Results 421 - 440 of 7732
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | When God reveals Your Husband | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106069 | ||
How does God speak to us? 'I am a bit distressed even talking about this issue because my comments are meant to try to rein Christians in a little bit, to keep them off of the fringe... 'But whenever I have to rein Christians in a bit and talk about this kind of thing I feel badly because I realize that some people are straining at the bit for the best of reasons and with the best of intentions...They want to experience more of the working of the Holy Spirit in their life. And here is Koukl coming in, apparently throwing cold water on the whole operation. 'I feel bad about that because I have no intention of quenching the work of the Holy Spirit. My entire goal is to be very, very careful and look closely at the specifics of what's being held to be true to see if they do, in fact, line up with the directives given in the Scriptures. Or, are we drawing some wrong conclusions that cause us to go over the edge and maybe do some spiritual damage to ourselves and others?... 'I think I'm somewhat of an evangelical iconoclast because I'm always breaking up people's parties, so to speak. An iconoclast is an image breaker, someone who kind of attacks, to some degree, cherished notions. Sometimes that bothers people and I 'm sorry about that. I don't mean to cause trouble for the sake of trouble, but I do mean to force people to think clearly and Biblically, even about those ideas they cherish the most. And, to many of us, the thing that we cherish the most is this idea that we have a personal hotline to God and we ought to expect Him to speak to us about our decisions. 'I had a very stimulating conversation last week about this. I talked about it on Sunday in some detail, and then a friend of mine wrote me a note and offered me eighteen references from the book of Acts that seem to contradict my point of view. So what I want to do for just a few moments is to talk about these particular references and see if they do contradict what I was saying last weekend. 'I have to make clear what my point of view is so that it's not misunderstood. Let me capsulize it for you very quickly. My point of view is basically four quick points: 'First of all, learning to hear the voice of God is not taught as a Christian discipline that we must learn in order to live the optimal Christian life. This is the "hotline to God" view in which we get specialized and tailor-made instructions for our personal lives. That is not taught in Scripture. 'Secondly, God sometimes does give specialized instructions, so I'm not saying that God can't do that and I'm not putting God in a box. He does sometimes give specialized instructions. He did in Biblical times and He does in the present. But when we read in the Bible especially in the New Testament, which is what our discussion is about today when He has done it, such specialized instructions are clear first of all. They are not mumbled. They are not whispered. They are not nudged. And they are, almost without exception in the New Testament, a sovereign intrusion by God into the circumstances rather than something that is first sought by a Christian. 'Thirdly, God's intrusion in these cases is sometimes through special gifts in the body that I believe are in full operation today, but are by very nature individual. In other words, every person has his own gift and each person does not have every gift. So this working through gifts can't be a means of every Christian hearing from God. In other words, sometimes God intervenes with a prophetic word, but since prophetic words only come through those people who have the gift of prophecy, it's not the kind of thing we all have to cultivate, to learn to do. 'Finally, there are clearly workings of the Spirit in the area of teaching, conviction of sin and comforting of individual Christians. I admit that those workings are private, individual and tailored to individual people. Those kinds of things are not in question here. 'We're going to do a little Bible study. We're going to look at eighteen references suggested in the letter to me that was an attempt to offer contrary evidence from the Scriptures to the point of view that I just described for you. All of these references come from the book of Acts. We will see if these references actually undermine the basic point I have been making or not. In a sense, I hope the Bible study will go beyond just the meaning of the passages because what this will do, as we walk through it, is help us to learn how to be more precise and particular about our Bible study and not draw conclusions hastily or inappropriately from the Scriptures. But take a close, methodical look to get a clear idea of what is actually being averred here about Christian disciplines and God speaking.' ____________________ Acts and the Voice of God by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/actsvoic.htm) |
||||||
422 | When God reveals Your Husband | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106070 | ||
'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man,"...' ____________________ 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,"...' ____________________ '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: ID# 85421 at this website (StudyBibleForum) and/or: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
423 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106108 | ||
You got that right! That "the intent of the framers is not law" is certainly true. Apparently the law has nothing to do with the intent of the framers of the Constitution. |
||||||
424 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106128 | ||
Tim: I know a family with five children. In all their years of attending public schools, they never once said the pledge. Not once were they ever forced or intimidated to say the pledge of allegiance or punished for not saying it. On the other hand, we dare not allow the 99 students who do believe in God to say "under God" lest we offend the one who is an atheist. Apparently the guiding philosophy of the government and the schools is that the good of the one outweighs the good of the many. --kalos |
||||||
425 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106135 | ||
Was it the intent of the framers of the Constitution that you be pulled outside of the classroom and told that tou were violating the Law by having a Bible in school? I seriously doubt it. Somehow under the law/constitution it is okay for a person to choose NOT to carry/read the Bible at school. But it is NOT okay for a person to choose TO carry/read a Bible. What is wrong with this picture? I see the rights of one group being protected, while the rights of another group are being violated. |
||||||
426 | Had Adam and Eve not fallen, then what? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106219 | ||
The question could just as easily be worded: What if adam and eve hadn't gone and messed stuff up,...? This calls for speculation. Actually, the Bible does not deal in "what ifs". |
||||||
427 | What happens to you posthumously? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106221 | ||
The teaching that you just stay in your body remaining in a peaceful, restful sleep until the resurrection is known as the doctrine of soul sleep. This is a false doctrine, which is not supported by Scripture. | ||||||
428 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106300 | ||
This tree is beginning to have many branches. I.e., this thread is beginning to contain many sub-threads. There is a lot of controversy over the issue of the words "under God" remaining or not remaining in the pledge of allegiance. Whatever one's stand -- for or against -- all of us would do well to keep this in mind: Choose your battles carefully. Is the pledge issue worth launching an all-out crusade? Should this take precedence over every other cause? Or might there be other, more urgent issues, for example, abortion, euthanasia, child abuse and neglect, legalizing same-sex marriage, regulating pornography on the Internet? I cannot answer this question for others nor can others answer it for me. I merely ask the question. |
||||||
429 | matt | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106307 | ||
Why would someone condemn others for celebrating Christmas? Because it's standard Watchtower doctrine? |
||||||
430 | Is being remarried an eternal sin? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106514 | ||
The only way to become un-remarried would be to divorce the current spouse. But two wrongs don't make a right. How would comitting the sin a second time make up for doing it the first time? It wouldn't. A second divorce would help no one and would likely hurt someone (spouse, children, etc.). How many times must one confess and repent before they are forgiven? Are they really repenting? God knows their heart. |
||||||
431 | Where can I find a MASTER theologian? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106682 | ||
It is not advisable to attempt to use this forum for counseling. Please contact a trusted family member or qualified counselor. | ||||||
432 | Tithes | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106998 | ||
You will find in-depth information on Tithing, including many Scripture references, by looking up "Tithing" in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker's Dictionary is available online at (bible.crosswalk.com) | ||||||
433 | who created satan? other names for him.. | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107261 | ||
Satan (Excerpts from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. To read the entire article, go to http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary) 'The Hebrew word satan [f'f] means "an adversary, one who resists." It is translated as "Satan" eighteen times in the Old Testament, fourteen of those occurrences being in Job 1-2, the others in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2. There is some dispute as to whether it should be taken as a proper name or a title. In Job and Zechariah the definite article precedes the noun (lit., "the satan" or "the accuser"). Thus some argue it should be a title, while in 1 Chronicles (no article) it should be a proper name. The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David (1 Sam 29:4), Rezon of Damascus (1 Kings 11:23,25), and the angel of the Lord (Num 22:22,32).' ____________________ '"Satan" occurs thirty-six times in the New Testament, eighteen of that number in the Gospels and Acts. The Greek term satanas [Satana'"] is a loan word from the Hebrew Old Testament, and twenty-eight of the total occurrences are accompanied by the definite article. Often in the Gospel accounts Jesus is in contact with Satan directly or indirectly. He was tempted by Satan (Mark 1:13). In the famous "Beelzebub controversy" Jesus made clear his intention to drive Satan out of people's lives and to destroy his sovereignty (Matt 12:26; Mark 3:23, 26; Luke 11:18). He liberated a woman "whom Satan (had) kept bound for eighteen long years" (Luke 13:16). Paul spoke of his being sent to turn people "from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18), and that the works of the "lawless one (were) in accordance with the work of Satan, " in doing sham miracles, signs, and wonders (2 Thess 2:9). Christ will come, he wrote, to overthrow that agent of Satan.' ____________________ 'The other common appellation for Satan in the New Testament is "the devil" (diabolos [diavbolo"]), not found in the Old Testament, but thirty-four times here, meaning one who is traducer, a slanderer. The word often translates satan [Sata'n] in the Septuagint (either as "the satan" or an "adversary"). In the New Testament the "devil" becomes "an evil principle/being standing against God." 'In the New Testament the word appears to be used interchangeably with "Satan." Mark refers to "Satan" five times, but never uses "devil." Matthew has three of the former, but six of the latter. The Fourth Gospel has one instance of "Satan" (with none in the Epistles of John), while the "devil" (as Satan) occurs twice in the Gospel and three times in the Epistles. 'Jesus would drive out "the prince of this world" by his cross (John 12:31); the latter would have no hold on Christ, for he was without sin (14:30); and Satan stood condemned at the bar of God's judgment (16:11). While the devil has had a career of sinning "from the beginning, " the Son of God came to destroy his wicked works (1 John 3:8). Those unable to hear and receive Jesus' words belong to the devil, who is their "father" (John 8:44)—they share a family likeness to him. 'Believers need to exercise care about anger, so as "not to give the devil a foothold" (Eph 4:26). They are to don God's full armor so as to stand against the devil's schemes. With the shield of faith they are to thwart his "flaming arrows" (Eph 6:11,16). Ultimate victory comes by "the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, " as the devil is cast down from heaven to the earth (Rev 12:11).' Walter M. Dunnett See also Demon; Evil; Sin Bibliography. H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, 3:468-72; O. Bocher, EDNT, 1:297-98; D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20; W. Foerster, TDNT, 2:1-20; E. Lanyton, Satan, A Portrait; D. W. Pentecost, Your Adversary, The Devil; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. ____________________ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company. Bibliography Information Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Satan'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary) |
||||||
434 | RoS, What do we do with the OT (Law)? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107313 | ||
The law of the LORD is perfect.......... The Law of the Lord - is perfect - gives new strength - is trustworthy - gives wisdom - is right - is just - gives understanding - is always fair - gives knowledge to me Psalm 19 7 The law of the Lord is perfect; it gives new strength. The commands of the Lord are trustworthy, giving wisdom to those who lack it. 8 The laws of the Lord are right, and those who obey them are happy. The commands of the Lord are just and give understanding to the mind. 9 Reverence for the Lord is good; it will continue forever. The judgments of the Lord are just; they are always fair. 10 They are more desirable than the finest gold; they are sweeter than the purest honey. 11 They give knowledge to me, your servant; I am rewarded for obeying them. (Today's English Version) 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; 8 the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9 the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Revised Standard Version) |
||||||
435 | Azusa Revival in 1904, any relative liv | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107591 | ||
I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you clarify? What do you mean when you say "relative"? Whose relative? Are you asking if there is anyone alive who is a relative of someone who was in the Azusa Street revival? As far as an eyewitness of the revival, any person who was old enough at the time to remember it would be at least 108 years old now. A person who was born in 1904, the year of the revival, would now be 99 years old. |
||||||
436 | Specific date Jesus was born? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107604 | ||
No, the Bible does not mention a specific date when Jesus was born. | ||||||
437 | Azusa Revival in 1904, any relative liv | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107606 | ||
Are you kidding? I'm doing well to remember what I had for lunch yesterday. Green grass? If the grass was green, then they weren't in Los Angeles. -kalos :-) |
||||||
438 | new testament written in Aramaic? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 107902 | ||
"The disciples wrote the NT in Greek..." ____________________ "When we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is one step..." ____________________ Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore? (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) 'This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all. 'The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5 percent textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1 percent of of all the copies that do not agree with each other 100 percent. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1 percent and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern at all is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have an extremely accurate compilation of the original documents. 'So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is one step, not a series of steps that leads to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the Greek to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the Greek to the English. It is from the Greek into the Spanish. It is from the Greek into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.' (http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm) |
||||||
439 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108071 | ||
'The misrepresentation of John being the church. 'It is said that the church is not present during the events of Revelation because in chapter 4:1, John is called to "come up here". John is said to be a picture of the church, and therefore it (the church) is in heaven during the days of the 70th week of Daniel. But is that a valid inference? Nowhere in all of the New Testament is there warrant to apply the understanding that John represents the church in Rev. 4:1. The context clearly implies that "John" refers to... John, and no one else. He is simply given a heavenly perspective of what is going on behind the visible world and what will take place during the last days. Nothing else. To say otherwise is to grasp at straws to try to support a hollow argument." - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Why is the church not mentioned in Revelation 4-22? 'By Rev. Charles Cooper 'It is assumed by pretribulationists that the church is not present on earth during the events spoken of in the majority of the book of Revelation. This thinking is based primarily on the absence of the word "church" from Revelation 3:22 to Revelation 20:16. If the "church" is not mentioned, it is concluded, she must have been raptured prior to the events written about. Further, it is assumed that the invitation to the apostle John in Revelation 4:1 to "come up here" is a picture of the rapture of the church preceding the events of the 70th week. 'It is important to examine these assumptions because they clearly attempt to place the rescue of the righteous (the rapture) before Daniel's 70th week and not after. If that is so, it should be clearly taught in Scripture. 'For several compelling reasons, it is a false conclusion to assume that the church will be raptured before the 70th week of Daniel (and for that reason is not mentioned between chapters 4 and 20): '1. The plain teaching of Scripture. Jesus, in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3-31), outlines the sequence of events in the last days relative to the church. Verses 3-14 parallel Revelation chapter 6 and depict those events from the beginning of the 70th week to the rapture. Then, in verses 15-28, He focuses on the middle time period of that future week (the final 7 years) and emphasizes two key events: (a) a time of great persecution, and (b) the "cut[ting] short" of "those days" of persecution for "the sake of the elect". Finally, in verses 29-31, He highlights what it is that will "cut short" that persecution, the rescue of the elect (the rapture). 'Paul echoes this same teaching in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians 2:1-12: (a) the apostasy comes first, (b) the revealing of the man of lawlessness, (c) the "challenge" to all who will not bow down to him and worship him "as being God", and (d) the coming of the Lord to "gather together" believers unto Himself. 'In Revelation 6-8, we have the same sequence repeated: (a) the 70th week begins, (b) the pressure builds [seals 1-3], (c) the midpoint [seals 4-5] and apex of the persecution (against the "saints") arrives, (d) the "cut[ting] short" of that persecution with the same cosmic announcement [seal 6] as Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:29-31 followed by the rapture of the saints (Revelation 7:9ff). There is absolutely no teaching either by hint or by direct instruction that the church will not be present during the 70th week of Daniel. (...) '5. The argument from silence. It is maintained that since the word "church" isn't used again from 3:22 until 22:6, she is absent from the events unfolding during that time period. That's an argument from silence. If we apply that same argument to the gospel of John, we have to conclude that the gospel of John isn't for the church because the word church isn't even mentioned in all of its chapters. Can that be true? 'The overwhelming evidence is that the church is indeed present during the 70th week of Daniel regardless of whether the word is used or not. What one believes must be squarely built on what the Bible clearly says, not on what we might like it to say for whatever reason. What we believe about the last days will have tremendous implications for our lives should we enter those days. Let us be Bereans, searching to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11)' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0027.html) |
||||||
440 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108115 | ||
RAPTURE, THE The Last Day "Christ's gathering together, the deliverance of, and rescue of the true living church (by His angelic "reapers") to Himself in the clouds at His second coming (parousia), an event that occurs on the last day when the day of the Lord commences, between the sixth seal (the sign of the end of the age ) and the seventh seal (the day of the Lord). The Rapture cannot occur until sometime during the second half of the seventieth week , when God cuts short the great tribulation by Antichrist . "But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows." PREWRATH RAPTURE, THE "The position that the true church will be raptured when the great tribulation by Antichrist, inspired by Satan, is cut short by God's day-of-the-Lord wrath, (Matt. 24:22) which will occur between the sixth and seventh seals of Revelation, sometime during the second half of the seventieth week. (cf. Rev. 7:9-17) The persecution associated with the great tribulation of Antichrist is viewed as the wrath of Satan, whereas the events that follow beginning with the seventh seal, are considered the wrath of God."(http://www.signministries.org/glossary.htm |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [387] >> |