Results 1081 - 1100 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1081 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96251 | ||
Do you have one or more specific Scripture references to back up your assertions? --Radioman2 |
||||||
1082 | Trifling, unedifying, stupid controversy | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96260 | ||
Discernment Is Not Optional ___________________ "According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required." ____________________ [EdB: Excellent post! The MacArthur article you refer to is right on target. I post it here for those who have not read it. Grace to you, Radioman2] What is biblical discernment and why is it important? "In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically. "First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required. "The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one's ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living-a certain recipe for compromise. "Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God's Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day. "Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God's Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence" (2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the "true knowledge of Him," that we have been given everything we need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes through God's granting "to us His precious and magnificent promises" (2 Peter 1:4). "Discernment-the ability to think biblically about all areas of life-is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being "tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/discern.htm) |
||||||
1083 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96261 | ||
Questionable Questions. These are actual questions that have been asked on the forum. "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?" "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?" --Radioman2 |
||||||
1084 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96268 | ||
Read the Questionable Questions again. When you do, please read every word and every letter in every word. The following are the questions (in quotes) and my answers (not in quotes). "Who do we know the bible is realy God's?" - First, 'WHO do we know the bible is realy God's' doesn't make any sense. What would make more sense would be to begin the question with: HOW do we know...? Second, 'Who do we know the bible is really God's" WHAT? Ending this question with the word 'God's' makes it an incomplete question -- one that doesn't make any sense. "? ? ?" - These are question marks without words. They are punctuation without anything preceding them. Thus, this is not a question. If it were a question, what would be the answer? "Russellville?" - Russellville WHAT? What about Russellville? "Does God have free will?" - This is not a stupid question? If God does not have free will, then He is not sovereign. If He is not sovereign, then he is not God. Who ever heard of God not having free will? "Was Abraham a Muslim?" - "Muhammad (prophet) (570?-632), founder of Islam" Muhammad lived from approx. 570 AD to 632 AD, approximately 2,400 years after Abraham. Abraham lived from 2100 BC to 1880 BC. So how could Abraham be a Muslim when Islam wasn't even founded until more than 2,000 years after he lived? This is not rocket science. I know 9-year-olds who could figure this one out. "Why does everything happen in thirds?" - As it is worded, this question doesn't make any sense. If it said, "Why does everything happen in threes," it would make more sense. But it still would be a question that is not addressed in the Bible. Where does the Bible teach that EVERYTHING happens in threes? But the question doesn't even say "in threes", does it? "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.) - This is a big "If." Who says 'computer' stands for 666? Where is that in the Bible? In Revelation there is no indication that 666 is a machine or anything else other than a living being. "In the bible, where are Japanese?" - Not every race and nation of people that inhabit the world is mentioned by name in the Bible. There is no mention of the word 'Japanese' in either Bible history or prophecy. "Blue marbles roll faster than red ones(?)" - No comment necessary. "Are death and Hades destroyed or are they tormented forever?" How do you torment death? How do you torment Hades? "What if?" - What if WHAT? This is an even bigger IF than the one in the question about 666 and the computer. This is another incomplete question. And even if it were completed, the answer would be pure speculation. We could ask 'What if this?' and 'What if that' from now until the end of the age. "Where does the Bible say that the earth revolves?" - If you had read this question in the context in which it was asked, you would know what's wrong with it. The Bible is not a science textbook. "How do you know the earth spins on its axis?" - If you had read this question in the context in which it was asked, you would know what's wrong with it. "Why do we grow old?" - Because we keep breathing? "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?" - Nowhere does the Bible say 'what is put to death is dead both in heaven and earth'. To base a question on a false premise (that the Bible says this) is to ask a "Questionable Question." --Radioman2 |
||||||
1085 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96273 | ||
Aixen7z4: Well done! You have provided good and clear answers to questions that are poorly worded and not clear. I understand your point and do not disagree with it. What I meant was that those questions -- worded as they are -- are unanswerable. It takes enough time, thought and research to properly answer questions that do make sense, let alone those that do not. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
1086 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96276 | ||
Darcy: OK. Aisle tri to rememember to not axe you a questions unless it is wurded purfect. Grace to you, --Radioman2 :-) |
||||||
1087 | Will you change your mind? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96329 | ||
TommyS: My sincere thanks for providing that additional information on how the word Muslim is used. Probably I should have written "how could Abraham be a follower of Islam when its founder, Muhammed, didn't appear on the scene until more than 2,000 years after he lived?" Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
1088 | Luke 10:18 | 2 Tim 3:12 | Radioman2 | 103987 | ||
Persecution is not punishment. Persecution that results from following Christ and punishment for disobeying God are two entirely different things. --Radioman2 |
||||||
1089 | Is there conflict between Paul and Matt? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 78099 | ||
Do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16)? Every word of the Bible is literally "God-breathed." Not merely the thoughts, but the very words of scripture -- all of them -- are divinely inspired. The notion that parts of the Bible are inspired and other parts are not is foreign to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you do believe in the inspiration of the Bible, then it would be absurd to assert or imply that one writer of scripture disagrees with or contradicts another. Granted, there are *apparent* contradictions in the Bible, which, when properly understood, are not contradictions at all. But the divine author, God, never contradicts himself. Moreover, the words of Paul, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are NOT Paul's "theological opinions." They are no man's opinions. Rather, they are the very words of God Himself. |
||||||
1090 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 80650 | ||
NASB 2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. AMPLIFIED 2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit. |
||||||
1091 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 80678 | ||
Ray: I would say that "Morning Star" would be a sound choice for the words in 2 Peter 1:19. In fact, the Amplified Bible, in that verse, has it: "Morning Star." AMPLIFIED 2 Peter 1:19 And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer still. You will do well to pay close attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dismal (squalid and dark) place, until the day breaks through [the gloom] and the Morning Star rises (comes into being) in your hearts. It seems that Morning Star in 2 Peter 1:19 refers to the same person, Jesus Christ, who is also the Morning Star of Revelation 22:16. Notice, too, that both passages are in reference to the Second Coming. New King James Version Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." Well done, Ray. I had never before until now seen the relationship of Morning Star in these two passages. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Grace and Peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1092 | 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. |
||||||
1093 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85420 | ||
Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
1094 | Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85421 | ||
Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Do we have biblical justification for the idea that one of the ways the Holy Spirit is active in our lives is that He, as a standard operational procedure, gives Christians personal and individual messages from God, contentful, propositional information like, "Marry that person"? Does the Bible teach that having a personal, live connection with God speaking to you is God's way for Christians? Does the Bible teach that this represents the optimal Christian life? You hear His voice and then you know what to do in your life? 'Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is not the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is also a source of authoritative information about God? And can we expect God to speak to us and fill in the gaps, as it were, on things the Bible does not address (e.g., the specific person I should marry)? 'My answer is, the Bible does not teach such a thing. It's ironic that so many Christians who hold to sola scriptura in debates with Roman Catholics, would also hold that they receive authoritative pronouncements from God. For goodness sake, at least the Roman Catholic Church relegates that only to the teaching magisterium of the church, and to the Pope when he speaks from the chair. 'But we have Protestants who hold to sola scriptura who then, in the next breath, speak about the authoritative messages they've received from God that they're obliged to follow. 'By the way, if you're in the habit of saying, "God told me to do..." thus and so, keep in mind that you're making the claim of a prophet, no less than any prophet of the Old Testament. The testing for a prophet was very severe. A prophet of the Old Testament never made that kind of claim unless he was willing to stake his life on it and die for the claim. In fact, if the claim wasn't true, that's just what happened. The prophet found himself under a pile of rocks. 'So Christians would be good to guard their mouths and not flippantly make proclamations that God has been speaking privately to them. Even the prophets of God did not make those claims with such a cavalier attitude. 'We ought not assume that maturity as a Christian means receiving daily authoritative revelations from God when the Bible itself does not give us the justification for believing that such a thing is a standard work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does many things, but it doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit does that.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm).' |
||||||
1095 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85457 | ||
ad hominem - marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made Your ad hominem attack and bold assertions prove nothing. Also, you have not directly addressed any of the points made in my post, ID# 85420. I am not here to play dueling assertions. All you have done is deny what I posted, without refuting any of it. To refute mans "to PROVE wrong by argument or EVIDENCE." I find your arguments weak and your evidence non-existent. |
||||||
1096 | Clarification please? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 94211 | ||
What is Meant by "Inspiration"? "A Definition "My own definition of biblical inspiration is that it is God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. "Several features of the definition are worth emphasizing: "(1) God superintended but did not dictate the material. "(2) He used human authors and their own individual styles. "(3) Nevertheless, the product was, in its original manuscripts, without error" (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). --Radioman2 |
||||||
1097 | Authority of the bible in question? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 94472 | ||
DAIRYLEADER5: You write: "the only authority Christians should listen to is the Holy Ghost." I strongly disagree. 'The only voice of God we are ever commanded to hear, to know, and to obey . . . is the written, fully inspired, fully accurate Word of God: the Bible' (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm). --Radioman2 |
||||||
1098 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 94473 | ||
The following is what you read and agree to every time you submit a Question or Note. Believe it or not, these terms of use are enforced by StudyBibleForum.com. 'To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: '1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. '2. This post is not intended as A PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE or on other users of this forum. '3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum.' (http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3) (Emphasis added.) Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to LOSE it. |
||||||
1099 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98776 | ||
KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? '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)] --Radioman2 |
||||||
1100 | IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98777 | ||
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) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ] Next > Last [66] >> |