Results 1221 - 1240 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1221 | Do you win converts to your opinions...? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 79901 | ||
RCSCROLL: Do you win many converts to your opinions when you use words like "assumption," "presumptuous," "so-called," "ridiculous", and "doesn't add up" to describe the beliefs of others? |
||||||
1222 | Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 80092 | ||
In plain English, The Watchtower organization (the Jehovah's Witnesses) is a cult. They deny the deity of Christ. They are teaching doctrine that is false and heretical. Their New World Translation of the Bible is obviously flawed and deliberately distorts scripture in an effort to defend their doctrines. They're not just another Christian religion. They're not a Christian religion - period. I've posted more than ample evidence to back up what I'm saying. (Use the search function. Under user name enter: "Radioman2"; under contain these words enter "Jehovah's Witness".) Moreover, you say "I find it sad that individuals listen to other people's opinions as to what other religions, who they haven't extensively studied (whether it be for just for research, to see why other's believe what they do, or out of their own personal search for the "true" religion) believe instead of researching it for themselves." Other people's "opinions"? May I point out that the sources I have cited quote Watchtower publications to show what JWs believe? If anyone believes my sources have misquoted anything or taken quotes out of context they need only to check out the references for themselves in the Watchtower publications cited. How one "feels" about the Bible is irrelevant. Being sincere in one's belief is not enough. One can take poison with the sincere belief that it is not harmful, but their belief does not change the fact that it is poison. If one has already decided that the JWs are just another religion, that their teaching is scriptural, then that person has a right to their beliefs. My motive and hope in posting the facts about the beliefs of JWs is to warn those who don't know any better, lest they, too, are deceived and caught up in error. I have no ill will toward you. Nor do I hate individual Jehovah's Witnesses. But the Watchtower organization is teaching lies that, if believed, will result in people spending eternity in hell. |
||||||
1223 | revelation 13 | Revelation | Radioman2 | 83329 | ||
"666 is an English number. The Bible was not written in English. The book of Revelation is a Greek document." ____________________ NASB Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. "In recent times, speculations about the exact nature of this mark have abounded. Since the exact name of the beast is unknown, speculation as to what the mark is has received the most attention. A computer chip implant, a bar-code, or a physical brand on the skin have led the list of possibilities at one time or another. However, a closer examination is warranted. "Based on Revelation 13:16-17 and 14:9, there will be three lines of identification: a mark, a name or a number. Most attention has been focused on the number of his name, which is 666. Most fail to appreciate the fact that 666 is an English number. The Bible was not written in English. The book of Revelation is a Greek document. This demands a Greek numbering scheme. So whatever John saw was certainly not the English number 666. ( . . . ) "True believers in Jesus Christ will not take the markings of Satan/Antichrist. "It is important at this point to add that believers will not be tricked into taking the markings. Satan/Antichrist has nothing to gain by marking people who are not truly his. With starvation as the penalty, people will gladly take the identification system. Believers will not want to attempt subterfuge--take the identification system externally, but hold allegiance to Christ in their hearts. There are things far worse than physical death. Trying to explain to the Lord our reason for taking a Satanic identification system to escape physical death is one of them." ____________________ What is the mark of the Beast? by Rev. Charles Cooper. To read more go to: (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0006.html) |
||||||
1224 | When does millinium start?Where are we? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 84378 | ||
Question: Where can I look for answers about the thousand-years (millennium)? An answer: (www.solagroup.org/) (www.revelationcommentary.org/) |
||||||
1225 | what are the events of the end times???? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 84387 | ||
Is Revelation Prophecy or History? "Over the centuries, four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation have developed. Each approach has had capable supporters, but none has proved itself the only way to read this book. However, the most basic application question for each approach can be summarized by asking yourself, Will this help me become a better follower of Jesus Christ today?" (Life Application Study Bible, Tyndale House, 1996) ____________________ Four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation ____________________ 'The Book of Revelation is the most difficult of all New Testament books to interpret because of the extensive symbolism. These symbols, which often seem strange and bizarre, have resulted in various methods of interpretation, from which we can identify four: *historical, idealist, futurist, and preterist*. 'The *historical* sees Revelation as a symbolic prophecy of the entire history of the church from the Incarnation to the return of Christ to establish the eternal state. In contrast to this view, the *idealist* avoids the difficulty of trying to find fulfillment of the book's images in history. Rather, these interpreters see only a symbolic portrayal of the spiritual cosmic conflict between the kingdom of God and the powers of evil. 'Probably the most popular interpretation of Revelation at the end of the twentieth century—evidenced by the millions of copies that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have sold in their popular Left Behind series—is the *futurist*. This approach interprets the book not as what was future to John and is now past or present to us, but as what was future to John and still future to us. It understands that the Book of Revelation has to do with the future of the world. 'Recently, theologians such as R. C. Sproul, in his 1998 book The Last Days According to Jesus (Baker), have revived interest in the *preterist* interpretation. This approach regards the events symbolized in Revelation as having occurred roughly contemporaneously with John's writing of the book, which Sproul dates before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus, for the preterist, the "last days" arrived at the time of John. Preterist interpreters stress the fact that Revelation belongs to a distinct genre of Jewish-Christian writings called "apocalyptic," which are "spiritual guides for difficult times." ( . . . ) 'Both the futurist and preterist views have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of choosing only one or the other, a "both/and" approach that applies the strengths of each is a better option. ( . . . ) 'The preterist position by itself fails to understand that Revelation confronts the modern reader with promises, challenges, and choices that are similar, if not identical, to those faced by the book's original readers. The futurist position by itself is prone to see Revelation as a crystal ball with a literal timetable of events that will happen in the future. 'While the final book in the Bible had immediate relevance to the first-century church, it also speaks powerfully to us about the return of Christ, his judgment of this world, and God's ultimate eschatological victory over the power of evil.' ____________________ By David S. Dockery, president of Union University and the author of Our Christian Hope: Biblical Answers to Questions About the Future (LifeWay Press). Christianity Today, October 25, 1999 (Emphasis added.) Go to (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9tc/9tc086.html) for links to read more about these related topics: —End Times —Apocalypse —Y2K —Christian Fiction |
||||||
1226 | 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. |
||||||
1227 | Does a saved soul go to heaven at death? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 89064 | ||
1. Please give us the chapter and verse in Revelation where it plainly speaks about the resurrection of souls. I am familiar with the resurrection of the body, but not with the concept of resurrection of souls. 2. If the Bible does teach a doctrine, then it is not merely a "belief;" it is truth and stands on its own, independent of who does or does not believe it. |
||||||
1228 | once save always saved? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 90558 | ||
Duplicate post. | ||||||
1229 | once save always saved? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 90560 | ||
fran1946: Please clarify your Note. In it you write: "I am sure that Jesus was speaking to the members of that particulat congregation." What particular congregation did you have in mind? Please give us the chapter and verse in Revelation that you are referring to. Thank you for the clarification. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1230 | 18 Book of Revelation | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95122 | ||
NASB Revelation 1:19 "Therefore write the things which you have seen [past], and the things which are [present], and the things which will take place after these things [FUTURE]." "The best view of Revelation is based upon Rev. 1:19..." -- Tim Moran --Radioman2 |
||||||
1231 | where is judgement | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95203 | ||
Humpy: You may wish to read and study what the Bible says about the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Great White Throne Judgment, and the difference between the two -- they are not one and the same judgment. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
1232 | 18 Book of Revelation | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95214 | ||
'If you think you're on safe theological ground because of a pet verse, better look twice. Simple prooftexting has its perils.' --(Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason) |
||||||
1233 | 18 Book of Revelation | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95260 | ||
OK, humpy! Thanks for your reply. Grace to you, Radioman2 :-) |
||||||
1234 | A New Reformation? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95724 | ||
Hank: While many people today talk on and on about a great endtime revival, what we DO KNOW is "...that Day will not come unless the falling away (apostasy) comes first,..." (2 Thess. 2:3). (True "Bereans" don't exactly grow on trees in bunches like bananas, do they?) --Radioman2 |
||||||
1235 | A New Reformation? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 95845 | ||
Left Behind ____________________ 'Perhaps the eschatology of this film can best be summarized by a line from within the film itself, spoken by Buck Williams, played by Kirk Cameron: "The scriptures are so vague, they could mean anything". 'One wonders if the whole film was built around this perspective.' ____________________ Justme, Hank, DarcyA, New Creature: For an introduction to why the Left Behind books and film are dangerously off in their theology, go to the following website: (www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0002.html) I quote from a review of the film: ____________________ 'LEFT BEHIND: 'A Review of the Latest End Times Film by Dirk Eichhorst 'It is troubling that Hollywood often produces films that are blatantly anti-Christian. Even more troubling is when Christians with good intentions produce a film that tries to tell the truth, but is dangerously off in its theology. LEFT BEHIND is the latest film that tackles eschatology (the study of end times), and claims to be biblical. Yet the film misinterprets and misapplies significant portions of prophetic Scripture. Can this kind of misleading teaching in a film potentially do more harm than a blatantly anti-Christian message? (...) '...we have already seen that the timing and ordering of the eschatological events strays from the biblical outline. The film's writers determined the sequence of events. The order of events, outlined by Christ in Matthew 24 and echoed in Revelation, are ignored. It is these inaccuracies of the film's eschatology that makes it so questionable. Hollywood films are obviously stories, most of them fictional, and yes, they can degrade, deceive, and challenge biblical thinking. But LEFT BEHIND, being touted as Truth, is in the position to deceive many into thinking this is what the Word of God says concerning end time events, that this is how it will happen, and that all Christians believe it to be this way. The film is a tragic error that will cost far more than its budget in false teaching. 'Perhaps the eschatology of this film can best be summarized by a line from within the film itself, spoken by Buck Williams, played by Kirk Cameron: "The scriptures are so vague, they could mean anything". 'One wonders if the whole film was built around this perspective' (www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0002.html). ____________________ Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
1236 | A New Reformation? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 96113 | ||
Regarding creeds/statements of faith If no one in a church/denomination took the responsibility for codifying, writing and publishing what that church specifically teaches, then who would know WHAT that church/denomination believed? It's not enough to say, "Well, we just believe the Bible." Every evangelical and fundamentalist church claims to believe the Bible. As has been illustrated numerous times on the Forum, one must ask the question: What interpretation* of the Bible does your church hold to on various doctrinal points? I.e., how does your church INTERPRET the Bible? We all use the Bible and all quote the same verses, but we do not all see eye to eye on the meaning of those verses. Hence, the need for statements of faith -- so that people will KNOW WHAT WE BELIEVE. ____________________ *interpretation -- NOT translation --Radioman2 |
||||||
1237 | 18 Book of Revelation | Revelation | Radioman2 | 96152 | ||
"Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " ____________________ "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle." ____________________ "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." ____________________ (www.gty.org) Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics --Radioman2 |
||||||
1238 | 18 Book of Revelation | Revelation | Radioman2 | 96341 | ||
candy lee: Thank you for your kind, and I must say, very thorough reply. Also, thank you for taking the time to look up the scripture references that I gave. Not everyone would bother to do that. It's an indication that you are listening, even if you don't agree. :-) Grace to you, radioman2 |
||||||
1239 | WHO DID CHRIST DIE FOR ?????? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 96587 | ||
"everyone" (Eng.) is "todo el mundo" (Spanish) is "all the world" (English) Try explaing to Spanish-speaking people that "all the world" does not mean "all the world." After you've done that, then explain it to us in English. --Radioman2 |
||||||
1240 | WHO DID CHRIST DIE FOR ?????? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 96592 | ||
Tim Moran writes: "Let this topic die! It goes nowhere. (...) "I read 'all', you see 'some'. I read 'everyone', you see 'the elect'. I read 'world', you see 'believers throughout the world'.' Musical commentary by Radioman 2 Let's Call the Whole Thing Off (to be sung to the Gershwin tune of the same title) You say predestined, I say whosoever. You say read Calvin, I say read the Bible. Predestined, whoever, Calvin, the Bible. Let's call the whole thing off. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ] Next > Last [66] >> |