Results 661 - 680 of 1239
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
661 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171027 | ||
Hello searcher, I am not responding because we seem to be basically in agreement on this issue; but to show appreciation for your using the Scriptures to articulate your point. As one who frequently deals with the issue of marriage in my work, this thread has encouraged me to refresh my understanding of the bible regarding marriage. Your input is helpful. Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
662 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171028 | ||
Brother (or sister) emmaus, By this reasoning, do you believe that a man or woman who (due to physical reasons) can never perform the act of sex can never marry. What I am asking is; since they are unable to "consumate" a marriage through the sexual act, they can never be given in marriage? Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
663 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171030 | ||
yes, thanks. I often find myself making adjustments. Never for the sake of agreement though (not that your meaning that). I want to be convinced that my beliefs need adjusting. Convinced by sound teaching from scripture. The forum is a great blessing. I visit it daily (often several times) and learn much even when I'm not participating. Jeff |
||||||
664 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171063 | ||
Hello Emmaus, I thought so but your profile didn't specify and I didn't want to make a mistake. Thanks for the dialogue brother, Jeff |
||||||
665 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171072 | ||
Justme, You accuse others of being "unsensitive"; yet you insinuate that nana's very real situation and question is not a "real bible question". What is wrong with you? Furthermore, you offer not a bit of Scripture to support your "opinion". Again, what is wrong brother? Have we touched on a point of sensitivity for you? Where you do point to Scripture you offer no book, chapter, and verse for reference. I am not aware of a custom where marriage was "made official by the groom showing the blood on the sheets in the OT, when the marriage was consumated". Will you please point me to that custom in the bible? I am not an authority on the bible, it may in fact be there; but I do not find that custom anywhere including in the many dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries I referred to. You wrote: "I think it is very unsensitive, and so legalistic to say this person should remain with a person who commited fraud in not telling their furture partner of his inability before taking any vows" sometimes the word of God seems that way to us. We easily forget that His holiness is not superseded by our sensitivities. When we do not fear God, then our feelings about what is right and wrong and what we want and don't want become our standard. We excuse our way out of obedience. You write that you are saddened. Well my brother, I am very saddened and disappointed at your post. Your profile indicates that you are of an age that should supersede such a childish response. With deepest sincerety, Jeff |
||||||
666 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171078 | ||
Justme, I am not here to argue with you like children on a playground. My response to you was with the level of respect that your post warrented. Please reread your first post in this thread and then consider the issue of respect. You might consider the word dignity as well. This is a biblestudy forum. If you are not interested in a thread other than to insult the members participating, a good strategy is to click the "HOME" button and choose another thread to follow and/or participate in. Thank you, Jeff |
||||||
667 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171106 | ||
Hello justme, Again I would encourage you to reread your first post in this thread. You might reread my response to you as well; as this response does not demonstrate an accurate reflection of my statements. Attempting to reverse the argument I made to you, and apply it back to me, serves no real purpose. Speaking of attitude, reconcilliation, mercy, grace, and Christian love carries little weight when you do not demonstrate those things. I was not (and do not make a habit) of addressing your teachings or attitude in the 1,699 posts you made before the one I responded to. I was responding only to the one in this thread. Again, read it. It was abusive and disrespectful to say the least. It was also very accusitory towards the brothers and sisters involved. I'm still not quite sure where your comments regarding the post having a focus on the issue of sex came from. You speak of attitude, mercy, grace, and those other things; your original post displayed none. To reemphasize my point in my original response to you. I was not asking you to "go home". I was trying to say: If you can not respond to a thread with the attitude of grace, mercy and Christian love, it is better not to respond at all. Therefore, "click" on the "HOME" button (top left) and choose another thread that doesn't offend you so. There was no statement, nor was there an insinuation that if you don't "agree" you should leave. If my statement was taken in that context, I appologize. It was not intended that way. You comment "I see no Scripture to back a single word you speak." Please re-read the thread. Much scritpture was offered throughout, by myself and others. Finally Justme, you write: "If I have got you or anyone else to look at the way questions are answered I gladly take the words that wound." Shouldn't this be my statement. It was me that was calling attention to your inappropriate response to the thread. You accurately comment that this is all a test of my Christian dignity as well. Have I failed as being as Christ-like as I can in my response to you. Yes I have, forgive me for that. Does my failing excuse or futher lagitimize your oringinal post in this thread? No it doesn't. Who is wrong? It would appear that we both are. Perhaps we should both take your advice to pray before putting a finger on the keyboard. I see that you have attached another post after this one. I have not read it yet but promise to. I may not respond to it though, as it appears to me that the continuation of this type of dialogue is neither productive (for the forum as a whole) nor the intended purpose of the forum. Feel free to email me if you would like, for this or any other discussion. My email address is included in my profile. If I have offended you I do appologize. You are my brother and I have confidence that this type of disagreement will not permanently divide us. Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
668 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171108 | ||
Hello brother Justme, I will offer the following excerpt from the Holman Bible Dictionary as it articulates finer than I might. MARRIAGE The biblical standard for marriage is a monogamous relationship in which a man and a woman share a lifetime commitment to each other, second only to their commitment to God. It is an unconditional, lifetime commitment. Jesus emphasized God’s intention that marriage be a lifetime commitment (Mark 10:5-9; Matt. 19:4-9). He affirmed this as the principle of marriage inherent in divine creation (Gen. 2:24). Paul cited this key principle to show the sinfulness of sexual relations outside marriage (1 Cor. 6:12-20) and to emphasize the importance of self-giving love in marriage (Eph. 5:28). Genesis 2:24 emphasizes the oneness of the marriage relationship and the priority of the relationship over all others, including the relationship of the couple to their parents. Marriage is also for companionship (Gen. 2:18-23). Paul described the kind of mutual submission that should characterize the marriage relationship (Eph. 5:21-33). Although the husband is head of the home, his role is modeled after the role of Christ as Head of the church, who “loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).—Holman Bible Dictionary I would call attention to "It is an unconditional, lifetime commitment. Jesus emphasized God’s intention that marriage be a lifetime commitment (Mark 10:5-9; Matt. 19:4-9)." and "second only to their commitment to God" as well as "He affirmed this as the principle of marriage inherent in divine creation (Gen. 2:24) I don't read into this as being superceded by falsehoods on either party's part. In Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
669 | Mat 21:12 Arrogance or what? on J' part | Matt 21:13 | jlhetrick | 186697 | ||
Hello jbrob, humbledbyhisgrace (Steve) gave an excellent response in my opinion. I would like to add a thought or two if I may. While agreeing with Steve that we can not specifically speak to this particular situation (not knowing the truth of the matter) we can make some observations that might help give food for thought for your "next discussion". Some may disagree, but it is my experience that the Pastors of today have been degraded by the very flocks they were called to shephard in many ways. We hear about it and see it all the time. I personally know of more than one situation where the Pastor has been literally ousted for telling the truth. Of course, the truth is often hard to swallow and may hurt more than a little; therefore, we can only tolerate a small portion of it. We can't have our pastors out there telling it like it is too often; too many may tuck tail and run; where? Well down the road of course, to the church on the corner which makes them feel warm and fuzzy and really normal in spite of their unconfessed and unrepented sin. I believe a careful study of our Lord will reveal a man and a God who is somewhat different from the soft-spoken, gentle little passive persona that Hollywood has portrayed. While many in the church today would not tolerate the turning over of the money-changer's tables, neither would they tolerate the brood being labeled as vipers I suspect. While we are considering these things lets not forget to offer thanksgiving and prayer for those our Father has called to shephard us. With that said, I offer a public greeting and heartfealt thanks to all readers who are pastors and who suffer the whims and whinings of us your flock. It's no wonder so many have fled the pulpit. Thank you who have stayed true to the calling. Food for thought, Jeff |
||||||
670 | Will there be marriages in heaven? | Matt 22:30 | jlhetrick | 180161 | ||
Hello dd, It's an honest question that I believe most of us have asked. To be sure we know the answer is no, we will not marry, we will not be given in marriage, and if we die married we will no longer be married in glory. Along with what Humbledbyhisgrace has pointed out in the Matthew passage, we see that the institution of marriage, created by God, is dissolved at the moment one of the married couple dies. Rom 7:2 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. ESV So there should be no confusion about whether a married living person will be married in Heaven. We won't be. " But, in the resurrection, there is no occasion for marriage; whether in glorified bodies there will be any distinction of sexes some too curiously dispute (the ancients are divided in their opinions about it); but, whether there will be a distinction or not, it is certain that there will be no conjunction; where God will be all in all, there needs no other meet-help; the body will be spiritual, and there will be in it no carnal desires to be gratified: when the mystical body is completed, there will be no further occasion to seek a godly seed, which was one end of the institution of marriage, Mal 2:15. In heaven there will be no decay of the individuals, and therefore no eating and drinking; no decay of the species, and therefore no marrying; where there shall be no more deaths (Rev 21:4), there need be no more births. The married state is a composition of joys and cares; those that enter upon it are taught to look upon it as subject to changes, richer and poorer, sickness and health; and therefore it is fit for this mixed, changing world; but as in hell, where there is no joy, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride shall be heard no more at all, so in heaven, where there is all joy, and no care or pain or trouble, there will be no marrying. The joys of that state are pure and spiritual, and arise from the marriage of all of them to the Lamb, not of any of them to one another." (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.) Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
671 | was the ten commandments done away with | Matt 22:40 | jlhetrick | 210072 | ||
Val, you wrote: "The law was given to them when they came out of Egypt. It was to show them how to treat one another." Rom 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. Rom 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. |
||||||
672 | was the ten commandments done away with | Matt 22:40 | jlhetrick | 210077 | ||
Hello Val, no need to apologize. You’re probably not nearly as simple-minded as you think you are; I’ve seen some really good posts from you that demonstrate pretty good insight and intellectual capacity. I wasn’t disagreeing that the law serves to give guidance, to include God’s expectations of how we are to treat others. I included the Scripture references to help point toward the greater purpose of the Law as declared by Scripture. I assumed you would have followed that and perhaps read more of the context there and not been left misunderstanding. The Scripture gives us a clear teaching of what the law was/is for and the resulting consequences. As I understand it, the law serves two very important functions that are more related to who God is and who we are in relation to Him. The law revealed sin but also the abounding grace of God that is far greater than, and able to overcome, any degree of sin. Take a look at Romans chapter 7 as well, start at verse 7 and read on. I suspect you’re well familiar with it but perhaps didn’t have it in mind and so didn’t catch on that I was building on your statement, not disagreeing with it; an expected and usual consequence of the limitations of this type of communication. Not that I’m not thankful for the Forum. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
673 | was the ten commandments done away with | Matt 22:40 | jlhetrick | 210082 | ||
Val- I can only say that you're study of Romans will be a blessing the first time around as well as the second and third and so-on. While this is true of all Scripture, the book of Romans is such a faith building study that it's impossible for most not to return to it again and again for in-depth study. My first true study of Romans was when I was leading a bible study at my local church; a verse by verse of the book of Romans. I'm sure I was blessed more than any who sat in the class with me. My second real attempt at the book was a private study and I came to realize just how shallow my teaching of the book had been to the adult class. Finally, as it stands now I wouldn't feel qualified to teach the book to a room full of adults simply because I've discovered it's depths beyond my ability. Praise the Lord that His word is true and the one source for saving faith. A fair scratching of the surface will change a person's life. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
674 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | jlhetrick | 184847 | ||
Hello Coper, forgive me if you have already been directed to this passage of scripture. since you have continued your preterist teaching in more than one thread now I just haven't had the time to read all the posts though I am aware of the strategy. You write that you "believe that every word of Scripture is true". Then considering the very words of our Lord regarding the issue at hand. While I agree that eschatology is a secondary issue, the Lord spent a significant amount of words and gave a significant amount of "detail" so that we would at least not be confused to the level that you currently are. Matt 24:15-31 15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. The Coming of the Son of Man 29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. ESV Absolutely nothing close to what Christ Himself described has been recorded in any source of history and I confidently say that such events could not possibly occur and not be recorded and discussed world-wide. I mean, the "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with POWER AND GREAT GLORY". And lets not forget the "loud trumpet call" and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people instantly being gathered up and taken away. Even the much more quiet, local event of Christ's resurrection couldn't be kept from the historical records by the political powers of the day. How much more obvious, to the saved and unsaved alike, will be the tremendous event that will be witnessed by "all the tribes of the earth" In your original post on this issue you presented as though you were wanting the Forum to "...shed some light on this subject and redirect me back to a more proper understanding of Scripture". Well of course that statement is more than suspect at this point and it seems clear that your intentions were actually come to the forum and shed some light for those of us that just don't get it. Personally, I would rather see the Forum's "Terms of Use" more closely adhered to. Since you have shielded yourself from the light that has been shed, perhaps it's time to move on to a different subject and thus gain some benefit from forum participation. Jesus said "Matt 24:26 26 So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." (ESV) I take those words to heart and caution others that if anyone should say "look, he came in 65AD, or 90AD, or 95AD"; do not believe it. for when He comes He will come "on the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory." God bless, Jeff |
||||||
675 | EXPLAIN MATTHEW 24 VS. 1-10 | Matt 24:1 | jlhetrick | 184875 | ||
Coper, I can appreciate that you did not anticipate the types of responses you are getting on the forum. We see many come and go that jump in with both feet attempting to push their biased views. Less frequently do those initiate the dialogue under the pretense that they 1) have little understanding regarding the topic of their question when they truly believe they do, and 2) comment that they are off track and want to be redirected "back to Scripture" when they really don't believe they are off track; and in fact the goal is to pull others into their view. So you will have to appreciate that as you began to reveal yourself, your credibility quickly became questionable. Furthermore, you continually accuse others, including myself, of "abusing" and "misusing" Scripture. All the while you continue to use Scripture loosely to support your own ideas while rejecting any possibility that ALL of those responding to you might have a point. You wrote: "Unless one has studied the events of 70AD exhaustively, and been able to rule it out definitively, he is not qualified to rule out a first century coming as at least a possibility." DONE and ruled out definitely; thus, the realization that Christ has not yet returned "on the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory". I do appreciate your enthusiasm and as you have studied up on the issue for all of a year now (according to your words) I hope you will follow your own advise and continue with your research. As for your less than relevant remark about reading Abraham Lincoln the answer is no. We have a very accurate collaboration of historical information to verify the Civil War has occurred. It's in sticking to the topic that we find that there is not that same type of reliable information to support the history that you wholeheartedly teach. In all honestly Coper, the short time you have spent looking into this subject really only begins to qualify some good guessing; hardly sufficient to position yourself as a teacher of the topic. In the mean time keep in mind. In speaking of His return, Jesus said no man knows the hour or the day. In speaking of His return Jesus also said that when it does occur it will be obvious to everyone and "all the tribes of the Earth" will see it. That, being the grandest and most obvious reality of the prophecy should be what you are looking for. If you corroborate that with history, please, bring it to our attention. As for my blessing in allowing you to continue on the forum, you don't need it but you certainly have it. With that said though, I won't be responding further to this this topic as I see it unfruitful and plenty divisive. And know, I don't place all the blame for that on you. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
676 | Is the Word of Faith movement Biblical? | Matt 24:11 | jlhetrick | 156053 | ||
Hi Dalcent, You asked for an example from the bible regarding praying for the sick so here ya go. James 5:16 6 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. NIV You are right regarding "believing before receiving" but be careful not to offend God by quoting His word out of context. Context, context, please. Mark 11:24 is very clear. The scriptural context is also very clear. We are to "believe before receiving." We are also to ask in accordance with God's will. Something the "word of faith" movement declares as a lack of faith. Praying and asking God "if it be your will" is considered by the WOF as a prayer lacking faith. As Christians we are never to pray and ask for anything unless we know it is the will of God or, in the case where we don't know, we include and expect the answer to be in accordance with His will. For example; I may ask in prayer for the life of my sick child to be spared and healing to occur. But God has already told me that it is appointed for each of us to die. I can not assume that my faithful prayer can change what has already been established by God. My child may die. God is faithful. You wrote: "I'm not 'Word of Faith' but I believe in some respects they have had some genuine biblical insights." Be aware, Satan himself "in some respects" has some "genuine biblical insights." Lets not condone his efforts. Jeff |
||||||
677 | Every NATION or every PERSON? | Matt 24:14 | jlhetrick | 169128 | ||
Greetings Kalos, This is certainly a question worthy of consideration for all Christians. Exactly what is called for and expected of us regarding what many consider our greatest responsibility toward men. Personally, I have always heard it preached and taught to mean that EVERY individual will hear and have the opportunity to believe. That the “great commission” in fact is the command to go and tell every individual the good new of Christ. Not my understanding at all however, and not, I believe, consistent within the context of scripture as a whole. Some points to ponder: 1. While it is true that today’s technology offers significant opportunity to reach the masses in a way never imagined in biblical times, it falls far short of being able to speak to every individual. Hundreds of thousands of people live without the most simple means of communication such as telephone, radio, television. Many of those are also unable to read and write even in their own language. In spite of the advances of technology, we continue to be unable to locate some individuals, even ones that we know by name and are seeking (e.g., Osama Bin Laden). One may argue, he does not want to be found. The same is true for many individuals concerning the gospel. 2. Consider the conversion of Paul (Saul). It was a very dramatic event. He was not alone. Yet in the company of men, he was the only one to hear the “voice” and “words” of Christ and be called. Why did the Lord not give all who were there the opportunity to hear and believe on that dusty road to Damascus? We can wonder, but it is not our place to question who and why God calls this one and that one He does not. 3. One more point. Consider the words of Jesus spoken to the twelve when he sent them out to the people: Mat 10:12 As you enter the house, greet it. Mat 10:13 If the house is receptive, let your blessing of peace come on it. But if it isn't receptive, let your blessing of peace return to you. Mat 10:14 If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet. Mat 10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town!" Jesus doesn’t tell them to make personal contact with each and every person in the towns, or even in the specific houses for that matter. Quite the contrary. When asking the question: “what does ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations...”, what is the best answer supported by scripture? Simply, that the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the WHOLE WORLD, and to ALL NATIONS. Since it doesn’t say -to every person- then we shouldn’t attempt to make it say that. This should not, of course, keep us from the effort of reaching as many as each of us INDIVIDUALLY can however. It has not been given to us to know that this one has been called and empowered to believe and that one has not. My once and a half cents worth, Jeff |
||||||
678 | Every NATION or every PERSON? | Matt 24:14 | jlhetrick | 169150 | ||
Hello brother Steve, Thanks for reading my post and responding. This is one of those passages (like so many others) that require some word study and context to really get a grip on. In Acts 9:7 we might have a common use of language that is misinterpreted (according to which version you are reading). The KJV for example, agrees with you in using the word "voice" to describe what those with Saul heard. The NIV, on the other hand, translates the word "sound". this would not necessarily be inaccurate on either translation nor a contradiction. For example. If we were in a room togther and you heard a knock on the door and recognized it as a knock, yet I heard it but did not recognize it as a knock at the door; you might later explain that we both heard the knock at the door. I maight report that I heard a "sound". In any case, here is how Strong's explains the word in question here. NT:5456 NT:5456 phone (fo-nay'); probably akin to NT:5316 through the idea of disclosure; a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by implication, an address (for any purpose), saying or language: KJV - noise, sound, voice. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.) So the word might rightly be interpreted in the English as "noise", "sound", or "voice". As for biblical context: We have a clue why voice may not be the best choice of interpretation. Acts 22:9 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. KJV So when considering this event in light of what else scripture (and Paul himself) has to say about it specifically, we find that, in fact, those with Paul did not hear what Saul heard. They did hear a sound, whether it was recognizable as a "voice" is not what is important regarding the essence of my previous post. What we do know, is that whatever they heard, there was no communication to them in the hearing. They did not understand it. This should sufficiently answer your last question regarding whether these others were called or not. They were not, at least at that time, as Paul articulates in Acts 22:9. We might note, however, that these same men escorted Paul to Damascus and very likely continued with him for a time. It's possible that some or all of them were eventually called and saved (this may be referred to in scripture but I am unaware of it). Hope this helps clarify my understanding. Jeff |
||||||
679 | Every NATION or every PERSON? | Matt 24:14 | jlhetrick | 169153 | ||
Dear brother Steve, I meant to include this in my last response to you, and clicked submit before adding it. I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate your posts. whether your are asking a question or offering a response, your posts are always uplifting and encouraging. You are among those on this forum that truly represent the love and grace of our wonderful and holy God. You are a blessing to me, and to the forum. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
680 | Every NATION or every PERSON? | Matt 24:14 | jlhetrick | 169156 | ||
Yea, what you said. This is a good example of how we can become focused on something that is not really the essense of what the apparent point, or message is. As I hoped my previous post pointed out. It is of no consequence whether what was heard was a voice, sound, or whatever. What we now know after looking a little deeper here, is that they were not communicated with as Saul was. And as for opinion as to which English word is best for the translation, we are safe to disagree there too. After all, the translators of the various bible versions chose different words, and they are/were all far more capable of translating the Greek than the both of us. Keep up the good work and always helpful contributions to the forum. In Christs Love, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Next > Last [62] >> |