of the Bible." This simply is not possible. Translation, by definition, is the process of changing a text from one language to another. In that process, it is not possible to go word for word. There are translations, like the KJV, which make a valiant effort to do so, but even they have to add words, change word orders, ect... to make the meaning understandable in English. For instance, a literal word for word translation of John 1:1 would be: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word." Notice how the KJV translates this verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Notice that they have added a "the" before beginning. They have removed the "the" before the first occurance of "God." And, they have changed the word order of the last phrase. They were entirely justified in doing this. I am not saying they were wrong. I am simply trying to illustrate that there is no such thing as a exact word for word translation of the Bible. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
223 | can all churches worship together as one | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13526 | ||
Greetings Vanaau! I don't believe this any such Scripture my friend! The Bible constantly commands us to be united in Christ, but I have never seen any Scripture that says we should not unite with other brothers and sisters in Christ. As long as they are Christians, we are united in the Blood of Christ, even if we don't share exactly the same view on every issue. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
224 | was wine fermented | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13564 | ||
Greetings Bigdaddy! If you do a word search on "Wine" using the search tool, you will find a recent thread that deals with this issue in quite a bit of detail. Several different viewpoints are dealt with in and explained from Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
225 | Question for you Both? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13565 | ||
Greetings Bro. Tom! The reason people are upset with your posts is that you are denying an essential truth of Scripture, that Jesus is God incarnate. You said at the end of your last post, "Show me where in the scripture where it says Jesus was GOD and I'll stop speaking like this." Okay, here goes. Read Titus 2:13 "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (NIV) Notice what the verse says! Jesus is both our God and Savior. If you need any more, re-read Nolan's post. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
226 | WOULD I BE SINNING TO DIVOCE MY HUBBY AA | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13567 | ||
Greetings! It sounds like you are in a difficult situation. However, divorce is not the answer. Scripture is very clear about God's attitude toward divorce. Mal. 2:16 says, " ‘‘I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, ‘‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." I would recommend you go to your local pastor and tell him what is going on in your life. If you don't have a local pastor, find one. He will be able to advice you about your circumstances, pray with and for you, and point you to some groups who might be able to help you. Those on the forum will also be keeping you in prayer. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
227 | How can Christ return be imminent? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 14620 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! The word "imminent" is never used in Scripture in connection with the return of Christ. The word is used by believers to stress that Christ could return at any moment. However, it may not be the best word to use. In it's favor, there are many Scriptures which stress that we do not know when Christ will return. Against it, there are many Scriptures which refer to things that must occur before Christ can return (though we must be cautious simply because our interpretation may be wrong). Milliard Erickson (a well known theologian) recommends that we speak of the whole complex of events surrounding the second coming of Christ as being 'imminent', but the second coming itself as 'impending'. Great question! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
228 | Prewrath position? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 14842 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Yes, I hold to the pre-Wrath rapture of the Church! I assume you are refering to my quote to Nolan. My point there was simply that no matter when the rapture occurs, we need to be ready. The "best" case would be if Christ raptured the Church before any of the events of Daniel's 70th week. The "worst" case would be if Christ did not rapture the Church until the close of Daniel's 70th week. Either way, we need to be ready. Now, having said that, I personally believe that Daniel's 70th week is divided into two 3 1/2 year segments. The first will be a time of trouble for Israel. The second will be a time of wrath for the world. This view would mean that Christians will indeed face intense persecution during the first 3 1/2 years, but will not face God's wrath during the last 3 1/2 years. I hope this answers your question! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
229 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15106 | ||
Greetings EdB! I see one small problem with your example. Like you, I tend to see the passage in terms of repentance. However, the passage never says that he repented. He could simply be resigned to going back and working for his father rather than starving to death, without realizing that he was wrong to begin with. My point is this: Both views are making an assumption based upon the evidence, since the text does not spell out the situation. So, I'm not sure we can say that seeing a reference to "repentance" is taking the passage at face-value, while seeing a reference to "rebellion" is adding to the passage. To answer your main question: I think that we misuse the term "literal". To read the Bible literally simply means to read it in the way it was intended. If it is a parable, we interpret it as a parable. If it is a narrative, we interpret it as a narrative. So I would say all of Scripture should be taken literally, if by literally we mean that we should read it in the way it was intended to be read. If we mean that we should read every verse as a statement of fact, then I would say we should not read all of the Bible literally. p.s. - Concerning Luke 15, I do see the passage in the same way as you! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
230 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15107 | ||
Hi EdB! I forgot to answer you last set of questions. What about bringing in outside knowledge? Let us start with the easiest example. The NT is made up of Greek words. Some of those words are only used once in all of the Bible. Suppose that we have no idea what that word means and the context does not tell us! Where do we go to find out what that word means? Obviously, we will have to search out other Greek writtings to see if we can determine what that word means. We constantly refer to outside sources of history, definitions, grammar, ect... My opinion on the subject is this: 1) The Bible should always be primary. If a word is defined in Scripture in a way that differs from traditional usage, we should use Scripture's defintion. If a culture view is described in Scripture that differs from the "experts" understanding, we should abide by what Scripture says. 2) Outside knowledge should have "authority" only when Scripture is silent or unclear. For instance, a word that is only used once in Scripture may need to be defined from other sources in connection with Scripture. 3) Outside knowledge can be used to illustrate what Scripture says. For instance, Paul calls the Law a tutor in Galatians. That word was used in Greek to describe a person who was given the responsiblity to make sure a young charge made it to class and did his homework. It would be appropriate to dig into history and find out more about such tutors to fill out our understanding of what Paul meant. 4) At no time, should outside knowledge override clear Biblical teaching. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
231 | May I share a simple story to help? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15129 | ||
Greetings Sir! The problem is that the Bible is written in a language, with words that have meanings and rules of grammar that must be followed. What one person might say is explaining away a passage, another might say is interpreting it correctly. It is easier to use specific examples than to speak in general. However, I am all in favor of taking the Bible in the way that it was intended. However, to do that, one must know what a word means. One must know the subject of the sentence. One must know the object of the sentence. These are the kinds of things I was referring to in my last post. If you have a specific passage in mind, maybe we could discuss it? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
232 | When did God's inspiration stop? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15372 | ||
Greetings Sir! I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your overall thrust. I too believe that God has providentially provided oversight to the text of the Bible. However, the devil is in the details because inspiration itself seems to only apply to the original autographs. We know that there are copies which contain mistakes. We know that some translations err. Thus, my point throughout this discussion has simply been that the original autographs in their original language were the inspired Word of God. What we have are translations of them. Granted, God has protected His Word. Granted, the translations are for the most part excellent. But, they are still translations and thus one step removed from the original. Thus, I would not want to apply the same sort of "inspiration" to the translations and copies as I would apply to the originals. By the way, this is a great discussion for Christians. Most people never even consider how we get our Bibles. I can remember when people thought that the KJV was the version which Paul used! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
233 | How do I study the bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15387 | ||
Greetings Mazon51! My church's web site has a One Year Bible Reading plan on it. That is how I would start to study, simply by reading through the Bible itself. If you would like to use it, go to: http://www.eccnazarene.org and simply select the One Year Bible Reading Plan from the Helps Menu at the top of the page. This page will update everyday to give up the current reading, and it also provides you with an interface to the Bible Gateway so that you can look up the passages from the same page. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
234 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15409 | ||
Greetings Sir! Personally, I would hold more to your second option. The author of each book or letter was inspired as he wrote each book or letter. There is one big problem with the third option, though I would prefer it before the first option! :-) How do you explain the mistakes in the copies? How do you explain the differences in the translations? Which translations are inspired and which ones are not? Is the NWT inspired? With option number two, it is easy to answer these questions. The originals were without error. The small mistakes that do exist came about from flawed copies. The translators make mistakes sometimes because of incomplete knowledge or theological bias. Now, if you are strickly talking about the message of the Bible, it is just as authoritative today as it was when it was written, but I would not say that the translations themselves are inspired. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
235 | Where does one start who has never reall | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15465 | ||
Greetings Nomad! If you have never even read the Bible, I would recommend staring in one of the Gospels. If you have read some, I would recommend starting a One Year Bible Reading Plan so that you can expose yourself to the entire Bible. You can find one online at http://www.eccnazarene.org. Simply select OUR HELPS on the menu bar at the top of the page and the select ONE YEAR BIBLE READING PLAN. This page will update each day with the new reading for that day and you can even read the verses online. The key is to read and pray. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
236 | Are Sovereignty and Free Will Exclusive? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15522 | ||
Greetings Bill Mc! Well said! The only point I would add to is that I don't think that God has to set aside His sovereignty in order for us to have free will. Here's why! Nowhere in Scripture is sovereignty defined as "making every choice" or "being responsible for every thing". He is Lord. What He says ultimately goes, but we can also exercise choice in our limited sense. If I freely choose a Big Mac over a cheeseburger, God dosen't suddenly stop being God. But, I am also aware that our "free will" is very limited. There are a lot of things over which we have no choice at all, other than how we respond to them. Overall, I think you are right on! If you want an excellent book that views things the way you do, check out A. W. Tozer's, "The Pursuit of God". It is one of the best explanations of God's sovereignty I have ever read. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
237 | What is 'being saved' here? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15533 | ||
Greetings Bill Mc! I'm not sure! One point that I might use against my exegesis is that "saved" is in v. 2 is actually a present, passive, verb. So, a better translation would be, "you are being saved". What then is the significance of the the present tense in this verse? I have heard some say that this could be a reference to santification rather than salvation. The only problem is that I don't know of any passages where "saved" is used in that way. Another possible "out" would be to question what "belived in vain" means. Does that mean lost or something else? However, from my point of view, the simplest explanation is what it appears to be saying. This would fit well with John 15, where abiding is the issue. Thanks for the thoughts! (Whooper! Groan) :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
238 | Is inter-racial marriage wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15539 | ||
Greetings Nesi! Just a couple of points concerning your question! 1) There is no Scripture that says interracial marriage is morally wrong. Many refer to the commands given to the Israelites about not marrying other nations, but the issue here was religious not moral. 2) Robins and Blue Jays are different species. Human beings are all the same species regardless of color. 3) There are countless examples of interracial marriages in Scripture, and not one of them is ever condemned. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
239 | What do you think of 1 Cor 1:18? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15552 | ||
Greetings Bill! I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I did a quick look at how Paul uses the word "save" throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians, but there doesn't seem to be any specific pattern. Sometimes he uses aorist (past tense), sometimes he uses future, and sometimes he uses present. Personally, I view salvation is a similar way to you. It includes regeneration (past), santification (present), and glorification (future). So, Paul may simply use different tenses depending upon how he is looking at salvation. In 1 Cor. 1:18 and 15:2, it may simply be that since we are living, we are being saved. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
240 | Does a rose always smell as sweet? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15558 | ||
Greetings Bill! Great observation! I really thought someone would bring this up sooner. :-) Most scholars are convinced that in some cases "ei" can mean "since". I am not totally convinced. Even if it can, I think it has been overused. Personally, I have yet to see one verse where "if" would not make perfect sense. Now, before someone blasts me for claiming to know more than the experts, consider one example: In Matt. 12:27, Jesus says, "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." Here, the word "if" cannot possibly mean "since". This not prove that "ei" can never mean "since", but it does demonstrate that it definitely does mean "if" some of the time. When you get right down to it, the main function of "ei" is to introduce a conditional statement. The translation "since" simply comes about because at times (in a hypothetical statement) the condition is assummed to be true. Yet, it is still a conditional statement. Let's consider each passage briefly: 1) 1 Cor. 15:1-2: "Since" would not be the most natural reading, but it would fit. The only problem would be that verse 2 would then indicate that it would be possible to believe in vain. Is that the point that Paul was really trying to make here? 2) Col. 1:21-23: "Since" could fit here, but would make v. 23 almost meaningless. Why stress a given? 3) 1 Pet. 1:10-11: The word "if" is not actually in the Greek text in this passage. Verse 10 literally says, "doing these things, you will never fall...". The verb is a present, active, participle. So the question would be, what if you don't do these things? Is it possible not to do these thing? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [83] >> |