Results 1001 - 1020 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1001 | Ps109:1 | Matt 6:1 | Radioman2 | 80837 | ||
Does the bible speak of any type of fast other than food? Fasting is defined as "abstinence from food and/or drink as an element of private or public religious devotion. "Abstinence from food and/or drink." This is the only type of fast the Bible speaks of. |
||||||
1002 | Ps109:1 | Matt 6:1 | Radioman2 | 80836 | ||
"Fasting is nowhere commanded in the Torah. However, there is sufficient justification for fasting in biblical times and, in fact, in modern times as well." - - - - - - - - - - 'Fasting is defined as "abstinence from food and/or drink as an element of private or public religious devotion. Fasting is nowhere commanded in the Torah and, in fact, is never attested earlier than the time of the judges of Israel (cf. Judges 20:26). The fact that Jesus and the disciples sanctioned it by their own example (Matt 4:2; Acts 13:2-3), however, is sufficient justification for its practice in biblical times and, in fact, in modern times as well. (...) 'Jesus equates supplication and fasting when he teaches that the removal of mountains comes about only by prayer and fasting (Matt 17:21). The godly prophetess Anna looked for the redemption of Israel with supplicatory prayer and fasting (Luke 2:37 ). Before Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for the various churches, they committed them to the Lord with prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23). In all these instances there is the clear implication that fasting is an effective adjunct to petition. 'The purpose of fasting is never explicitly stated in Scripture but its connection to penitence, mourning, and supplication suggests a self-denial that opens one to God and to the immaterial aspects of life. Inasmuch as food and drink typify life in the flesh and all its demands and satisfactions, their absence or rejection speaks to the reality of a higher dimension, one in which the things of the spirit predominate. The theology of fasting, then, is a theology of priorities in which believers are given the opportunity to express themselves in an undivided and intensive devotion to the Lord and to the concerns of the spiritual life.' Eugene H. Merrill Bibliography. John E. Baird, What the Bible Says About Fasting; R. D. Chatham, Fasting: A Biblical-Historical Study; Joseph F. Wimmer, Fasting in the New Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology . Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
1003 | Faith and Works: Paul vs. James | Rom 4:3 | Radioman2 | 80824 | ||
Faith and Works: Paul vs. James 'There is a way to reconcile what Paul and James say. The key to reconciling them is that the word "justified" has more than one meaning. Paul uses it with one meaning in Romans 4 and James uses it with a different meaning in James 2. It is not uncommon that a word has more than one meaning. In fact, it is common that any given word would have a multitude of meanings. Look in a dictionary and you can see that almost every word has more than one meaning, almost without exception. It is the context that dictates what meaning is in view. (...) 'There is a difference between when God justifies a man and when a man justifies himself. When I say to you, "Justify yourself," what am I asking you to do? I' m asking you to justify your actions, prove to me something about the nature of your actions. You are being asked to show me something. 'When God justifies a man, He doesn't show them something. He gives them something; He gives them righteousness. 'So justification has two meanings. God justifies the ungodly. What does that mean? He gives them righteousness. He applies it to their account. He "reckons them righteous" is how Paul puts it. So one meaning of the word justify is to GIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS. The second meaning of the word justify is to PROVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS. It has to do with a demonstration, just like when I tell you to justify yourself. 'How do I know that there are two different meanings that are in view? Both Paul and James quote Abraham, but they quote different periods of his life. Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:4 and that passage says that "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Another way of putting it is that's when Abraham got saved. Abraham gets saved in Genesis 15. 'Later on in his life, long after this event, we see God testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on the altar. When he obeys God and does what he is told to do, God stops him in the middle of it and says, You don't have to do this anymore, I have provided a substitute. God makes a very important statement. In verse 12 of Genesis 22 He says, "Now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." By the way, the word "know" in the Old Testament communicates a sense of a deep, personal experience, not just intellectual knowledge. When James quotes Abraham's justification, he doesn't quote from Genesis 15 when Abraham was reckoned righteous--He quotes from Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated his righteousness, proved himself to be righteous. 'Further, what' s interesting is that not only does he quote Genesis 22, but he sees Genesis 22 as an outworking or a fulfillment of his salvation in Genesis 15. In fact, James quotes the passage. He paraphrases, "Was not Abraham our father justified, proven to be righteous by his works, when he offered up Isaac his son at the altar? You see that faith was working with his works and as a result of the works, faith was perfected and the Scripture was fulfilled, which says Abraham believed God and was reckoned to him as righteousness." 'Abraham obeyed God's command.' (Faith and Works: Paul vs. James by Gregory Koukl) (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/works.htm) |
||||||
1004 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80821 | ||
Faith and Works: Paul vs. James [Tim: I think you will find the following to be of interest.] 'There is a way to reconcile what Paul and James say. The key to reconciling them is that the word "justified" has more than one meaning. Paul uses it with one meaning in Romans 4 and James uses it with a different meaning in James 2. It is not uncommon that a word has more than one meaning. In fact, it is common that any given word would have a multitude of meanings. Look in a dictionary and you can see that almost every word has more than one meaning, almost without exception. It is the context that dictates what meaning is in view. (...) 'There is a difference between when God justifies a man and when a man justifies himself. When I say to you, "Justify yourself," what am I asking you to do? I' m asking you to justify your actions, prove to me something about the nature of your actions. You are being asked to show me something. 'When God justifies a man, He doesn't show them something. He gives them something; He gives them righteousness. 'So justification has two meanings. God justifies the ungodly. What does that mean? He gives them righteousness. He applies it to their account. He "reckons them righteous" is how Paul puts it. So one meaning of the word justify is to GIVE RIGHTEOUSNESS. The second meaning of the word justify is to PROVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS. It has to do with a demonstration, just like when I tell you to justify yourself. 'How do I know that there are two different meanings that are in view? Both Paul and James quote Abraham, but they quote different periods of his life. Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:4 and that passage says that "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteous." Another way of putting it is that's when Abraham got saved. Abraham gets saved in Genesis 15. 'Later on in his life, long after this event, we see God testing Abraham in Genesis 22. Take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on the altar. When he obeys God and does what he is told to do, God stops him in the middle of it and says, You don't have to do this anymore, I have provided a substitute. God makes a very important statement. In verse 12 of Genesis 22 He says, "Now I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." By the way, the word "know" in the Old Testament communicates a sense of a deep, personal experience, not just intellectual knowledge. When James quotes Abraham's justification, he doesn't quote from Genesis 15 when Abraham was reckoned righteous--He quotes from Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated his righteousness, proved himself to be righteous. 'Further, what's interesting is that not only does he quote Genesis 22, but he sees Genesis 22 as an outworking or a fulfillment of his salvation in Genesis 15. In fact, James quotes the passage. He paraphrases, "Was not Abraham our father justified, proven to be righteous by his works, when he offered up Isaac his son at the altar? You see that faith was working with his works and as a result of the works, faith was perfected and the Scripture was fulfilled, which says Abraham believed God and was reckoned to him as righteousness." 'Abraham obeyed God's command.' (Faith and Works: Paul vs. James by Gregory Koukl) (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/works.htm) |
||||||
1005 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80809 | ||
Thank you for giving us a clear example of what is meant by the phrase "the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates." |
||||||
1006 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80806 | ||
Do I detect a note of hostility in your posted reply? | ||||||
1007 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80805 | ||
Do I detect a note of hostility in your posted reply? | ||||||
1008 | why do we sin when sin has no mastery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80803 | ||
No, I would never say that! :-) And sometimes I have to deal with them more often than daily. :-( | ||||||
1009 | Searching for the truth | Matt 24:30 | Radioman2 | 80782 | ||
FytRobert: You're welcome. Glad I was able to help. Radioman2 |
||||||
1010 | why do we sin when sin has no mastery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80780 | ||
You write: "We must choose to crucify the flesh daily." Yet Paul writes in (NASB) Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." "I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED" -- not "I crucify the flesh DAILY." "I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED" (past tense). Again, writing in (NASB) Colossians 3:3 Paul says: "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God." "You have died" -- not "you ought to die." "HAVE DIED" (past tense). NASB Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. AMPLIFIED Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves also dead to sin and your relation to it broken, but alive to God [living in unbroken fellowship with Him] in Christ Jesus. |
||||||
1011 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80777 | ||
You write: "I think all translations lead us wrongly." How helpful your statement is! How edifying and uplifting. Consider the following: "...the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight." ((www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates) Troubling Christians and creating doubt regarding the Bible -- which gifts of the Spirit are in operation here? 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer' (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) . You assertion that "all translations lead us wrongly" answers nothing. Before you give us the benefit of more unproven accusations, you would do well to read this entire article. Go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates |
||||||
1012 | why do we sin when sin has no mastery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80770 | ||
"Paul said he crucified the flesh daily." I wonder WHERE (book, chapter and verse) it says that. |
||||||
1013 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80766 | ||
Amen. Common sense rules -- especially when combined with the scriptures and reason. | ||||||
1014 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80763 | ||
You have some good ideas here. I agree that dumping all these digressions under one thread leads to confusion. It also leads to a long, long cumbersome thread in which it is difficult to find what one is looking for. Rather than go off on tangents under an existing thread, it would be better if people who have a subtopic would start a new and separate thread for it. There is a risk of such a separate thread getting lost in the shuffle and having no one respond to it. This is because often an individual will not respond to a question or note that is not addressed directly to him/her. As a result, one risks starting a new thread (instead of piling on posts to an existing thread) and then having no one respond to it. I suppose it's human nature for folks to do things the way they've always done them, even when it no longer works. Thanks for your input on this problem. |
||||||
1015 | Why no response my friend? | Rom 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80740 | ||
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; 2Pe 2:17a (KJV) ...clouds they are without water, carried about of winds... Jude 1:12 (KJV) |
||||||
1016 | Inspired by the Holy Spirit | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 80739 | ||
We can safely assume that not every word penned down by human authors of the Bible (e.g. Moses, Isaiah, Luke, Peter, John, Paul) was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Surely their every note to the milkman, memo, recipe, and grocery list was not inspired. This does not mean that their other writings were inaccurate or untrue; it just means they were not God-breathed, not written under divine inspiration. Likewise, there were many ancient books that were authentic and accurate. But they were NOT inspired by God. Just because a book is authentic and accurate does not mean it is to be included in the canon of scripture. |
||||||
1017 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 80734 | ||
IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White 'Summary 'King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) 'The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. 'Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.' ------------- To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates Also recommended, James White's book: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations?" James R. White/Bethany House Publishers/1995 (Type: Trade Paperback) |
||||||
1018 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80751 | ||
IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White 'Summary 'King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) 'The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. 'Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.' ------------- To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates Also recommended, James White's book: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations?" James R. White/Bethany House Publishers/1995 (Type: Trade Paperback) |
||||||
1019 | Is the KJV truer to the original mss? | Rev 2:28 | Radioman2 | 80726 | ||
Is the KJV truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions? - - - - - - - - - - "We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles." - - - - - - - - - - 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] |
||||||
1020 | What is the morning star here? | Rev 2:28 | Radioman2 | 80721 | ||
Welcome Biblebeliever: In addition to thanking you for your answer, I want to sincerely welcome you to the forum. Grace and peace, Radioman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ] Next > Last [66] >> |