Results 621 - 640 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
621 | Repost of ID# 56104 by stokeyhk | John 9:24 | Radioman2 | 86712 | ||
[Repost of ID# 56104 by stokeyhk. How ya doing, Steve. You seem to be the ... stokeyhk Sat 07/27/02, 3:19am] How ya doing, Steve. You seem to be the only one who wants to talk to me now! You know, those modern translations that you use'll be the death of you. What is ESV anyway? 1) As you may know, the Greek word rendered worship is "proskyneo." Strong says this word means: "to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore)." a) "Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."'" b) Jesus said: "The true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him." From these two verses, we can see that Jesus taught us to render exclusive worship to his Father. "Proskyneo" is rendered as "worship," but not exclusively so. For example: the NIV renders it "fall down" in Revelation 3:9, and "fell on his knees before him" in Matthew 18:26. Why? Context! Whereas the KJV renders them as "worship" and "worshipped." What about in the case of Jesus? Should it be rendered as "worship" or as "fall down"? Consider Mark 15:19. Here the KJV renders it as "worshipped" regarding what the soldiers did to Jesus. However, the NIV renders it as "falling on their knees, they paid homage to him." Why? Context again! They clearly did not view Jesus as God or as a deity. As "bow before" (AT), 'pay homage' (NEB) and 'do obeisence' (NWT) are in harmony with the Greek, with Jesus' comments at Matthew 4:10 and John 4:23, and the angels comments at Revelation 22:9, these individuals who 'performed proskyneo' to Jesus were doing so because they recognized Jesus as God's representative and as "the Son of God." (Matthew 14:32, 33) c) It was angels, not humans, who, as the New English Bible says, 'paid homage' to Jesus in Hebrews 1:6. 2) As you rightly quoted, Isaiah said he heard Jehovah speak these words: "Whom shall I [Jehovah] send, and who will go for us [Jehovah and Jesus, John 12:39-41]?" So Isaiah heard Jehovah say, "us." Isaiah also "got to see [in vision, Exodus 33:20] Jehovah." Was John teaching that the Jehovah Isaiah saw was in fact the prehuman Jesus? Consider two things: a) John 12:38 calls Jesus "the arm of Jehovah." b) John 12:40 applies Isaiah 6:10 to Jesus showing that he was sent by Jehovah to do a preaching work. (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:16-21) The "glory" that Isaiah saw was, as John 1:14 says, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." (Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:30, 31) 3) Rather than Jesus being granted "life in himself" "from eternity," Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus would be called "Everlasting Father [life-giver] after he 'was born as a child' and glorified. (John 5:26, 27; 17:2) Thus being granted to have "life in himself" to eternity based on his 'ransom as the Son of man.' (Matthew 20:28) 4) Revelation 21:2 says: "I saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." This, then, is focusing on the earth and "men." (Verse 3) 5) Jesus said the Queen of the South "came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom." Seems like Jesus didn't view him as losing sight of anything. The apostles' quotations from the Proverbs show this, too. The expression "under the sun" refers to a life excluding God's purpose which is indeed "meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 3) Solomon was focusing on planet earth, whereas Peter was focusing on "ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5-7, 10, 12, 13) Stokey |
||||||
622 | Repost of ID# 55729 by stokeyhk | John 9:24 | Radioman2 | 86711 | ||
[Repost of ID# 55729 by stokeyhk. "The teaching that Michael, the archangel... stokeyhk Wed 07/24/02, 10:40am"] The teaching that Michael, the archangel is Jesus Christ before he came to earth and since his return to heaven is not exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses. The name of Michael is found in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7. The term "the archangel" is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NIV) and Jude 9. Daniel 10:13 says: "Michael, one of the chief princes." Daniel 10:21 says: "Michael, your [Daniel's] prince." Daniel 12:1 says: "Michael, the great prince who protects your [Daniel's] people." Jude 9 says: "Michael the archangel." Revelation 12:7 says: "Michael and his angels." Michael means "Who is like God?" This points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael is the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (NIV), the command of Jesus for the resurrection to begin is described as "the voice of the archangel," and Jude 9 says the archangel is Michael. If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus, but to other angels, then the reference to "the voice of the archangel" would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. Notice the term is never plural in the Bible, thus implying that there is only one: "THE archangel." Revelation 12:7-12 describes "Michael and his angels" defeating Satan and his angels in connection with kingly authority being conferred on Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:7) Jesus is the one who leads the armies in heaven to destroy the nations of the world. Jesus is the one who will 'crush Satan's head' also. (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) Daniel 12:1 associates the 'standing up of Michael' to act with authority with an unprecedented "time of distress" during "the time of the end." (Daniel 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21, 40) This fits the experience of the nations in Revelation 19:11-16 and Matthew 24:21. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to the earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God. Stokey. |
||||||
623 | Who did Cain marry to have children? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 86641 | ||
"Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." - - - - - - - - - - The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)." (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
624 | Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] | Matt 1:21 | Radioman2 | 86627 | ||
Cwade: Q: "What is the reason for this difference in spelling?" A: I don't know. :-( Radioman2 |
||||||
625 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86599 | ||
Cwade: I have replied to you in my Note, ID# 86597, "Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,']." The original thread, ID# 39684, is so long and cumbersome that I thought it good to leave it and begin a new one. Shalom, Radioman2 |
||||||
626 | Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] | Matt 1:21 | Radioman2 | 86597 | ||
Cwade: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] because he will save his people from their sins." Mattityahu (Matthew) 1:21 (Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1998) The original thread, ID# 39684, is so long and cumbersome that I thought it good to begin a new thread. Shalom, Radioman2 |
||||||
627 | How do you find the Lord?? | 1 John 4:7 | Radioman2 | 86596 | ||
Redbone: 'God’s simple plan of salvation is: You are a sinner. Therefore, unless you believe on Jesus Who died in your place, you will spend eternity in Hell. If you believe on Him as your crucified, buried, and risen Savior, you receive forgiveness for all of your sins and His gift of eternal salvation by faith.' (www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html) AMPLIFIED John 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in *(trusts in, clings to, relies on)* Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. (Emphasis added.) 'Belief in the N.T. denotes more than intellectual assent to a fact. The word (Gk. pistis, noun; pisteuo, verb) means *adherence to, committal to, faith in, reliance upon, trust in* a person or an object, and this involves not only the consent of the mind, but an act of the heart and will of the subject. "Whosoever believeth in him" is equivalent to "whosoever trusts in or commits himself to him [Christ]." Belief, then is synonymous with faith, which in the N.T. consists of believing and receiving what God has revealed' (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967. Emphasis added). I urge you to go now to (www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html) and read the entire page, God's Simple Plan of Salvation. Radioman2 |
||||||
628 | Preaching from envy and strife? | Phil 1:15 | Radioman2 | 86589 | ||
Jman: The Message Philippians 1:15-17 15 It's true that some here preach Christ because with me out of the way, they think they'll step right into the spotlight. But the others do it with the best heart in the world. 16 One group is motivated by pure love, knowing that I am here defending the Message, wanting to help. 17 The others, now that I'm out of the picture, are merely greedy, hoping to get something out of it for themselves. Their motives are bad. They see me as their competition, and so the worse it goes for me, the better--they think--for them. R-man2 |
||||||
629 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86578 | ||
'Yahweh/Yah. YHWH, THE TETRAGRAMMATON BECAUSE OF ITS FOUR LETTERS, IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE ONLY PROPER NAME FOR GOD. 'It is also the most frequent name, occurring in the Old Testament 6,828 times (almost 700 times in the Psalms alone). Yah is a shortened form that appears fifty times in the Old Testament, including forty-three occurrences in the Psalms, often in the admonition "hallelu-jah" (lit. praise Jah). English Bibles represent the name yhwh by the title "LORD" (written in capitals to distinguish it from "lord" [adonai]. The Septuagint rendered yhwh as kyrios (Lord). The line from yhwh to adonai to kyrios is significant for the Pauline statement: "And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Php 2:11).' (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi). |
||||||
630 | When did say the words at John 10:1-21? | John 10:22 | Radioman2 | 86571 | ||
After this the Feast of Dedication [of the reconsecration of the temple] was taking place at Jerusalem. It was winter, (AMPLIFIED John 10:22) It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah.[1] (John 10:22 New Living Translation (NLT)) ____________________ Footnotes 1. Hanukkah 10:22 Or the Festival of Dedication. |
||||||
631 | Battle of Isreal with Gog an Magog. | Rev 20:9 | Radioman2 | 86568 | ||
DAIRYLEADER5: I wonder: if this is what you believe, can YOU confirm it? If not, what is your basis for believing it? |
||||||
632 | Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 86563 | ||
Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation "Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false." Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation '[Daniel] showed me a book that he had found, Fundamental Principles of Life , which includes the writings of Jacob Lorber...In the mind of Daniel, as he was reading through this, he found that it not only made the Christian case, but it made it better than anything he had heard before, in particular with regard to the nature of the Trinity, which was an issue he had been struggling with... 'Daniel found that he had stumbled upon, in this book, an explanation of things that made more sense than he had ever encountered before. We had a conversation about it and as he began telling me about this book, The Fundamental Principles of Life, and describing to me the format and what it really entailed, I realized there was a problem immediately because this was a record of Jacob Lorber's conversations with or revelations from Jesus Christ. In other words, the book was a "thus saith Jesus" kind of thing. Jesus is speaking to Lorber and Lorber is writing down what Jesus says. So we have the gospels and we have Lorber's revelations which purport to be the actual words of Jesus explaining these other kinds of things. 'Now, I have a rule of thumb...Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false. All I need to know is that much. Jacob Lorber is giving us a revelation in which he is writing down the words of Jesus as communicated to him for us--I know it's false. Not because there is no theological possibility that Jesus can speak in revelation to someone today, though I think a case can be made against it. Even if I granted that as a theological possibility, I have never seen the real McCoy. These modern day revelations have always followed the same kind of pattern. I know when such a revelation is offered to me it's going to be false. I know it from experience. 'And I told Daniel that. I said, "Daniel, you don't have to read me any more. All I need to know is that this person claims that he has revelation directly from Jesus Christ that explains things like the Trinity in better detail and more accurately than the Bible can. All I need to know is that, to know this is a false prophet..." ( . . . ) 'Whenever you hear that kind of thing, there is a very important question you have to ask. I know what the truth is, and when I compare the first revelation to the second revelation, I know the second revelation couldn't be Jesus speaking through whoever that prophet is. It is not enough for someone to say, "Jesus told me this thing, therefore you ought to believe the revelation." Though many people leave it at that, quite frankly. I'm really surprised that there are so many so-called prophets of Jesus here now in these latter days, and they make a bald-faced authority claim and say, "You ought to believe this." Why? Because Jesus is speaking here. Well, the very question is...Why should I trust that any of this new material is a genuine revelation of Jesus? Why should I trust that? 'Now, the Biblical answer to that is signs and wonders and miracles, and the authority of the resurrection, and the authority of the apostles, and all those other things that substantiate the Scriptures. The apostles themselves walked with Jesus. They could speak first hand for His teaching. Now, Paul was an exception here, but even in his case he brought his teaching before these same apostles who had actually walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry and these same apostles authenticated his gospel as being sound. We read about that in Galatians 2. He received the right hand of fellowship, and it was demonstrated there that he had not run in vain, and God had indeed spoken to him and that he was preaching what was true. Peter even referred to Paul's writing as Scripture in 1 Peter 3. So you have this tight group of people close to Jesus that can authenticate what is true. 'What about people who pop up nearly 2000 years later and claim to have the most recent word from Christ after a couple millennia of silence? Often times you will get this response, "Well, it feels right. I really have this feeling that it's true. I have a burning in my heart that authenticates the truth of this alleged revelation." This response just won't do because what they're offering is a mere subjective test for something that is supposedly objectively true. Yet this objective truth is not patently obvious on the face of it.' ____________________ 'Testing "New" Revelation' by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/other/testnew.htm) |
||||||
633 | WILL WE HAVE FULL MEMORY OF THE PAST IN | Gen 25:8 | Radioman2 | 86497 | ||
The Bible does not say that our memories will be erased in heaven. The following, while not directly addressing your question, is, nevertheless, related to it. ____________________ 'Will we recognize and be reunited with our loved ones in heaven? 'Yes! In the Old Testament, when a person died, the biblical writers said he was "gathered to his people" (cf. Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 20:24; Judg. 2:10). In 2 Samuel 12, when David's infant child died, David confidently said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (v. 23). David evidently expected to see the child again-not just a nameless, faceless soul without an identity, but that very child. 'The New Testament indicates even more clearly that our identities will remain unchanged. While sharing the Passover meal with His disciples, Christ said, "Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:17-18). Christ was promising that He and His disciples would drink the fruit of the vine together again-in heaven. Elsewhere Jesus makes a similar, but even more definite, promise: "Many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11). 'Furthermore, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Even though they died centuries before, they still maintained a clear identity (Matt. 17:3) -- Peter, James, and John evidently recognized them (v. 4), which implies that we will somehow be able to recognize people we've never even seen before. All the redeemed will maintain their identity forever, but in a perfected form.' To read the rest of this article, go to: (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven8.htm) |
||||||
634 | That didn't really answer my question. | Rom 9:23 | Radioman2 | 86413 | ||
Whitewave: Please accept my sincere apologies for the sarcasm. I honestly was not directing it toward you, although I can see where it would appear that I was. (Search the archives for examples of questions that, over a period of 2 1/2 years, could drive a person to frustration. I do not include your question in that category.) I am truly sorry for replying the way I did. To contact the Lockman Foundation, sponsors of the NASB translation project, go to: (www.gospelcom.net/lockman/). I agree with you: it is sad, but true, that no one from the translating team monitors what is going on here at the forum. Sometimes I don't even know why I monitor it. :-) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
635 | How does God speak to us? | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 86408 | ||
Mommapbs: I, like you, continually dig into God's Word regarding what I believe -- i.e., "whether those things are so." Occasionally they aren't. :-) Grace and peace be multiplied to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
636 | Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 86405 | ||
"Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false." Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation '[Daniel] showed me a book that he had found, Fundamental Principles of Life , which includes the writings of Jacob Lorber...In the mind of Daniel, as he was reading through this, he found that it not only made the Christian case, but it made it better than anything he had heard before, in particular with regard to the nature of the Trinity, which was an issue he had been struggling with... 'Daniel found that he had stumbled upon, in this book, an explanation of things that made more sense than he had ever encountered before. We had a conversation about it and as he began telling me about this book, The Fundamental Principles of Life, and describing to me the format and what it really entailed, I realized there was a problem immediately because this was a record of Jacob Lorber's conversations with or revelations from Jesus Christ. In other words, the book was a "thus saith Jesus" kind of thing. Jesus is speaking to Lorber and Lorber is writing down what Jesus says. So we have the gospels and we have Lorber's revelations which purport to be the actual words of Jesus explaining these other kinds of things. 'Now, I have a rule of thumb...Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false. All I need to know is that much. Jacob Lorber is giving us a revelation in which he is writing down the words of Jesus as communicated to him for us--I know it's false. Not because there is no theological possibility that Jesus can speak in revelation to someone today, though I think a case can be made against it. Even if I granted that as a theological possibility, I have never seen the real McCoy. These modern day revelations have always followed the same kind of pattern. I know when such a revelation is offered to me it's going to be false. I know it from experience. 'And I told Daniel that. I said, "Daniel, you don't have to read me any more. All I need to know is that this person claims that he has revelation directly from Jesus Christ that explains things like the Trinity in better detail and more accurately than the Bible can. All I need to know is that, to know this is a false prophet..." ( . . . ) 'Whenever you hear that kind of thing, there is a very important question you have to ask. I know what the truth is, and when I compare the first revelation to the second revelation, I know the second revelation couldn't be Jesus speaking through whoever that prophet is. It is not enough for someone to say, "Jesus told me this thing, therefore you ought to believe the revelation." Though many people leave it at that, quite frankly. I'm really surprised that there are so many so-called prophets of Jesus here now in these latter days, and they make a bald-faced authority claim and say, "You ought to believe this." Why? Because Jesus is speaking here. Well, the very question is...Why should I trust that any of this new material is a genuine revelation of Jesus? Why should I trust that? 'Now, the Biblical answer to that is signs and wonders and miracles, and the authority of the resurrection, and the authority of the apostles, and all those other things that substantiate the Scriptures. The apostles themselves walked with Jesus. They could speak first hand for His teaching. Now, Paul was an exception here, but even in his case he brought his teaching before these same apostles who had actually walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry and these same apostles authenticated his gospel as being sound. We read about that in Galatians 2. He received the right hand of fellowship, and it was demonstrated there that he had not run in vain, and God had indeed spoken to him and that he was preaching what was true. Peter even referred to Paul's writing as Scripture in 1 Peter 3. So you have this tight group of people close to Jesus that can authenticate what is true. 'What about people who pop up nearly 2000 years later and claim to have the most recent word from Christ after a couple millennia of silence? Often times you will get this response, "Well, it feels right. I really have this feeling that it's true. I have a burning in my heart that authenticates the truth of this alleged revelation." This response just won't do because what they're offering is a mere subjective test for something that is supposedly objectively true. Yet this objective truth is not patently obvious on the face of it.' ____________________ 'Testing "New" Revelation' by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/other/testnew.htm) |
||||||
637 | Summary of letters to the seven churches | Rev 1:11 | Radioman2 | 86397 | ||
'With the conclusion of the introductory matters of chapter one, John begins his presentation. The seven churches identified in Revelation 1:11 are specifically addressed. Each receives a description of its present condition with a necessary warning and a call to the overcomers to persevere. Of the seven churches, four demonstrate a spirit of compromise—Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Laodicea. The church at Sardis is dead and the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia are presented as the faithful churches. Smyrna is the physically persecuted church and Philadelphia is the physically protected church.' To read more go to: (http://www.revelationcommentary.org/02_chapter.html) |
||||||
638 | What is the theme | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86394 | ||
Nexgen: Welcome to the forum! :-) Could you be more specific: What is the them of *what*? The central theme of the Bible is Christ. Radioman2 |
||||||
639 | Where did the skins come from? | Gen 3:21 | Radioman2 | 86392 | ||
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. Genesis 3:21 NASB The garments came from God, who made them. The skins were animal skins. 'The garments of skin were God's provision for restoring Adam's and Eve's fellowship with Himself and imply slaying of an animal in order to provide them' (Ryrie Study Bible, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). |
||||||
640 | Revelation in Daniel 10 | Dan 10:1 | Radioman2 | 86388 | ||
Daniel chapter 10 is the record of 'Daniel's final vision (536 B.C.). In it, he was given further insight into the great spiritual battle between God's people and those who want to destroy them. There is also more detailed information on the future, specifically the struggles between the Ptolemies (kings of the south) and the Seleucids (kings of the north).' (Life Application Study Bible, NLT, Tyndale House, 1996) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ] Next > Last [66] >> |