Results 141 - 160 of 305
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Defining Truth | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6482 | ||
Prov 17:28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. (Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.) Prov 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly. Prov 20:3 Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel. Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? Prov 1:32 "For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them. Prov 3:35 The wise will inherit honor, But fools display dishonor. Prov 8:5 "O naive ones, understand prudence; And, O fools, understand wisdom. Prov 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a father glad, But a foolish son is a grief to his mother. Prov 10:8 The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined. Prov 10:10 He who winks the eye causes trouble, And a babbling fool will be ruined. Prov 10:14 Wise men store up knowledge, But with the mouth of the foolish, ruin is at hand. Prov 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of understanding. Prov 11:29 He who troubles his own house will inherit wind, And the foolish will be servant to the wisehearted. Prov 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel. Prov 12:16 A fool's anger is known at once, But a prudent man conceals dishonor. Prov 12:23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly. Prov 13:16 Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool displays folly. Prov 13:20 He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm. Prov 14:3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, But the lips of the wise will protect them. Prov 14:7 Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge. Prov 14:8 The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit. Prov 14:16 A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. Prov 14:18 The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge. Prov 14:24 The crown of the wise is their riches, But the folly of fools is foolishness. Prov 15:2 The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly. Prov 15:7 The lips of the wise spread knowledge, But the hearts of fools are not so. Prov 16:22 Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it, But the discipline of fools is folly. Prov 17:10 A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool. Prov 17:16 Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, When he has no sense? Prov 17:24 Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, But the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth. Prov 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. Prov 18:7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul. Prov 19:1 Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool. Prov 23:9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words. Prov 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Prov 26:5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. Prov 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. Prov 26:12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. Prov 28:26 He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered. Prov 29:9 When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. Prov 29:20 Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him. |
||||||
142 | Defining Truth | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6548 | ||
Anyone can make any assertion about anything. But do you have proof that what you assert here is true? If you can, give us the title of the book, the author, the page number, and the publisher where it says the law of gravity changed in 1905. Who changed it? How did it change? Was it abolished or merely amended? | ||||||
143 | Quest for Truth | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6549 | ||
"Sometimes the context or other passages helps us understand how a word is to be taken." Sometimes an English or Greek dictionary helps us understand what a word means. "John 14:6 teaches that Jesus is the truth. It does not teach that truth is Jesus." This makes about as much sense as saying: It is true that 2 plus 2 equals 4. It is not true that 4 equals 2 plus 2. |
||||||
144 | Which is truth, Science or God's Word? | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6557 | ||
Once you make up your own private definition of what truth is, a definition which no one but you can understand or believe, then you can prove to yourself that anything and everything is fasle. But what a confused and confusing world you would live in. | ||||||
145 | The burden of proof is on you. | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6691 | ||
True to form you split hairs over gravity and miss the main point of the original discussion, which has nothing in the world to do with gravity. Gravity was merely cited as an example. You waste your time and everyone else's. I never knew of anyone who had such a talent for writing endlessly about nothing. I see no Christian motive whatever behind your participation in the forum. Your every utterance is contrary to everyone and everything. Prov 17:28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. (Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.) Prov 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly. Prov 1:7 ...Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? Prov 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. If you can read this and continue to sit there grinning like an idiot as though you had accomplished something worthwhile, then maybe you're the one who had best find other websites with which to amuse yourself. You neither help nor enlighten anyone by your words or your attitude. |
||||||
146 | Who were Judges | Judges | Radioman | 23669 | ||
Is this a pop quiz? | ||||||
147 | Are Christians To Be Activists? | Esth 4:14 | Radioman | 15255 | ||
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. |
||||||
148 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 961 | ||
Just for a moment, forget Calvinism. Many people have a problem accepting the Bible doctrine of election because they do not understand it -- every last little ramification and detail of it. You ask "Why? . . . Why? . . . Why?" To those who must know the WHY of a thing before they can accept or believe it, often the only answer they will get is the one Job was given. . . . Job 38:1 (NASB) Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3 "Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6 "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone? . . . My point? Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. |
||||||
149 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 972 | ||
PART ONE. It is not my purpose to sound unkind or to "feel" superior to others. But, I would like to make a few comments in answer to your previous questions on election). . . . To begin with, you are trying to disprove a doctrine -- election -- of which you have no knowledge or understanding. What attorney, professor or debater ever successfully disproved something of which he had absolutely no knowledge? An effective opponent of an idea would need to know all the main points and details of that idea before he could persuade others that the idea was false. It is obvious to me that all the shrill anti-election people are clueless as to what election is and when, where and how the Bible speaks of the elect or election. . . . By the way, branding all election as Calvinism is a serious error. There is more than one interpretation of the Bible doctrine of election. So why label as Calvinists everyone who believes in the Bible doctrine of election? Also, to refer to Calvinists as "the elect" or to the elect as "Calvinists" is absurd. Election and people spoken of as the elect exist, according to the Bible, whether you and I believe or don't believe in Calvinism and regardless of how you define election. . . . And why use the words Calvinism and Calvinist when replying to a posting, when that posting never once mentions Calvinism or Calvinist. If one is not even familliar with the terminology of that which he is debating, he will never convince anyone of anything. I myself wrote two lengthy answers defining and defending election, yet I never once mentioned the word Calvinism. . . . To set the record straight: 1) the word "freewill" is used 22 times in the NIV Bible. In every single reference the adjective freewill is used to modify the noun "offering(s)." So how does the Bible's use of the word freewill support the idea that the doctrine of election is false? . . . 2) The dictionary defines the adjective "elect" as "chosen" or "carefully selected". So elect and chosen clearly mean the same thing. You say "only a small portion (of the Bible) can be used to justify "election". For your information, while "freewill" occurs in the Bible (NIV) only 22 times and only in connection with the word "offering(s)", the word "elect" appears 11 times; "election" 3 times; "choose" (which means the same thing as "elect") appears 66 times; "chose" 45 times; and "chosen" 125 times. This gives us a total of 250 occurences of the words "elect", "election" or their equivalents choose, chose and chosen, but only 22 occurences of the word freewill, and then only in connection with offerings. . . . You refer to "when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation." If you were familiar, not with Calvinism, but with the BIBLE DOCTRINE of election, you would know that: there isn't one verse in the Bible which -- when properly translated and understood in the context and in relation to all other verses dealing with the same subject -- not one word that contradicts the Bible's teaching on the subject of election. The only reason I brought up the idea that many of the people who cannot accept election are the same people who don't grasp the concept of it is this: it is true. Nonbelievers in election invariably are people who can neither define nor explain what it is that they are opposed to. It is apparent from the comments written by opponents of election that these people have not read the answers supporting election. They've neither read the answers, looked up the Scriptures cited, nor given the other side a fair hearing. |
||||||
150 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 973 | ||
PART TWO. Why won't Calvinists answer directly? 1) Who is a Calvinist? If I don't call myself a Calvinist, who are you to put that label on me? 2)Answer what directly? Sometimes the questions are so off topic, so hypothetical and broad, that they cannot be answered. . . . 3) Do you respond directly? You all never respond directly to the Scriptures used to defend election. I've rarely, if ever, seen an anti-electionist directly answer a scripture or an argument used to prove election. You usually answer a question with more questions or with sophistry that only confuses the issue. I've read more rambling remarks, irrelevant Scripture, hypothetical questions, "why" questions full of suppositions and way off topic, angry comebacks and just plain nonsense in the anti-Calvinism answers and questions. How is anybody supposed to answer such wide-ranging, hypothetical questions? . . . I would also note that the underlying resistance of the anti-election people is due to their idea that God just wouldn't be fair if election were true. And so they ask WHY questions that are worded to get the other person to agree with them. If election isn't true or doesn't exist, why does the Bible make 250 references to the subject? . . . Again people keep raising objections to what they call Calvinism while not bothering to even try to read and understand a definition and explanation of the doctrine. It's as if I had driven a Honda Accord for 20 years. Then you come along. You've never even seen a Honda Accord, but you've already decided you don't like Accords and don't want one. In that situation do you think you could convince me the car is no good? Having never seen one, you wouldn't have the slightest personal knowledge on which to build an argument. At best, you would be limited to quoting the writings of others, parroting their ideas while having none of your own. . . . Again, if I ever saw a well-thought-out, Scripture related question re election, I would make a sincere attempt to answer it. . . . In conclusion, thiese remarks may have sounded harsh and critical. Such was not my intention. I have love and respect for you and all who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I respect your right to your own attitudes, opinions and beliefs. It's just that I cannot sit by silently and read all the criticism, mockery and misunderstanding of the Bible doctrine of election. As Dylan said, "Don't criticize what you don't understand." If you've read this entire answer, then I thank you for your time and patience. Let's keep searching and learning for greater wisdom and understanding, shall we? After 30 years of serious Bible study, I feel as though I've only begun to scratch the surface in knowing and understanding Scripture. My thanks to you and the other users for stimulating me to continue to search, study and pay attention to the details of the Bible. Always look forward to reading your questions or comments. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
151 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 993 | ||
In reply to: "Questions for my Calvinists friends." . . . Re: your question 1. I'm not sure that there is an answer to your hypothetical question, "Why go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood?" For that matter, why did God go to the trouble of creating a world of humankind when He knew that the vast majority of that creation would be lost and never see eternal life? This is the kind of "Why" question that is God's business and none of my business. I would not dare question God about WHY He does this or that? One thing we do know is that all God's acts are consistent with His Eternal nature. All God's acts are done in perfect justice and righteousness. And, like it or not, our finite minds cannot grasp all the ways of God. . . . Nor does He owe us an explanation. Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." What IS revealed is, not Calvinism, but a BIBLE doctrine of election. What is NOT revealed is questions that ask: if election were true, then why would God do this and why would God not do that? . . . Re: your question 2. Heb 9:22 KVH "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Without shedding of blood is NO remission -- for neither the elect nor the non-elect nor the undecided. That is why Jesus had to die on the cross. . . . Re: your question 3, Matt:19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25. Q: "Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" A: It is more difficult because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does. . . . (Compare, for example, the conversion rate in the mud hut villages of Zambia, Africa with those of Marin County, California, Beverly Hills, California or Jupiter Beach and Jupiter Island, Florida. This may or may not be an apt comment on the above question or answer. However, it remains a fact that it IS more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and it is a fact for the reason given, i.e., because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does.) . . . Now I have given sincere, if not lengthy, answers to your original 3 questions. I'm not trying to win a battle of wits; I merely seek to answer your questions as they were asked. . . . (More to come) |
||||||
152 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 994 | ||
. . . P.S. . . . Regarding your submission, "Problems with Election Theory," I sincerely thank you for the background info. Now I see that for you Calvinism is neither a mere intellectual issue nor a matter for debate for the sake of debate. Rather it is a practical issue. However, I remind you that to my knowledge, I have never once in any of my answers used the word "Calvinism". For the record, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I suppose I'm somewhere in between strict Calvinism and strict Arminianism. I'm not saying either group is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. I never even used either of those terms (Calvinism or Arminianism, except perhaps to distinguish between the two or to reply to your comments and questions regarding Calvinsim, but not to defend strict, absolute, undiluted Calvinism). . . . In the same submission, I agree with you: you have to research it and determine for yourself whether you believe election is true and what your understanding of election is. . . . I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED. This is consistent with every statement in the Bible regarding salvation. Whosoever will may come. However, Scripture also plainly teaches that we neither chose nor sought out Christ; instead he did the choosing and the seeking of us (John 15:19). He came to seek and to save that which was lost. For an unregenrate man to say that he is seeking Christ is like the mice saying they are seeking the cat. If they are seeking his location, it is only for the purose of avoiding the cat. . . . I fear that to give detailed answers to your question "Problems with Election Theory" would take hours. Also that to answer in detail might stir up more emotion and hostility, which certainly is not my intention. I sincerely wish to give you helpful answers. Even if you don't agree with the answers (which is your right and privilege), my intention is to be helpful. Whether I have been helpful remains to be seen. My prayer for you is that the Lord will show you in His Word that which you are seeking to know and understand. Whatever your decision, I pray that it will be the right one for you. . . . Take care. Thank you for your interest and input. Disclaimer: I am not infallible. Calvin (there -- I used the word) is not infallible. No study Bible footnotes are infallible. Only the Scriptures are WITHOUT error and INCAPABLE of error and ONLY in the original manuscripts . . . . I apologize for not thoroughly proofreading this answer. If I tried to proof it, I'm afraid I would spend another hour thinking of one more thing after another that I would want to add. Because of Dry Eye Syndrome, if I don't stop reading and typing now, I will go temporarily blind. It will have to stand as is, typos and all. . . . I thank you for your time and patience. Take care. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
153 | Problems with Election Theory - Part One | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 995 | ||
Greetings, jg8ball! I have made my sincere reply, although I didn't address it to the respective question listed in the tree. I am writing this to remove a question that is no longer unanswered. Hope you don't mind. See you later! | ||||||
154 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 1566 | ||
I agree with you: Election is unconditional. The word election is synonymous with choosing, just as elect is a synonym of choose. According to some people's definition of election, it is not choosing at all. Whenever a word in the Bible is interpreted to mean someting other than the ordinary English definition of the word, Beware! Someone is not rightly dividing the word of truth. According to the opinion of some, there is NO Bible doctrine of election. I wonder then: when the Bible speaks of "the elect", whom is it talking about? Thank you for taking a stand for the Bible doctrine of election. | ||||||
155 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 1708 | ||
Thank you for your encouraging reply. No, I have never read Edwards on this. But the treatise on free will sounds extremely interesting. I will look for it to read it. I agree with you regarding both election and the process and principles of correct interpretation of the Scripture. Have you noticed that often when anti-electionists are asked to consider Scriptures that support election, they do not reply to any of the Scripture references? They totally ignore them in their replies and then proceed to write a long harangue made up primarily of human reasoning. If they quote any Scripture at all in their replies, it is usually verses that don't have a thing in the world to do with the subject of election. I have also noticed that many, many people ignore the principle that we learn what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. For some, if what the Bible says conflicts with what they already believe, they dismiss or explain away the clear verse of Scritpure and stick with their preconceived notion instead. May I recommend if you haven't already done so, that you use the Search function on this website to look up the following. Search for "I want to thank you for the dialogue we" and "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION". Both entries were submitted by JVH0212 on 02-28-2001 at 5:24 pm and 5:28 pm respectively. It is the most thorough, yet concise article on the Bible doctrine of election that I've ever seen. It's packed with Scripture. You will find it a good resource for any debates with the people who are pro-man's freewill and anti-Sovereignty of God. Thank you again for a very insightful, well-written reply. | ||||||
156 | WAS JESUS GOD ON EARTH TOO OR JUSTMAN | Ps 8:5 | Radioman | 39189 | ||
I regard your post to Hank with a mixture of amusement and offense bordering on disgust. What brass (brazen self-assurance) it takes on your part to presume to tell Hank what the purpose of a forum is. It is true that in general the purpose of a forum is to discuss different thoughts and ideas. However, the specific reason why this forum exists is to ask and answer questions about what the Bible does say. The purpose is not to speculate, hypothesize or fantasize about what the Bible does not say. After reading 1,628 posts by Hank, I can tell you Hank's "little box" is not so little. It contains 66 compartments and is known as the Bible. Likewise, parts of the Bible may fit into YOUR little box and others may not. Maybe YOU shoud not continue to be an active user. At least not until you learn something about the Bible and get an attitude adjustment. I doubt that anyone would miss your inciteful ("incite" is a synonym of a word that "implies responsibility for initiating another's action and often connotes underhandedness or evil intention") remarks. I'm glad you are rethinking the idea that the purpose of a forum is not trying to convert other people to YOUR ways of "thinking". |
||||||
157 | Lifting up of hands? | Ps 63:4 | Radioman | 14318 | ||
Nicodemus: I see that in your ongoing debate with the other guy you keep appealing to Scripture to support your point. There is a problem with this where the other guy is concerned. The Bible was penned down by humans, preserved by human copyists, translated by humans, and published by humans. Since Mr. Right cares for no human opinion but his own, he will surely reject the Bible, since it has passed through so many human hands. Moreover, since he himself is the only authority he will listen to, then your only chance to persuade him is to quote him. The only problem with that is that when Mr. Right blows his own trumpet, it makes an unclear sound. When he plays the flute or harp, he doesn't make a distinction in the notes. How, then, will what is played be recognized? |
||||||
158 | Based on Psalms 82, are we "gods"? | Ps 82:6 | Radioman | 20793 | ||
You may wish to look up John 10:34-35 and Ps 82:6 in one or more commentaries. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/) |
||||||
159 | His Spirit or Moses'? | Ps 106:33 | Radioman | 41434 | ||
If you think the Amplified Bible is a "paraphrase," you have been misled. From the Preface of the Amplified Bible, 1965, 1987: The purpose of the Amplified Bible "is to reveal, together with the single English word equivalent to each key Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying meanings that may be concealed by the traditional translation method." Notice the purpose of the Amplified is to reveal, "WITH the single English word equivalent", not INSTEAD OF the single English word equivalent. "...the creative use of amplification merely helps the reader comprehend what the Hebrew and Greek listener instinctively understood (as a matter of course)." Notice the use of the word amplification. Amplification -- not paraphrase. This version expresses "the perspective of an individual paraphraser (vs. translator)"? From the Preface to the Amplified New Testament, 1958: "An Editorial Committee gave dedicated and diligent attention to the manuscript. The edited and proofed *translation* was then submitted to three qualified Greek consultants." Notice it says "translation" -- not "paraphrase." "Twenty-seven translations and versions of the New Testament in whole or in part were assiduously examined and the greatest lexicographers of all times continually consulted . . . A fourfold aim for this version has been kept in view: "1. That it should be true to the original Greek . " (Emphasis added in the above quotations.) Oh, by the way, welcome to "StudyBibleForum.com brought to you by the *translators* of the New American Standard, *AMPLIFIED*, and La Biblia de las Américas Bibles" (emphasis added). |
||||||
160 | solomon and Love Stories around Ararat | Song of Solomon | Radioman | 25257 | ||
Who could argue with that? Since your post is totally unintelligible, incomprehensible and without either sense or meaning, it is impossible to agree or disagree with it. Next time you write a post, include some clues as to your meaning. If you're going to write total and complete babbling gibberish, there is no point in posting it. Come back when you have something to say. If you are a patient in an institution, that's different. In that case, never mind. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [16] >> |