Results 281 - 300 of 1239
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Repost - A Friendly Reminder | Bible general Archive 4 | jlhetrick | 204372 | ||
... | ||||||
282 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204335 | ||
Thanks for the response Tamara. It took me a while to get used to using the search button to read topics that have been discussed here in-depth. Even still it doesn't seem as personal as I like since I'm reading things that were sometimes written and posted years ago. Still, that's one of the beauties of the SBF. It is a lengthy and growing record of the topic discussions and studies. It's not against the rules by the way to ask a question that's been asked before, but, it is a standard many of us here try to keep in trying to steer clear of devisive, debatable topics so that their not rehashed over and over again. For the new person coming on board I think it sometimes feels to them (perhaps true for you) that they are being personally attacked. Perhaps the way some of us approach it could be done more delicately so as not to cause offense or the need for defense. Again, I appologize if I've done that. I'm guessing by your participation so far that you are going to be one of the more beneficial participants as your sincerety and obvious love of God's word is so apparent. That is if you stick around and I for one hope you do. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
283 | A friendly reminder | Bible general Archive 4 | jlhetrick | 204320 | ||
... | ||||||
284 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204318 | ||
Tamara- quite sorry to have ruffled your feathers and ruffle them quite severely I did apparently. To begin with, I didn't ask a question, I simply pointed to the short-sighted assumptions and/or conclusions you had drawn in the post I was responding to. I take that as a responsibility as a forum participant. As for "curtailing" the discussion I was simply pointing to the fact that the issue has been discussed AND debated ad nauseam (in more forums than the internet and here). When all is said and done we are left with a lot of speculations (some more supported than others). It's not that I'm not interested in a rebuttal as you accuse, I only wanted to steer clear of repeating what's been repeated over and over again. As for your response to me I felt it unecessarily sarcastic and, should I say, almost volatile. And if I may say so ma'am, a "free discourse about Biblical concepts, doctrines and so on..." is something far different than engaging unecessarily in age old debates that those much more shcolarly than you and I can't even disagree on (especially when Scripture just doesn't finally, in the end, tell us). So again, I'm truly sorry to have offended you to the degree that you felt it necessary to respond in the way you did. Perhaps in our next interaction we will come closer together in a responsible, caring, and loving approach to bible study. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
285 | Why can't I speak in tongues yet ? | Acts | jlhetrick | 204312 | ||
joann- might I suggest that you read Phil. 1:6 and hole tightly to that. Dedicating or rededicating our lives to God effects our salvation no more than speaking or not speaking in tongues. To what degree we "dedicate" our lives to God we are "working". We should work in our faith but never be fooled into thinking that this does anything to save us. Don't be concerned about speaking in tongues, if I may suggest, but be convinced of Phil. 1:6. God bless and rejoice in Him. Jeff |
||||||
286 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204311 | ||
Dear Tamara- the passage in 1Cor 11 is not promoting Christian's getting drunk (not that I believe your saying that) but rather speaks OF it while speaking to inappropriate behavior. Also, on what basis do you say "Contrary to modern belief the wine at the Lord's supper was not watered down..."? If referring to 1 Cor. 11 then I've addressed that above. If you are referring to the time where our Lord actually instituted the "Lord's Supper" (as in Matthew 26:26) there is no reason to assume the "cup" contained an alcoholic wine, especially if basing the assumption on 1Cor. 11. We can assume a lot of things, but, Scirpture doesn't tell us that Jesus was drinking the wine at the wedding feast, so an assumption here wouldn't be recommended. I have heard some use John 2:10 as a license to drink alcohol (again, I'm not inferring that you are saying this- just point it out). A careful study doesn't even conclude that those at the feast were drunk or even drinking alcoholic wine, doesn't suggest in anyway that the water turned to wine was alcoholic, and again, gives no indication at all that Christ was consuming the wine, alcoholic or not. Hope this is helpful. Also, for everyone reading, type in the post number 2473 in the search box (upper right). I believe our brother Hank gave as good an answer that can be given on this whole topic way back in 2001. 2001- Hank, if your reading, you are old.... I mean, as a forum member. It's my opinion that further discussion on this issue would likely be redundant and unfruitful. God bless sister, Jeff |
||||||
287 | I agree Hank, but how do you reconcile? | Eph 2:8 | jlhetrick | 203761 | ||
Tamara- welcome to the forum: A tip for forum use first if I may. Once your into a topic and responding to another make sure to click on "note" when responding. If you click on "question" when responding during an ongoing discussion (even if your going to be asking a question) your post shows up on the home page as if it's the beginning of a new topic. Hope that makes sense. To begin responding to your topic here I would like to point out what I view as a problem with the approach to your considering the topic or at least in how you requested the rest of us to consider it. Your original question asked responders to base our response on a handful of verses. In this post I'm responding to you use the word "reconcile". The answer to that is "context". We don't reconcile any point of doctrine by pointing to and keeping within a few verses whether they be together or scattered throughout. The reconciliation only happens as Scripture as a whole establishes the meaning of the verses at hand. As Hank pointed out; Salvation is wholly of God from start to finish. And while he did list a few verses for reference, a study of the Scriptures as a whole does fully establish this. Not to play on words, but we don't "get saved", we "are saved" by and only by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Finally, even that saving faith is not something we choose, accomplish, work for, etc. That very faith that saves us is totally from God. See Eph. 2:8. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
288 | KJV question | Gen 34:19 | jlhetrick | 203576 | ||
Hank- thanks for putting it in perspective in a way I obviously could not. Even on things I know, reading your posts helps me to know them better. :) Jeff |
||||||
289 | KJV question | Gen 34:19 | jlhetrick | 203571 | ||
Thomas- I'm not one who holds to the KJV only but felt I should respond to your post quickly in order to avoid a devisive debate that is most likely to ensue. While there is endless writings debating which version is "best" I'm thinking the forum wouldn't be a good place to continue the ages old debates. Besides that, not many here are well versed in the original laguages and point and click software really wouldn't be sufficient to manage it. Just my opinion and belief and am requesting as a fellow forum member that we don't go there. Respectfully, Jeff |
||||||
290 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | jlhetrick | 203341 | ||
Thank you for the response Quvmoh- I wasn't overly concerned about your coming across as offensive to Tim just wanted to add some thought on the discussion. Also, I don't want to come across as offensive to you, nor do I want to "play" on your words but I'm a bit concerned about how I am interpreting your position and would like to call attention to it. In one post you stated you were: "merely using the passages you quoted to better strengthen my own claims." Again, please don't feel that I am nit-picking and/or playing on your words because that is not at all my intent. My intent is to call attention to what might be some degree of wrong approach to doctrine, more specifically, how one's doctrine should be established. My biggest concern is with your statement that you were "merely using the passages you quoted to better strengthen my own claims." If I am understanding you I should advise that this does not seem an appropriate approach to establishing bible doctrine. Scripture should never be USED to support OUR CLAIMS (caps not used for yelling but emphasis). Rather, we should only claim what Scripture undeniably declares. So herin may lie the problem with these recent exchanges. If we "claim" a position on any issue and then set out to support that position with Scripture we are most likely to ignor or denie other positions that might have just as much or more support from Scripture. In the end, we end up believing something that may in fact not be true. That is why it is important, as Tim Moran pointed out, that we don't make any claims at all that we can not absolutely find declared by God Himself in His Word. In your recent post (the one I am responding to) you wrote that you are "convicted to ensure that Context is not taken lightly and that my own claims are within context and well founded". That statement might suggest that my interpretation of your approach to doctrine may be wrong but I did want to clarify. So with the issue at hand, considering the opposing views, I believe that we are left with the fact that either side can be argued with Scripture but neither is necessarily "well founded". In other words, we just don't know. Thanks for your time and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
291 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | jlhetrick | 203312 | ||
Quvmoh- welcome to the forum brother or sister (couldn't tell from your profile so no offense). In following this thread I didn't see where brother Tim Moran mentioned this (nor did any other unless I have missed it). While I consider brother Tim a teacher to me I don't intend to speak for him. With that said, it may be a clearer position in warning against a dogmantic view of either of the considered "possibilities" to include that both views (angels vs. saved humans) are widely held by Christian people to include theologians with greater study and understanding than many of us here. By the way, you did a fine job of searching the Scriptures and digging for the information and a good job in your presenting it here. Finally, I refer to brother Tim as one I consdier a teacher because I have learned enough about him here to know that he not only has searched and studied God's word and proven himself one who accurately handles the word in keeping with 2 Timothy 2:15. I also know him as one who has explored and studied what other, more learned men have said and written about much of the bible. This issue is what many refer to as a "non-essential". That is, it's not essential for salvation and so the debate can only be taken so far safely without possibly causing devisiveness. Hope my input is a bit helpful and again welcome to the forum. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
292 | In search of the truth | Ps 115:3 | jlhetrick | 203258 | ||
fytrobert- based on your question concerning the single quoted verse and your user profile I believe the following might be helpful. Certainly the Scriptures can be understood rationally, but not always can we understand a single verse in a way that seems rational or that makes sense to us. Contextual reading/study is the key. Never take a verse by itself and try to make sense of it without considering how it fits with what is written immediately before and after. If your still unable to understand it you need to continue to consider context in terms of what the rest of Scripture says. In this case simply understanding that God is sovereign (as Doc pointed out) is enough to answer your question. The Scriptures declare that God is sovereign: Ps 103:19 (NASB) The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all. And reading through both the OT and NT will clearly demonstrate what Ps 103:19 means. And nothing is written in Scripture that says or suggests that we are living as "pre-programmed" creatures with no personal will or responsibility; so we can rule that out easy enough. Go back and begin reading Psalm 139 again beginning at verse 1. What is David's message in that Psalm? You will see David's reverence for God as he acknowledges that God is omniscient (all-knowing) and how David is in awe of God's providence. You should also see that there is no indication from David that he views himself as being pre-programmed, without a will, and without personal responsibility. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
293 | More harm then good? | Eph 4:16 | jlhetrick | 203144 | ||
Steve- You wrote.. "I don't know if "knowing our spiritual gifts" quite fits into Christianity 101 though. If it were this basic then I doubt there would be so much confusion and I doubt there would be so many Christians without a clue as to what their spiritual gift(s) were. I personally have seen many writings by mankind on how to identify your spiritual gift. But to my knowledge I don't recall any of them ever pointing to scripture to validate their claims :-(" I too do not know if knowing our spiritual gifts quite fits into Christianity 101. I do have an opinion, however, about why there is so much confusion about it all, especially in these times (and also like you I don't hang my hat on my opinion). I believe it's already been spoken of here, and I believe the biggest cause for confusion might be that SO MANY, for SO LONG, have plugged themselves into TO MANY ministries that they weren't called to. This has been going on for SO LONG that an accurate picture of a functioning local church that is fully seeking God and following His lead has likely never been observed by most. This is exacerbated by centuries of ignoring spiritual gifts, denying spiritual gifts, or inappropriate emphasis on spiritual gifts (or certain gifts). Finally, many of us are guilty of not honoring those gifts even when we have been convinced that He has given them. Finally, in speaking of Christianity 101 I'm of the "opinion" that the topic might fit for the simple reason that Scripture seems to speak of the gifts as a normal, expected part of the Christian experience. The lack of deep involvement in Scripture spelling out determining features may suggest that we take a complicated approach to what God intended as basic. Someone above talked about "natural gifts" (think it was lionheart but not sure) and appropriately so I believe. Most of us accurately realize when we are gifted in "natural" areas such as singing, sports, etc., whether we ever acknowledge God's grace to us or not. It may be that some Christians spend a lot of time debating with God when He is calling because they don't believe they "have the gift". If He's calling, He will provide the gift, that much we can all be sure of. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
294 | Retribution? | Gal 6:7 | jlhetrick | 201836 | ||
Hi Val! No I don't. Retribution/vengeance speaks to act of rewarding (and where it applies to God the rewarding is always just). Reaping speaks to the receivers receiving of the reward (good or bad). Sowing speaks to the behavior of the receiver/reaper that earns the reward. Is this helping???? God bless, Jeff |
||||||
295 | Retribution? | Gal 6:7 | jlhetrick | 201831 | ||
Val- sorry for the late response. I don't get a chance to check my email or the forum daily and even then can't respond to everything. To your question - yes absolutely. This might be helpful: Vengeance - "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense, retribution" retribution- retribuere to pay back, fr. retribuere to pay — more at tribute] 14c 1 : recompense, reward 2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment esp. in the hereafter 3 : something given or exacted in recompense esp : punishment Both definitions taken from Merriam-Webster (2003). Hope this is helpful. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
296 | True or Not? | Rom 3:23 | jlhetrick | 201738 | ||
No! Romans 3:23 aspointed out by BMyers | ||||||
297 | Retribution? | Gal 6:7 | jlhetrick | 201732 | ||
Brother- thanks for the comments. Exactly why I posted the question; the note at work put my thinking to work. My wife and I also had a bit of discussion about it. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
298 | Retribution? | Gal 6:7 | jlhetrick | 201723 | ||
WOS- got it, thanks and good points. It is a process isn't it..... | ||||||
299 | Retribution? | Gal 6:7 | jlhetrick | 201721 | ||
Thanks everyone for your feedback. I was just about to complete a rather lengthy response back when my computer bugged out on me and shut down leaving me to start from scratch. I will keep this one short as it is getting late. I'm going to tag on here since it's currently the last post. I'm sorry that my question lead to some apparent conflict and also that the thread has taken on a different focus than I had intended (but that is sometimes unavoidable on the forum). Keeping it short, and hopefully simple, let me start by agreeing with you Val. Thanks for encouraging me to do my own in-depth study. Sometimes that is an appropriate response. In this case, yes, I have done the study and have a sound, biblical understanding regarding the answer to my question (before I posted it). With that said, let me respectfully encourage you to respond with more than a single verse that in and of itself does not answer the question. I can’t speak for WOS but I believe that he was at least in part trying to make that point and not to offend. It wasn't a trick question by any means, but instead, one asked to encourage thought on the subject. When I read the note at work I instantly knew the statement was not based on biblical principal. My problem was that I was not expediently prepared to answer from which philosophical persuasion the idea originated. Interestingly enough Doc (if your reading along) your response to me was very close to word for word how I responded in my own typed response to the poster at work. So the purpose of my posting the question was to call attention to how these seemingly right statements infiltrate even the thinking and theology of Christians (consider the whole “eye for an eye” misconstruction); and to encourage thought on how we as Christians might handle them when confronted with them in our day to day business (1Peter 3:15). Finally, to address my own original question I’ll just call attention to a couple of points. Vengeance belongs to the God (Deut. 32:35, Ro 12:19, Heb 10:30). God is just (Deut. 32:4). Thanks again to all who responded. Jeff |
||||||
300 | Retribution? | Not Specified | jlhetrick | 201681 | ||
This is a quote from a typed note pinned to the bulletin board in the breakroom where I work. Is this an accurate statement? Please give biblical support for your answer. Thanks in advance: Statement on board: "It is biblical that if you intentionally cause hurt and strife to another it will be returned to you in greater proportion in this life." Please only answer with biblical reference supporting your answer. Thanks and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [62] >> |