Results 501 - 520 of 3591
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 201118 | ||
Dear Richard, The post you're responding to is over 7 years old, so I doubt the original poster will reply! I'm not certain of the conclusion you're making? I would suggest- based on a bit of my own study- that those verses of Paul (Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:12, Rom. 6:3, etc) are dealing with spiritual baptism consistent with 1 Cor. 12:13! My own experience tells me most people shrug off spiritual baptism and place more emphasis on the symbolic! The Holy Spirit is the the One Who unites us with Christ! This is the reality. Without it, symbolism is meaningless. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
502 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 201170 | ||
Hello tdc, Happy Resurrection Day! I think the juxtaposition of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 with Acts 2:38 is confusing at best! It appears you're reading the Acts 2:38 formula into Pauls' proclamation. 1. Nowhere does Paul say baptism is a necessary (salvific) element in the gospel; 2. Are Rom. 6:3 and Col. 2:12 speaking of water? Note 1 Cor. 12:13; Though Christ was baptized early in His ministry (Matt. 3), in His death He was buried in the ground, not water! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
503 | Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots | Genesis | BradK | 57115 | ||
Are there any studied views from our Forum members on Rev. 17:5 as to who "Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots" is? I would humbly seek your input. BradK |
||||||
504 | King James bible only one to read? | Genesis | BradK | 123718 | ||
Sunset Gypsy, It's in 1 Opinions 3:4:-) Simply, there's no such statement made in scripture- it's a personal opinion. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
505 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | BradK | 126728 | ||
Yuke, Welcome to the Forum. I'm aware of the "Gap theory", but am mindful that it is just that- a theory. I hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that anything other than the intended, literal reading of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is the case. At any rate, we have no biblical support other than a literal "reading-between-the-lines" to support a Gap theory. Genesis 1:1 does not say that the Earth was created a long time (billions of years) ago, or that 1:3 happened 6,000 years ago. It may be correct, but in all honesty those are conclusions drawn by man, not given by God:-) Out of curiosity, what is your basis for holding to the Gap Theory? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
506 | Who is God Talking to in verse 26? | Genesis | BradK | 140902 | ||
Tess, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. He is not created and the scriptures do not identify the Word as God's first creation. This is faulty JW theology! The major problem with your erroneous interpretation of John 1:1 as the Word being "a God" is that you're admitting polytheism. The firstborn of all creation- Prototokos- is more a reference to position than chronology! it identifies the RELATION of the Son to creation. In similar vain is John 1:18- "the only Begotten". In considering John 1:18 "the only begotten", John alone uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father. The word is descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. Jesus has the same nature as the Father. To call Jesus "the only begotten Son" means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son. Your position is nothing more than Arianism, which was soundly defeated at the Council of Nicea in 325. The Athansian Creed also has a more fully clarified definition of the nature of the Son. He is equal to the Father in His divinity! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
507 | Why did God test Adam and Eve ? | Genesis | BradK | 153645 | ||
Dear Merv, No, Doc and Hank are not the only one's on this Forum who are tiring of your insistence on discussing nothing but the law. I would offer that many-myself included- have chosen to not respond- because it would lead to pointless discussion. (Titus 3:9) It's not simply a matter of choosing to respond or not, Merv. The Forum has certain guidelines which we all need to follow. The common courtesy is to heed to the pleas of other members-especially when they're asking you to change topics! The Forum does exist for all- yet with that comes our collective responsibility- call it the "Law". You keep talking about the law and how we need to be obedient. How about your obedience- call it respect- toward others by heeding their call? I think Romans 14:15 applies here. I would also offer that your "bait" simply isn't attracting many fish. It might be wise to change bait or find a different fishing hole:-) I hope I've made myself clear, in love. BradK |
||||||
508 | what fruit did eve eat? | Genesis | BradK | 161689 | ||
Hi GodsAmbassage, Welcome to the Forum! I applaud your intents:-) I too am familiar with the works and writings of Bullinger as well. I've read and own many of them! Though I do not agree with him on certain areas, he was a fine scholar non-the-less. It might behoove you to read the "Terms of Use" and "about the Forum" as that would go a long way toward preventing misunderstandings! In general: To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts. Just a bit of advice: Sometimes it's better to stay away from topics that we're not overly versed in or are hard to communicate:-) The old cliche, "don't bite off more than you can chew" may apply. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
509 | Difference between Moses and BinLaden? | Genesis | BradK | 162048 | ||
Hi caldog, Assuming you're right that America is sinful and turning away from God, then what of Communist China or Russia? They've systematically murdered tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of their own people. So, in comparison, which countries are more sinful? Individually are Americans any more sinful that others around the world? I think the point to consider is this: In the OT Gods' judgment happened within history, today it will be in the future (Rom. 14:10, 2 Cor. 5:10). So, my queston is: Is God judging individuals or countries today? Speakng the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
510 | Who in the bible never died? | Genesis | BradK | 171434 | ||
Hi Tommy, Are you referring to Genesis 25:8 when you say that "He was "taken up to be with God." ? The NKJV reads "Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years and was gathered to his people." The NASB reads: "Abraham breathed his last and died in a ripe old age, an old man and satisfied with life; and he was gathered to his people." Possibly you're confusing Abraham with Enoch (and Elijah)? Abraham died, wereas only Enoch and Elijah were "translated"- taken up to heaven- so as not to see death! (Gen. 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11) I just wanted to be sure I was reading you correctly and following your thoughts. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
511 | Who in the bible never died? | Genesis | BradK | 171476 | ||
Hi Tommy, You answered that Melchizedek was "taken up to Heaven and did not die"??? Are you sure you did not mean Enoch and Elijah? If so, what Biblical support do you have for Melchizedek? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
512 | Need help understanding Genesis | Genesis | BradK | 183978 | ||
Hello aroberson, Welcome to the Forum. In Gen. 3:15 we have what is generally referred to as the PROTEVANGELIUM. " The word means first (protos) gospel (evangelion). Theologians have used the word in reference to the message of redemption God spoke after the fall of man. Speaking to Satan (embodied in a serpent), God said, “From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gn 3:15, nlt). In the protevangelium we have the protorevelation of the humanity (her offspring) and the divinity (crushing the head of serpent) of the great Deliverer. In this proclamation, God promises a Deliverer who will destroy Satan in an ordeal in which he himself will suffer. This refers to Jesus’ death on the cross. In suffering that death, Jesus defeated him who had the power of death, the devil (Heb 2:14)." [Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary]. Warren Wiersbe says this: "This is the first Gospel declared in the Bible: the good news that the woman’s seed (Christ) would ultimately defeat Satan and his seed (Gal. 4:4–5). It is from this point on that the stream divides: Satan and his family (seed) oppose God and His family. God Himself put the enmity (hostility) between them, and God will climax the war when Satan is cast into hell (Rev. 20:10). Review the Parable of the Tares in Matt. 13, and note that Satan has children just as God does. In Gen. 4, Cain kills Abel, and 1 John 3:12 informs us that Cain was “of that wicked one”—a child of the devil. The OT is the record of the two seeds in conflict; the NT is the record of the birth of Christ and His victory over Satan through the cross." [Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the Old Testament] I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
513 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203306 | ||
Hello Quvmoh, Allow me to interject here. I don't believe Tim stated anywhere that, "sons of God" phrases used in the Bible to being in reference to Angels"! It may benefit to re-read what he said, and keep in mind to "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:3) In my time on this Forum, Tim is simply not one to take things out of context. He has a very good grasp on the language of scripture! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
514 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203315 | ||
Hello Quvmoh, Thanks my friend. For what it's worth, there are divergent, yet orthodox views on this subject. For instance, in answer to 'who the sons of God' refers in Gen. 6:1-4, Dr. Walter Kaiser in "Hard Sayings of the Bible" notes, "Few texts in the history of interpretation have aroused more curiosity and divergence of opinion than Genesis 6:1–4. It is at once tantalizing and deeply puzzling. What is most difficult is the identification of the main participants in this short narrative—the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men” and the “Nephilim” (or “giants”). An impressive array of scholars has lined up for each of the three major positions taken on the identification of these three groups of participants. The three positions may be labeled: 1. “the cosmologically mixed races view” (angels and humans), 2. “the religiously mixed races view” (godly Sethites and worldly Cainites) and, 3. “the sociologically mixed races view” (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners)." Dr. Kaiser further elaborates, "By all odds, the view that may perhaps claim the greatest antiquity is the cosmologically mixed races, or the angel theory, view. The famous Jewish historian Josephus (born 37 b.c.) also appears to follow this angel theory. He wrote, “Many angels accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust” (Antiquities 1.3.1). Likewise, the Greek translation of the Bible of the third century b.c. reads “angels of God” for the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2" However, he states, "In spite of the antiquity of the cosmologically mixed races view, there are such overwhelming problems with it that it is not recommended as the solution to this problem. While it is true, of course, that the term “sons of God” does occur in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 with the meaning “angels” (and that the phrase “sons of the mighty” appears in Ps 29:1 and 89:7 with the meaning “angels”), it does not fit well here for several reasons." By contrast, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary says, "Although each of the three views has its problems, those of the “angel” view can be most satisfactorily resolved. The expression “sons of God” is used exclusively in the Old Testament of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). According to this view, the Nephilim (from a Hebrew word meaning “to fall”) were the monstrous offspring of these unnatural unions. (For more on the Nephilim, cf. Num. 13:33.) Although they were big, they were not stronger than God, who blotted them out (Gen. 6:7; 7:23) in the flood, along with the rest of the world." [Robert B. Hughes and J. Carl Laney, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
515 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | BradK | 203329 | ||
Hello william, With all due respect, it appears that there is being made, "much ado about nothing"! I don't really think anybody is trying to avoid anything here! As much as I'm afraid to ask, exactly how does "the Bible makes clear references to the sons of God in a fallen state of rebellion procreating with mankind and breding the giants men of renown."? I can think of Gen. 6:4. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
516 | was garden of eden in heaven | Genesis | BradK | 230675 | ||
Hello Melissa, We know that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1 NASB I know of no such verse saying "these are the generations of heavens and earth"? May I ask your reference? I certainly find no support to indicate that the garden of eden is in heaven! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
517 | the theme of genesis 1 | Genesis | BradK | 234864 | ||
Hello gogo, You asked and answered your own question? I would disagree that the "theme" of Genesis 1 is God's soverenty (sic). Would it not be His creation of the world? Certainly by doing this, He demonstrates His Sovereignty! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
518 | why is cain not in adams generation | Genesis | BradK | 235187 | ||
Hello escar, I'm confused by your response. Though divinely inspired, for whatever reason the genealogy in Genesis 5 does not mention Cain. We do not know why as we're not told. However, Cain's definitely the son of Adam and Eve! Genesis 4;1 cleary states, "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD." (NASB) You can believe what you want about Cain, but to deny he's Adam's son is to deny the clear testimony of scripture itself. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
519 | why is cain not in adams generation | Genesis | BradK | 235190 | ||
My very dear sir: Your explanation makes no sense! I'm not sure what it has to do with the original question? A studied reading of both Genesis 4 and 5 sets aside any notions about Cain not being Adam's son! Chapter 4:1-2 "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD." Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (NASB) This established the birth of both Cain and Abel. Then, Gen 4:25 "Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him." This establishes the birth of Seth to Adam and Eve. Chapter 5:1 speaks of the generations (or descendants) of Adam. It is not an all-inclusive list. But, the fact that neither Cain or Abel are speifically mentioned does not negate the truth set forth in chapter 4. Does it? In 5:3 we read, "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth." The listing merely starts with Seth. However, the "gap" is filled in by the next verse: "Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters." The "other sons and daughters" referred to here is certainly a clear reference back to chapter 4:1-2! Is it not? I'm not sure where you're confusion comes from. My disagreement is not with God's Word, but what YOU say it says! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
520 | why is cain not in adams generation | Genesis | BradK | 235194 | ||
My Dear Mr. Smith: Again, my disagreement is not with God's Word, but with what YOU try to say it says! Sir, your posts are muddled and incoherent! You are not coming across clear in your communication as you jump from one thought to the next! I'm sorry, but I cannot follow what you are trying to say. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [180] >> |