Results 1281 - 1300 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1281 | Baptism in the Holy Spirit? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Radioman2 | 76360 | ||
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized" NASB 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit. |
||||||
1282 | "Babylon the Mother of False Religions" | Rev 17:5 | Radioman2 | 76242 | ||
"Main Entry: gee Function: interjection Etymology: euphemism for Jesus" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) Searcher: Thank you for pointing out the etymology of the word "gee". This word is offensive also to me. P.S. Isis. "Main Entry: Isis : an Egyptian nature goddess and wife and sister of Osiris" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) "Isis was a magician, possibly the archetype for the high priestess of the tarot. She learned her magic from Thoth, although according to some legends she obtained her powers from Ra himself by tricking him into revealing his name to her, thus acquiring his full magical knowledge." (http://www.crystalinks.com/isis.html) |
||||||
1283 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Radioman2 | 76145 | ||
'Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer' STATEMENT DJ511 '(Note: numbers that appear in in the following text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) ' Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not. So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical - or spiritual - death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability. ' Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984 edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech....The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible." ' With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that. ' Although it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating, this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in translations. Simple observation can be powerful. 'Observing the Difference ' Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears weight. ' Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John 5:39-40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV). ' In NWT's Matthew 10:32-33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus - what is its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is - not what He stands for - the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud! 'Only the Context Knows for Sure ' When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?" ' "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32). ' "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the 'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament. He was equating Jesus with Jehovah." ' Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.' (To read the rest of the article, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) |
||||||
1284 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Radioman2 | 76144 | ||
STATEMENT DJ265 The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. (...) Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. |
||||||
1285 | Mark 13:32 and 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 | Phil 2:6 | Radioman2 | 76141 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the time of His return? In Matt. 24:35-36 (../kjv/Matt/matt_24.htm) Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah." If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God. This objection is most often raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses (../witnesses.htm) but is also echoed by the Christadelphians (../christadelphian.htm). It is a good question. Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union (../dictionary/dic_g-h.htm); that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 (../kjv/Heb/Heb_2.htm) that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8 (../kjv/Phil/phil_2.htm), it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 (../kjv/Col/col_2.htm) says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 (../kjv/Luke/luke_2.htm) that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it? He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 (../kjv/John/john_21.htm) - NASB). Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true. But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5. After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things. For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
1286 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 76133 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
1287 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Radioman2 | 76127 | ||
The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58 'Let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:. 'The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment: '"I have been equals ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX" 'The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58. 'In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position. (...) 'If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them. 'Conclusion 'The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity. 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.' ___________ 1 New World Translation, 1961, page 5. 2 I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says. WE WorldWide English Bible YLT Young's Literal Translation KJ21 21st Century King James Version CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS and RESEARCH MINISTRY (To read the entire article, go to: http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm) |
||||||
1288 | Who were the people in the land of Nod? | Gen 4:16 | Radioman2 | 76057 | ||
What book, chapter and verse of the Bible says that there were people already in the Land of Nod when Cain was sent there? | ||||||
1289 | Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 Which one is | Matt 28:19 | Radioman2 | 76054 | ||
Was Jesus wrong when He said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"? NASB Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," |
||||||
1290 | Joseph: Jesus' father? | Luke 2:33 | Radioman2 | 76050 | ||
Luke 2:33 (NET) So the child's father[3] and mother were amazed at what was said about him. Footnote 3. tc Most mss (A Q Y 053 Ë13 Byz it) read "Joseph"; in favor of the reading "his father" (Í B D L W 1 700 1241 et pauci) is both the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that "Joseph" is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ. New English Translation (http://www.netbible.com) |
||||||
1291 | How come we try to make what God told us | James 2:14 | Radioman2 | 61965 | ||
Question: How come we try to make what God told us to do to be saved into a battle of misunderstandings? Answer: Define "we". Who tries to do this? Question: At the end of the day, when one reads the sermon from Peter on the day of Pentecost, what did he tell the people to do? Answer: In the Bible passage, doesn't it say what he told them? Question: Was what he said for thier salvation? Answer: Since in your question you do not give the book, chapter and verse to which you are referring, I'm forced to guess that your question is about what Peter said in Acts 2:38. Was what he said for their salvation? If "the remission of sins" means salvation, then the answer would be, Yes, it was for their salvation. Question: Did they except what he said? Answer: Do you mean did they ACCEPT what he said? In the Bible passage, doesn't it say "they that gladly received his word were baptized"? Question: Did some reject what he said? Answer: Unknown. The passage does not say "some rejected what he said." On the other hand, that some rejected is a reasonable understanding of the passage. Question: Finally, does what Peter told the people to do, contradict what Paul and James said? Answer: No. |
||||||
1292 | Radioman2, What "third toe"? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61962 | ||
Question: What "third toe" ... I don't see it? Answer: The third toe is the one between the second and fourth toes. The third toe appears on every drawing or chart of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB) that I've ever seen. |
||||||
1293 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61961 | ||
1) Yes, it is a duplicate post. Thank you for pointing it out. 2) It is an intentional duplicate post. I originally intended to post this as a question, but instead posted it as a note. Therefore, I reposted to place it in the category I intended -- the Question category. 3) No, it is not a duplicate post in that one post is a Note and the other is a Question. 3) Duplicate post or not, the question remains: "In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)?" "Duplicate post" is not the answer to the question. |
||||||
1294 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61951 | ||
In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)? NASB Daniel 2:41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. |
||||||
1295 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61949 | ||
In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)? NASB Daniel 2:41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. |
||||||
1296 | Better to remain silent and be thought a | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61615 | ||
Ray, To answer your questions... Question: Is this forum only for the most eminent scholars? Answer: No. Question: can a questioning new believer ask his questions and make his comments also? Answer: Yes, of course. I did not have you in mind when I posted my Note. I bear you no ill will whatsoever. I respect and appreciate you. |
||||||
1297 | Questionable Questions | 1 Tim 6:4 | Radioman2 | 61572 | ||
He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions, (AMPLIFIED) 1 Timothy 6:4 Is there such a thing as a stupid question? Read the following questions which have actually been posted here and judge for yourself. Questionable Questions. These are actual questions that have been posted on the forum. Note: I am not necessarily implying that there is anything "wrong" with either the questions or those who asked them. I merely point out that these questions are a bit odd. (These are direct quotes, unedited and uncorrected.) "Who do we know the bible is realy God's?" "? ? ?" "Russellville?" "If we are to love our enemies than why are we taught to hate Satan?" "Does God have free will?" "What was the first language of Adam/Eve?" "Was Abraham a Muslim?" "Why does everything happen in thirds?" "If 'computer' stands for 666 than isn't wrong for us to use the computer?" (Note: This question was posted using a PC -- Personal COMPUTER.) "In the bible, where are Japanese?" "Blue marbles roll faster than red ones(?)" "Are death and Hades destroyed or are they tormented forever?" "What if?" "Where does the Bible say that the earth revolves?" "How do you know the earth spins on its axis?" "Why do we grow old?" "The Bible says that what is put to death is dead both in heaven and earth,so how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?" Now I will ask a question. After reading the above samples of actual forum questions: Is this StudyBibleForum or Trivial Pursuit? |
||||||
1298 | Trifling (stupid) controversies | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61562 | ||
Concerning St. Judas of Iscariot, the Sabbath, Tithing, Water Salvation, Genesis 1-2, Genesis 6:4, Hebrews 6, etc. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse (shut your mind against, have nothing to do with) trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid) controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know that they foster strife and breed quarrels. Once again here on the forum someone -- in this case several someones --(Person X) takes a stand on their interpretation of one verse of Scripture or one doctrine. They cling to it no matter what. Others on the forum do all they can possibly do, using both Scripture and reason, to point out that the stand the person has taken is neither Scriptural nor logical. Person X apparently ignores every point made by every other poster. Person X quotes the same question or argument again and again. Other posters try in every way possible to make their points as clear and plain as they possibly can. Time after time Scripture and reason are totally ignored. After the other posters have repeatedly made their point as plain as day, Person X continues to repeat his one misinterpreted verse or point, saying it again and again, like a mantra. After days or weeks have gone by and 100 or more posts are made to the same thread, one or both sides finally gives up. Someone finally admits they've reached a stalemate. In vain one hopes that it's finally over and good riddance to the debate. Lo and behold, a month goes by and here comes the same issue all over again. Only it's someone else asking the question this time. Sometimes the postings here are like a dog going round and round chasing his own tale. Or like a broken record. It should come as no surprise that many former Forum members eventually give up and leave the Forum in disgust, never to return. What is my point? What difference does it make? If my point was that night is dark and day is light, someone would write in and give me 10 arguments why I am wrong. Though we or an angel from heaven stood before that person for 6 literal, 24-hour days trying to reason with them, the person would close her mind and resist the truth. |
||||||
1299 | Where is paradise? Inquiring minds want | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61559 | ||
Where is paradise? Inquiring minds want to know. (repost) Your Questions and My Answers 1. Q: Are we to pray to Jesus? A: Had you been in combat in Vietnam, you wouldn't need (or have time) to ask that question. 2. Q: Could Jesus sin? A: No. 3. Q: Is sex before marriage wrong? A: Yes. Also note: Usually the Bible doesn't speak of right and wrong. It speaks of good and evil. 4. Q: When did God change lifespan of man? A: DID God change lifespan of man? In what verse of the Bible does it SAY he did? 5. Q: What law(s) did Christ fulfill? A: He fulfilled the law. Not "laws" (plural), but "the law" (singular). 6. Q: Why? A: Because. 7. Q: Does God have multiple motivations? A: Is the clay questioning the motives of the Potter -- AGAIN? 8. Q: Satan take the place of God in Genesis? A: No. 9. Q: Good News Bible? A: Yes. 10. Q: Does it state anywhere in the old testament about jesus' crucifixion? A: Yes, it does. Otherwise what was the source of the prophecies fulfilled when Christ was crucified? (FYI: We usually spell Jesus with a capital J.) 11. Q: Can all churches worship together as one? A: No. Can all Christians worship together as one? One day we will. This is not that day. 12. Q: Can someone give me a CLEAR answere to the question..Does salvation require baptism? A: Yes, someone can. 13. Q: Where is paradise? A: Anywhere where foolish and ignorant questionings (speculations) have ceased. |
||||||
1300 | Idle speculation w/o scriptural support | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61556 | ||
Here at the Forum you will find all the bricks without straw, clouds without water, and idle speculation without Scripture that you'll ever need. ------------- Why, oh why, are people so FASCINATED with speculation about what the Bible does NOT say? Shouldn't they be watching "Unsolved Mysteries" or one of those TV shows? Does anyone here have any respect for the silence of the Bible? When one speculates on what the Bible does not say, who is edified, who is encouraged, who is comforted? People need to study and learn what the Bible DOES say. Then they might have less questions about and interest in what it doesn't say. Be assured: the Bible is complete. God has not, as some have suggested, left anything out that should be there or made any mistakes in the Bible. To go on and on and on about what the Bible does not say is to cast doubt upon the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture surely would not be sufficient if people had to make up 1,001 questions about what it does not include. One may get some kind of kick out of questioning the reliability or sufficiency of Scripture, but all one does is create doubt and confusion for seekers and babes in Christ. And by a strange twist of logic some on this forum have claimed that this is somehow helpful in furthering the gospel and the kingdom of God. That somehow speculating on trivial matters on which the Bible is silent is going to strengthen someone's faith in God or in the essentials of the Christian faith. We ought to read the Bible with an open mind and heart. Be willing to obey what we find there. Accept it for what it actually is, the very words of God Himself. "Therefore, the person who rejects [the Bible] does not reject man, but God, who also gives you His Holy Spirit." One more time: according to the Lockman Foundation, this is neither a discussion group, a survey, or an opinion poll. If one finds the Bible insufficient to satisfy all their curiosity, maybe they ought to discard it and turn to the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower Society, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, or some of the more colorful and imaginative postings here at the forum. All of the above are equally spurious, fanciful and uninspired. Here at the Forum you will find all the bricks without straw, clouds without water, and idle speculation without Scripture that you'll ever need. Selah. (Pause and think about that.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ] Next > Last [66] >> |