Results 321 - 340 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241110 | ||
Sharsmit, Absolutely. Israel is a masculine noun, so it is grammatically necessary for it to be a masculine pronoun. Anytime you see Israel referred to in a feminine sense is purely for poetical reasons when she is meant to be portrayed as God's bride or something along that nature. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
322 | What end results come from Prov. 6:31? | Prov 6:31 | Beja | 224340 | ||
biblenovice, Why are you asking this question again when it has already spent a thread on it? Nevertheless I will answer. You are horribly missreading this passage. This is not a passage that promises that a man who steals will always unfailingly pay back what he owes. For you to interpret it like that is a very huge mistake. Let me help you see what the passage is truely saying. First, verses 20-35 is one complete passage addressing the subject of adultery. Read this as a full complete arguement. Verses 20 through 24 brings up and introduces what is being discussed. Verses 25 and 26 are instructions to avoid an adulteress. Verse 27 through 29 is the writer expressing that one who sleeps with the adultress will not be able to avoid punishment. Now in that context we finally come to verses 30 and 31. Here the writer is trying to make a point. His arguement goes like this: When we look at the law even when we see a poor person who though he has no malice, whom through his poverty he must finally choose to either starve or steal to survive, even such a person as this when he is found out must according to the law restore sevenfold. He is talking about the legal punishment, not a prophetic promise that it will come about! So he goes from this, that even somebody we can so very much sympathize with such as a starving man trying to feed his family must pay the consequences, how much more so will the fool who sleeps with another man's wife? And that is what we see in verses 32-35. It says the husband who was wronged will not stop from having his vengeance. So the point of this passage is NOT to say that you will one day get your money back. The point is that if a theif forced into crime from starvation will be punished, how much more an adulter who wrongs another man by sleeping with his wife! Something that there can never be a sympathetic reason for doing. So in conclusion, you are missreading scripture. Scripture does not promise you that you will be getting your money back. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
323 | Wasn't yesterday better than today? | Eccl 7:10 | Beja | 232791 | ||
Doc, I recently heard a preacher say that all are equally dead, but we'll grant that the corpses may have different stages of decay. I rather liked that analogy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
324 | Isaiah 2:6-22 | Is 2:1 | Beja | 224712 | ||
katiesmile, Katie, this question has been asked very many times in the last couple weeks. Using the search feature will allow you to see the responses that have been given. However, I think you'd find it even simpler to read the verses in question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
325 | Bible Referencing Divine Knowledge | Is 14:1 | Beja | 229833 | ||
themerv019, Isaiah 14 might be worth looking at. However, for what my meager opinion is worth, I think you are going backwards. You are beginning with a conclusion and looking for things to support it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
326 | Bible Referencing Divine Knowledge | Is 14:1 | Beja | 229837 | ||
Themerv, I have had some further thoughts that might help your paper, two passages and a suggestion that might lend a layer of power and purpose to your paper. Here is passage that would be a wonderful example of what you are trying to show. 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 gives instance of Paul receiving a vision of things that he describes as not lawful to utter. Further, he is given a "thorn in the flesh" to humble him in light of having seen such things. Now as far as the thesis of your paper, I have had quite a bit of practice in what makes for a strong paper and I have had too much practice in writing weak papers. A weak paper will only observe something. A strong paper will make an assertion. An outstanding paper will make an assertion that matters. Here is how I would advise you to focus the paper. Use this verse to drive it... Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." I reccomend that you continue the corse of showing the restricted nature of certain divine knowledge, but go beyond that. Study and show not just half the equation, but show where scripture actually takes that. Show not just what scripture says not to do, how scripture teaches us not to pry into the hidden, but show how we ARE to diligently persue the revealed will of God. If you go that course now your paper has gone from just showing something and then saying "well...hope this was relevant in some way" to having your paper show "here is what scripture strongly pushes us away from, but here is what knowledge we are commanded to persue." Your paper will go to being something that is relevant for life, edifying for the church, compelling in nature and yet you still get to pursue your intended subject. In addition to all this you will be able to find many good scholarly references both recent and ancient if you search the subjects of "God's hidden and revealed will." Many great minds have discussed this topic, and interacting with and quoting great thinkers strengthens a paper. May God bless you as you persue these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
327 | What happens to Is. when Jesus returns? | Is 49:5 | Beja | 226586 | ||
Ijw-mo, The answer is here in this passage. 2Thess 1:6-10 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
328 | Isaiah 53 Who are they reffering to? | Is 53:5 | Beja | 224534 | ||
Greetings Eascusa, I can show you clearly that Isaiah 53 refers to Christ. From Christ Himself saying so. He quotes Isaiah 53:12 here. Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfilment." What more can we say? Christ Himself affirmed it! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
329 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224384 | ||
findrichard, You are trying very hard to start an arguement on the forums over this. I ask you again, please don't come here trying to start a debate on your pet issue. That is not what the forums are for but rather for sincere inquiries and study, not a place to come argue and evangelize for your sabbatarian views. Part of the terms of use which you agreed to is that you agree to not push your denominational views that cause strife. In fact, let me copy and paiste some for you. "Pushing ones own personal and denominational views Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary." The insistence of meeting on saturday rather than sunday is exactly this type of thing, and you have been plainly asked by your peer to cease. Please respect our host enough to follow their wishes. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
330 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224421 | ||
findrichard, I intend this post in kindness in hopes that we can perhaps reverse the effects of our initial disagreements in hopes for a happy long stay at these forums resulting in mutual edification. I hope you take the post as such. I want you to know that we here at these forums are not hostile towards differing opinions. If somebody were to come on these forums and to say with all sincerity that they had been raised and/or taught from a sabbatarian perspective and that they sincerely did not understand why it was that most of the Christian world felt that sunday was the appropriate day of worship and that they would love to hear how such a view point is balanced with scripture, then I think you would have found us to be a rather willing lot. Such an approach would have involved a very open admission to your own pressupositions and invited a polite discussion. However, in your original post to the forums you rather approached in a scolding tone and asked this, "Why do we ignore clear scripture and accept assumptions about other scripture as facts in order to validate custom?" Do you see how that question is quite a different thing? It is not the type of question asked when one wishes to sincerely learn or be informed, but is more akin to throwing down a challenge. Unfortunately, in our experience when individuals usually come with such an opening post, they have one issue they wish to fight about and have a very short and hostile stay. I hope this isn't the case with you, but it is the norm with such posters. Then your next broaching of the subject was again, not a sincere question seeking honest discussion, but rather a way of again bringing it up and posting scripture you felt we should hear. If you hold to this view then fine and well. If you wish to openly ask a question with regards to it then fine and well. But what has caused our reaction is that you have not done this, you have made these posts not in the spirit of discussion which is the intentions of these forums, but rather to simply post your view and then give verses why it is everybody should accept it. In other words in your posts regarding the sabbath you are asking nothing, only trying to teach where we have NOT asked. This is the issue. It leads only to conflict and that is why it is against the TOU. If simply this changes I think you will find us more than welcoming. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
331 | Greiving the Holy Spirit | Is 63:10 | Beja | 213496 | ||
Sometimes when we read a statement like that we look so hard for something deep we miss that the answer is right there. I take it to be referring to all the other things in ephesians 4:25-32. Not beggining to work out these changes in your life grieves God's Spirit which desires to see Christ fully formed in us (our thinking, our conduct, our relationships, etc.). In love, Beja |
||||||
332 | Does Is.66:23 mean sabbath still stands? | Is 66:23 | Beja | 232441 | ||
Elder, I don't think there is any way that Hebrews 4 is speaking of the weekly sabbath. The context of the passage makes that interpretation basically impossible due to statements such as: Heb 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. and Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Heb 4:6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, We could go on unpacking the context to show that referring to the weekly jewish sabbath makes absolutely no sense in the context. Rather what the writer was discussing is the eternal final rest of God's people which the weekly sabbath pointed to. However, this does not at all show that the sabbath is done away with. It merely is to say that Hebrews 4 does not at all address the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
333 | Scripture dealing with depression | Jeremiah | Beja | 226019 | ||
Eklematke, There is some sound godly advice in what Doc has said. The heart of it goes to this question, what if they are depressed because they are lost and under the wrath of God, and they are needing to be taught of faith and repentence and yet we simply shout out, "All is well!" What then have we done if they believe us? They will smile and feel better and go out from us still in a lost state. So there is some dange in always giving the answer, "Don't worry, God is for you!" to all problems. We must inquire as to where the problem is coming from. It may be that quite different verses are needed. Perhaps verses that confirm that they are in a lost state in need of the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus. But so that you know he spoke godly council to you rather than his own opinion, here is a verse that shows you that such hesitancy in answering is indeed scriptural. Pro 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him. And here is scripture condemning the unfounded speaking of God's favor upon people. Jer 23:16-22 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace"'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.' But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. The anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand it. I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, and would have turned them back from their evil way and from the evil of their deeds." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
334 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233218 | ||
EdB, I'm somewhat surprised at what you are saying. Perhaps we mean different things when we say the term "sola scriptura." Might I ask what it is exactly that you would suggest that the term means which is not scriptural? It would be a shame for a debate to happen if in reality I also would join you in rejecting what YOU mean by the term and at the same time you would affirm what I mean by the term. I would say: 1. Scripture is the very word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 2. As such it is inerrant in the original. 3. It holds complete authority over our lives. 4. It is sufficient for all things needful for the saint for life and godliness. (2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16 again). 5. It is the boundary of our understanding which we are not to go beyond in speculating. Therefore anything granted to us by wonderful saints later must be merely a shedding of light on the word of God so that we understand it more clearly, because going beyond it is forbidden. 1 Cor 4:6 Now perhaps with discussion I would affirm more points but those are the ones which come to mind immediately. What say you? What does "sola scriptura" affirm and which part of it is unscriptural? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
335 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233226 | ||
EdB, I'm afraid that I don't understand your view much more than before. You mostly just indicated what you agreed with concerning my view but didn't clarify yours much. 1. What "more than shedding light on the word of God" would you affirm? Can you give me an example to help me understand? 2. It sounds like you affirm ongoing authoritative special revelation outside of scripture, am I missunderstanding you? Please don't be upset if this is way off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just not sure what specifically you are saying. Can you help me understand your view? Right now I could not clearly explain to somebody else what it is you are either affirming or denying. Can you explain it to me without using the term Sola Scriptura? Thank you for your patience with me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
336 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233228 | ||
EdB, Well perhaps I am too slow on the uptake, but as stated I don't understand your view. However, should your hesitation be because your view might be out of line with the notion of sola scriptura in a way not welcomed by the forum, then I can completely respect your restraint. My understanding of the TOU is that it does not demand that we agree with sola scriptura, but merely that our posts must not be contrary to it. This seems to be what we are pressing up against. So I accept the dismisal of the topic with no ill feelings. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
337 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233234 | ||
EdB, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel that while I wouldn't be perfectly comfortable explaining your thoughts on this to another, I do understand you much better. If I'm understanding you correctly I don't think I'd take much issue with what you are saying (as if that matters). If you are suggesting that prior to the reformers articulating the notion of sola scriptura, things were good then I would probably disagree there. However, the only concern that I would have had is something I think you answered in a previous post. I think you do affirm that if something is actually contrary to scripture then it is invalid for the churches. I'm pretty sure you said as much. Might I offer some help with terminology? Now I may be mistaken but it seems to be that what you take objection with is not sola scriptura but rather what many call the "regulative principle." The regulative principle teaches that ONLY things found in scripture have any place within the church. I myself struggle with this concept as to whether it is biblical. I have a good book on my "to-read" pile that will give me the chance to hear its reasoning articulated but I'm not sure whether I will find it persuasive or not. I think sola scriptura would be more about having the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for the church. Sola scriptura would not imply that we must throw out christmas eve services because we don't find that in the new testament portrayal of the church. Sola scriptura does not forbid those practices which are unfound in scirpture but not contrary to scripture. It does object to teachings contrary to scripture. For example we wouldn't introduce a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as absolutely trustworthy. However it seems to me that what you are objecting to is blanket forbidding of practices which scripture does not address. That would be the regulative principle, which is also popular among reformed theologians. I think I'm accurate on all of that. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
338 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240305 | ||
Jalek, Let me first say it is refreshing to see a post that plainly desires to analyse a passage of scripture about a specific question. I have a few thoughts and questions for you. First, I'm not very clear on what you are specifically disagreeing with in Sproul's post or what precisely you are asserting. I am sure that is my fault but is there anyway you could help me see what thesis your line of reasoning is meant to prove? Second, I'm not sure about that interpretation of verse 19. The actual words used in the greek could just as easily be interpreted as "among them" as it could "in them." So I begin wondering what that phrase could mean. Then I note the way Paul supports the statment. He says, "It is (phrase in question) for God revealed it to them." So the reason it is in them is because God has plainly revealed it not because it is inherently tied up in what each of us are. Now I don't disagree that mankind is made in God's image. But it seems in this passage Paul is not referring to anything inherent in humans, but rather trying to say that due to general revelation by God, knowledge of God is readily within our midst due to creation all around us. So I don't think he is arguing from some internal thing or image of God. The point is that this general revelation of God is in our midst. Not sure how crucial that is to your arguement but thoughts? Finally, your final phrase concerns me, allow me to repost. "Each time a step is taken, God gives mankind a chance to turn back from their ways, and recognize his sovereignty. If they don't, God punishes them." What concerns me, is that it sounds a little like you are suggesting that if mankind had at any point simply repented then faith in Christ's personal intervention on our behalf would have been unnecessary. Because trusting in that is what we are talking about with "special revelation." Could mankind have responded to general revelation during one of these steps and been "ok" with God? I would think not, because a sin debt remains still regardless of whether they further add to that debt. If that is so then while we may not like the tone of the statement, we do affirm that general revelation only gives enough knowledge to condemn us. I suspect your point is thus: While general revelation does indeed condemn us, it may also spur us to seek out that special revelation that saves us, which is the gospel. Am I close? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
339 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240311 | ||
Jalek, Thank you for the clarifications. I think I understand you better now. I still disagree with your reading of verse 19 for two reasons. Reason 1: I maintain that "in" is not the best translation for this context. First, en is far far more flexible of a preposition than you suggest here. But specifically I have compiled a list of places where the NASB has translated the phrase "en autois" as "among them. Luke 9:46;22:24;John9:16;15:24 Acts 4:34;18:11;24:21;25:6 Rom 11:17 2 Peter 2:8 Plainly "among them" is a possible translation for the phrase "en autois." However, (reason 2) I don't mean to suggest that the phrase itself constrains this interpretation. There are many instances where this phrase is not translated as such but is translated variously "with them" "by them" and "in them". It is the context which guides our translation as to what the proper sense is in the particular passage. And in this instance you failed to respond to what I am suggesting is the key contextual constrain. The passage says that it is "en autois for God revealed it to them." The basis in this context of it being "in them or among them" is that it was revealed to them. This in my mind rules out something inherrent in humans being referred to. Some sort of revelation is the basis, and in the context it is indeed general revelation within creation. Now this being said I think your point in no way rests on this question, or at least I don't see how it would. Also with regards to "but how does General Revelation condemn us? It condemns us because it contains the first step towards coming to a saving belief in Christ." I would suggest that it condemns us because in our idolatry and living for our pleasures, it removes all pretense of suggesting we didn't know such things were wrong. Once again there is a phrase that gives the basis of why "They are without excuse." Verses 20 and 21 say,"...so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." So Paul's point is that general revelation means that they knew they were doing wrong. There is no place in the passage where Paul is arguing that general revelation condemns because it is the first step towards salvation. Now you might argue this from other passages, but I think it is nowhere in Romans 1. At least that I can yet see. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
340 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227503 | ||
Thread, God does indeed cast into hell. And the hell he casts us into is neither a pretend, one nor one of our own creation, nor is it simply a self torment, nor is it the same location as heaven in which we simply are unable to enjoy it as if one's man heaven is another man's hell. It is a real eternal judgement from God against sin for all eternity. God is the one who will judge our sin worthy of hell, God is the one who will condem us to hell, and God is the one who will carry out the sentence. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31). Luk 12:5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [40] >> |