Results 561 - 580 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
561 | should you have extra marital affairs? | Rom 13:9 | Radioman2 | 87656 | ||
Retxar: Welcome back! I've missed your postings. Good to have you back. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
562 | Are Jesus and God the same? | John 10:30 | Radioman2 | 87618 | ||
Please search for your question before asking. | ||||||
563 | Divorce and the Pastor | John 6:37 | Radioman2 | 87604 | ||
Divorce and the Pastor 'Where does it say in God's Word that divorce disqualifies a man from God's service? We're not talking about infidelity here. We're not talking about adultery here. We are talking about two people whose marital difficulties have reached the point where, for one of them at least, staying married is no longer the option. 'I understand Paul's directions to Timothy were that a pastor must be the husband of one wife. But if [one] divorces, and if [he] does not remarry, how has he violated Paul's directives? 'Let's check the record. What does the Bible say about divorce? 'First, through Malachi, God said, "I hate divorce." That's pretty clear. 'Second, Jesus was confronted one day by the Pharisees about the question of divorce and remarriage. Please get that! The context of the passage, Matthew 19:3-9, the reason they continued to question Him, was not to learn whether or not a married couple could divorce. They already knew from God's declaration in Deuteronomy 24, the passage to which Jesus appealed, that they could. The Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus on the question of whether or not divorced couples could, according to Scripture, remarry. 'Jesus said, "God's original plan never included divorce, but because your hearts are hard, he permitted it on the grounds of adultery. If the marriage is dissolved because of adultery, the innocent party may remarry without jeopardy." 'Who initially and originally said a husband and wife should not get a divorce? God. Who initially and originally allowed a husband and wife to get a divorce? God. Is there a contradiction there? Yes, there is, and we need to understand what Jesus said. The contradiction is within us – you and me – not with Almighty God! 'Is divorce wrong? It is, unless Jesus lied. 'Does it disqualify an individual from ever entering Heaven. It does not, unless Jesus lied, because Jesus said, "Whoever comes to me in faith, I will never cast out.' 'But where does Scripture say that if a pastor becomes divorced, it disqualifies him from being a pastor? The disqualification comes from remarriage which contradicts the Bible's directives.' [Note: Neither this post nor this thread is about personalities. It's not about naming names. The purpose here is to discuss biblical principles. The day that readers start naming names will be the last day of this discussion.] ____________________ DIVORCE AND THE PASTOR by David Sisler (http://davidsisler.com/9-2.htm) |
||||||
564 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87534 | ||
John 17:3 and the Only True God "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," (John 17:3, NASB). 'The Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, cite John 17:3 as a proof text to deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus Christ is not God. They reason is that if Jesus were God, then He would not have called the Father, "the only true God." If the Father is the only true God, then it must require that Jesus cannot be God. 'First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is something the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently. 'Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, the word made flesh (John 1:1,14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man He would naturally, and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: “And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God,” (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and as a man He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God. But it is not a phrase that excludes Christ for Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28. 'Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized. 'Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31. 'Fifth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem -- if we use their logic. '"For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4, NASB). 'Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord. '"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10). 'Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light. '"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," (Mark 10:18, NASB). 'Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. '“I, even I, am the Lord [YHW]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). 'We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior. '"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). 'According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic would have a problem. 'Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," (NASB). 'As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine.' (http://www.carm.org/jw/John17_3.htm) |
||||||
565 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87533 | ||
A shocking mistranslation - NWT John 1:1 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) |
||||||
566 | Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 87496 | ||
Romans 16:17 '"Doctrine divides" has been the hue and cry. Yes, doctrine does divide - that’s its very purpose. It divides us from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and from those . . . who promote a distorted view of Christ and His atonement.' -- Paul R. Belli and G. Richard Fisher AMPLIFIED Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to be on your guard concerning those who create dissensions and difficulties and cause divisions, in opposition to the doctrine (the teaching) which you have been taught. [I warn you to turn aside from them, to] avoid them. |
||||||
567 | Justification for non-Christian Living?? | Gal 5:24 | Radioman2 | 87495 | ||
Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mr 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mr 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. |
||||||
568 | Justification for non-Christian Living?? | Gal 5:24 | Radioman2 | 87476 | ||
Do not judge? When taken as a whole and diligently compared one to another, the Scriptures do NOT prohibit all types of judging. Do not judge??? Anyone? Anything? Ever? A careful reading of the NT and a study of the passages in which the English word "judge" appears may surprise you. You will find that Christians are to judge between dogs and swine. Also, according to the Scriptures (see below), Christians are to judge: all things, those who are inside the church, the world, angels, what is said or taught, and ourselves. So believers are to judge at least seven different things or groups of people. Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves. Matthew 7:1 Amplified New Testament "7:1 Judge not. As the context reveals, this does not prohibit all types of judging (v. 16). There is a righteous kind of judgment we are supposed to exercise with careful discernment (John 7:24). Censorious, hypocritical, self-righteous, or other kinds of unfair judgments are forbidden; but in order to fulfill the commandments that follow, it is necessary to discern dogs and swine (v. 6) from one's own brethren (vv. 3-5)" (1997, Word Publishing). Other Scriptural examples of Christians judging are presented below. (The following Scripture quotations are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted. Words in parentheses ( ) or brackets [ ] are from the text of the Amplified New Testament.) 1 Co 2:15 (ANT)But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one . . . 1 Co 5: 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge (pass disciplinary judgment [passing censuring sentence on them as the facts require]) those who are inside [the church]? 1 Co 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge (and govern) the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge (try) the smallest matters? 1 Co 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels (and pronounce opinion between right and wrong [for them])? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 1 Co 6:5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge ( to decide [the private grievances, disputes, and quarrels]) between his brethren? 1 Co 10: 15 I speak as to wise men; judge (think over and make up your minds) for yourselves [about] what I say. 1 Co 11:31 For if we would judge (searchingly examine) ourselves [detecting our shortcomings and recognizing our own condition], we would not be judged. 1 Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge (pay attention and weigh and discern what is said). 2 Co 13:5 (ANT) Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - NASB 1 Thessalonians 4:8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. |
||||||
569 | Needing help explaining Rev. Chapter 1 | Revelation | Radioman2 | 87431 | ||
For an online verse by verse commentary of Revelation (no "s"), check out this website: (www.revelationcommentary.org/) I find it very helpful and informative and I use it often. God bless you as you study and teach. |
||||||
570 | Divorce Cult Member ? | 1 Cor 7:1 | Radioman2 | 87378 | ||
Show us the BOOK, the CHAPTER and the VERSE where the Bible plainly teaches that "if a believer is marryed (sic) to an unbeliever and the unbeliever prevents the believer from worshiping God that they are to seperate." You've given us a book and a chapter, but where is the VERSE that teaches what you say the Bible teaches? When you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you. When you come up with a Scriptural, reasonable argument for what you believe, I'll be glad to consider it. But I'm still waiting to see your Scriptural evidence. |
||||||
571 | Security of the Believer (Backsliding) | Luke 8:13 | Radioman2 | 87374 | ||
Hello, EdB: I respectfully disagree with the AG position on this particular issue, although I agree on other issues. The reason I posted it was to provide good, reasonable arguments against the doctrine of "once saved always saved." Certainly there are true Christians who hold to the position that the Assemblies of God does. Out of respect for those Christians I have presented the AG position and the Scriptures and reasoning behind it. Sorry, but I haven't checked my email in a day or two. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Ever your fellow-believer and friend, Radioman2 :-) |
||||||
572 | Stanley reliance. Burning building quest | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87341 | ||
Ecargneb: Your apology is accepted and appreciated, although not necessary. I am not offended. Nor do I feel that it was your intent to belittle my contributions. Further, in the context of this thread only, I can understand why you referred to a reliance upon Charles Stanley. Also, the intent of my previous note was not to scold you, but merely to set the record straight. So there is no harm done. I esteem you as highly as ever. Everything is OK. Grace and peace be multiplied to you! Radioman2 |
||||||
573 | Do the will of the Father to enter heave | Matt 7:21 | Radioman2 | 87334 | ||
AMPLIFIED 1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him--deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] commits (practices) sin. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him]. AMPLIFIED 1 John 3:9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God. Using the Search function to check my postings, you will see that I have never said we can deliberately, knowingly and habitually practice disobedience and still claim to be born of God. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him. (See 1 John 3:6-10, especially in the Amplified Bible.) |
||||||
574 | Security of the Believer (Backsliding) | Luke 8:13 | Radioman2 | 87332 | ||
Security of the Believer (Backsliding) [All of the following is a direct quote from the web page (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_09_security.cfm). The article has been edited solely to fit within space limitations.] What is the Assemblies of God position on the security of the believer's salvation? ...We believe it is possible for a person once saved to turn from God and be lost again... In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible's call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost. ( . . . ) The Assemblies of God leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind's free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths. "Eternal security," according to Calvinists, means "once saved, always saved." The key passage for this position is John 10:28,29— "No one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." There is great assurance in this passage and in Romans 8:35,39—"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The Assemblies of God also stands on these wonderful truths knowing we need not fear that something external will overpower us and take away our salvation. Only our willful choices can do that. But because we are creatures with free wills, we must be vigilantly on guard because the enemy of our soul, the devil, "prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith" (1 Peter 5:8,9). In our Fellowship we believe carelessness can lead to apathy, apathy to neglect, and neglect to a conscious decision to sin. We often refer to this spiritual decline as backsliding. We believe one who backslides is in danger of losing his salvation if the individual persists in rejecting the Spirit's call to repentance and restoration. Luke 8:13 makes clear the fact that believers can lose their salvation. It says some "believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away." Revelation 22:19 says "If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life, and in the holy city." Certainly there are true Christians who believe and teach Calvinism; there are also true Christians who believe and teach that men and women have free will. Unfortunately, both sides have spent more time arguing doctrinal terminology and interpretations of theology than reaching out to a lost world. The irony of the disagreement is that Calvinists, who believe in predestination, are sometimes more active in witnessing and evangelism than Arminians who believe that man has a free will and should be encouraged to accept Christ as Savior. God, of course, looks on the heart and the actions rather than on the eloquence with which one defends a position. CONCERNS: Although the Assemblies of God adheres basically to the Arminian position on the spiritual security of the believer, there are extremes and potential abuses which must be avoided. The Christian life is not a roller coaster of Sunday salvation and Monday through Saturday backsliding. On the other hand, no Christian, no matter how spiritual, can claim perfection and sinlessness (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1). Therefore as Christians we must continually come to God sincerely asking His forgiveness for living below the potential He makes possible through the gift of His Holy Spirit. The truth of God's marvelous and free grace has sadly led some to imagine and indulge in a cheap grace, a grace that covers all sins with no need to live a holy life. Such an attitude is an insult to the great price Christ paid to purchase our salvation. Though we may fail and fall, and sometimes sin, the heart of the true believer always regrets, repents, asks forgiveness, and seeks never to sin that way again. To carelessly participate in sin, expecting to gain forgiveness later, is itself an act of backsliding that will lead ultimately to losing one's salvation. We therefore reject any "once saved, always saved" doctrine that excuses sinful lifestyles. |
||||||
575 | Stanley reliance. Burning building quest | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87321 | ||
1.25 percent quote Stanley Ecargneb: "I am fascinated by your apparent reliance on Charles Stanley." Actually, I have made a total of 720 posts as of today, 6-20-2003. Of those 720, nine (9) quote the writings of Charles Stanley. Therefore, slightly more than 1 percent (1.25 percent to be exact) of my posts quote Charles Stanley. "Have you read the analogy he provides of a person jumping from a burning building?" No, I do not remember having ever read the analogy you refer to. Grace and Peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
576 | Do the will of the Father to enter heave | Matt 7:21 | Radioman2 | 87284 | ||
Ecargneb: You are correct. "Faith in Jesus is displayed by obedience to God's commands." The emphasis is on "displayed by." Obedience is the result, not the cause, of saving faith. Radioman2 |
||||||
577 | Losing our salvation | Heb 10:26 | Radioman2 | 87282 | ||
Ecargneb: Welcome to the forum! :-) Hebrews 10:26 "knowledge. The Gr. term denotes specific knowledge, not general spiritual knowledge (compare Heb 6:4; compare 1 Tim 2:4). Though the knowledge was not defective or incomplete, the application of the knowledge was certainly flawed. Judas Iscariot is a good example of a disciple who had no lack of knowledge, but lacked faith and became the arch-apostate." (p. 1915, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
578 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87278 | ||
Repost of ID# 28726 by Morant61 The Nestle Aland Text, the UBS Text, the Majority Text all use the phrase 'apo tou xulou tas zoas.' (I'm not sure of the transliteration). The phrase is translated "from the tree of life." The Textus Receptus and Scrivener's Text both use the phrase 'apo biblou tas zoas.' This phrase is translated "from book of life." Both the Textus Receptus (which the KJV is based upon) and Scrivener's Text used only a handful of manuscripts in the compliation of their text. As a result, there are ocassionally readings which are not supported by the better Greek texts. This is one of those cases! By the way, the word 'tree' is Strongs number #3586. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
579 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87276 | ||
Rev 22:19 American Standard Version (1901) and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. NASB and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. NIV And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. NRSV if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Holman Christian Standard Bible And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book. TEV And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book. New Living Translation And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. New Century Version And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away that one's share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are written about in this book. GOD'S WORD Translation If anyone takes away any words from this book of prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life and the holy city that are described in this book. World English Bible If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. The Bible in Basic English And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book. The Darby Translation And if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. Wesley's New Testament and that if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take from him his share in the Tree of Life and in the holy city--the things described in this book. The point of my answer is that in Revelation 22:19 the editors of the NASB, NIV and 11 other translations of the Bible chose the reading "tree of life" rather than "the book of life." In these 13 translations "How does God take away his part out of the book of life?" becomes a moot question. |
||||||
580 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87246 | ||
If you "don't think this passage (Rev 13:8 ) is the focal point of anything," then: Why build an anti-Election doctrine upon it? Why debate it? Why use it as a primary proof-text in the argument against Eternal Salvation? It seems a contradiction to me that people would use this verse to prove Eternal In-security, if it is not the focal point of anything. It's like one minute they're saying this verse carries a lot of weight, and the next minute they're saying this verse has little weight in the discussion. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Next > Last [66] >> |