Results 3941 - 3960 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3941 | Who dose not belive in the TERM Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20766 | ||
Kalos, no need, you say, to re-hash the same topic every other month? Ah, but I'm disappointed. I'd rather grown quite fond of the MONTHLY ritual of attending Cain's wedding and getting a glimpse of his lovely bride, whoever she was. --Hank | ||||||
3942 | Who dose not belive in the TERM Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20761 | ||
Elijah, in speaking of the doctrine of the Trinty, you write, "...but the doctrine is not true, the doctrine is a continual repetiton of counter diction, both with in it self and with the Bible." It's easy enough to understand, but impossible to agree with, what you mean by "the doctrine is not true." But of what you mean when you say, "the doctrine is a continual repetition of counter diction" I haven't a clue. Your post was not authenticated by as much as one scriptural reference. It stands on one leg alone: your opinion. And that, my fellow forum user, I am not prepared to accept as my standard of faith. --Hank | ||||||
3943 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Hank | 20756 | ||
Lionstrong, your suggestion to Sir Pent to teach his dog English and typing so that you could debate with his dog struck me as being hilarious. Having seen debates on this forum by people who obviously neither knew English nor typing, Sir Pent may have in his dog the makings of a rising star of the forum :-) I am not in the least directing my observations at you, Sir Pent, or your debate. It's just that my quirky funny bone was tickled at the prospect of debating with an educated puppy. Well, in any event, I hope that my little attempt at humor will serve as oil to your debate and cause it to run smoother. --Hank | ||||||
3944 | What can you get your prayer life back? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20717 | ||
Sir Pent, an excellent and well-rounded response to Yogi's question concerning prayer. Your living, empirical guide to prayer packs more punch and has a ring of truth about it that no theoretical advice can ever match. Your ACTS formula is certainly helpful to keep in mind in order to insure the proper balance and content of our prayers, so that they don't deteriorate into the GG formula: God, Gimme :-) ..... Suppose you had given me many gifts in abundance, and I, instead of thanking you for them, returned to you the next day and asked for more. That's the GG formula. It wouldn't set too well with you, I would guess. And neither would it set well, I should think, with God. Thanks for sharing your prayer experience; it made for a wonderful post. --Hank | ||||||
3945 | What can you get your prayer life back? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20710 | ||
That right, Tim, with prayer "Just do it" is instruction enough. One might add the word "now" as an impetus to get us off our blessed assurance and onto our knees! The marvelous thing about Christian prayer, in contrast to a number of other faiths, is that we have no mantras or incantations to worry over. Christ Jesus gave us a fine model of the ingredients a prayer ought to contain, but He leaves it largely up to us to say from the heart, in our own words, what is on our minds. Prayer and praise are so closely intertwined that I am not quite sure whether I'm engaged in one or the other, or perhaps in both, when I sing with feeling a great hymn or read aloud a Psalm. In either case, the Lord is duly praised and I am richly blessed. --Hank | ||||||
3946 | response | Rom 1:18 | Hank | 20694 | ||
Joe, believing as I do that you are quite correct in saying that we can, and should, be something like a diplomatic corps and, as such, should not compromise our "salt and light" purpose, I'm reminded of what a fine example of this Paul set when he stood in the midst of the Areopagus and spoke to the learned Athenians upon Mars Hill. Without compromising his position or obscuring his mission, he began his sermon by being complimentary in order to gain a hearing. His sermon is a masterpiece of measured tact and diplomacy, a classic example that we Christians (and indeed the church) need not and should not feel compelled to conform in order to be the effective vessels of salt and light that Christ envisages as our proper commission to be His ambassadors in the world today. --Hank | ||||||
3947 | response | Rom 1:18 | Hank | 20688 | ||
Tim, good observation. The inept phrase, "going to church" that has sneaked into our common expression might ought to be amended. A more accurate and telling way of saying it would be something more like "the church going to the building." When a couple of years ago my wife and I had occasion to visit a place of worship in downtown Boston, we heard someone remark about what a magnificent "church" this was. Indeed the building itself was a fine tribute to architectural splendor, and it rivaled some of the best of Europe's cathedrals. But when we attended the worship service there, we were frankly shocked. Inside sprawled a gorgeous sanctuary that easily would have held 2,000 people and scattered about among the pews were fewer than 100 worshipers, the majority of whom were, like us, visitors. Doesn't this beg the question, Magnificent church or magnificent building? There is indeed a salient difference, and I believe our experience in Boston was a stark and poignant illustration of the difference. --Hank | ||||||
3948 | response | Rom 1:18 | Hank | 20645 | ||
Schwartzkm, please allow me to quote a sentence from your post and use it as a springboard for my own fairly brief note and comment that will follow it. You wrote, "In some sense, I think the church has too many 'scholars' and not enough people actually 'doing' the work of ministry."...... Three cheers for that statement! Among the motley dozen whom Jesus chose, how many were scholars, even in the most diluted sense of the word? And Paul, although trained by Gamaliel, a Jewish scholar of the first rank, was himself hardly a denizen of the hallowed halls of academia. And Jesus, a "scholar" by modern definition?..... I don't down-play or degrade the importance of a certain degree of training for ministry nor deny the need for careful scholarship in areas where it is critical as, for example, in Bible translation. But at the same time I feel that scholarship can be, and frequently is, over emphasized and given a place in Christianity today that pushes evangelism, the far more vital business of Christians, into the second rank. --Hank | ||||||
3949 | response | Rom 1:18 | Hank | 20644 | ||
Tim, I love your term "fortress mentality" as you use it regarding the attitudes that churches today have developed in their relationship to the world around them. And its sadly true, I'm afraid. One wonders if the fences are built around churches to keep their members in or to keep visitors out. Chuck Colson has noted this trend and points out its folly in his book (his best thus far, in my view) called "How Now Shall We Live?" --Hank | ||||||
3950 | General Admonition (dealing with Casiv) | 1 Cor 14:26 | Hank | 20423 | ||
Sir Pent, while I take your motives to defend casiv as having their genesis in Christian charity, and while I myself defend your right to stand on the forum soapbox and speak your piece, I nevertheless take the position that your criticism of some of the oldest, soundest and most dedicated and intelligent members of this forum is unfair, misguided, and not your business to take upon yourself to do. Every reasonable effort has been made to deal with this user -- reason, tact, patience. Even, as a last-ditch attempt, humor (call it ridcule if you must, but there was nothing demeaning in it). The issues raised by the user were addressed, but I failed to see in any of the various respondents' posts any vile attacks upon the character or the person of this user. Efforts to reason were met with salvos of biblical curses and the like. I think no one on the forum whose names you cite in your post does, or ever has, borne a modicum of ill will toward the user in question. I know most of them too well to believe they would allow their hearts to be tarnished by hate or ill will directed at any other member of the forum..... But most of us old heads on the forum have seen what havoc and discord can be effected if we continue to condone by any user a clear and consistent pattern of behavior that tends to be far more divisive than unifying. It's likely that any of us have not made a post now and then that, upon reflection, we would like either to amend or rescind. These flaws to which we are all heir do not, however, rise to the level of, or come under the purview of, the problem we are addressing...... I'll conclude with a message I've stuck by ever since I first signed on this forum, and that message is this: The Lockman Foundation designed this site to be, and it of right ought to be, a Study Bible forum. When any of us attempts to turn it into something else, we have, to the extent that we do, adulterated its purpose. I think that you and I and all other users, including casiv, would do well to keep this in mind. --Hank | ||||||
3951 | rock or Rock,god or God,savior or Savior | Hos 13:4 | Hank | 20182 | ||
Hi, Ray. It looks as though you have quite a collection of nouns on your hands gleaned from 2 Samuel 22, waiting nervously in the wing, not sure of their fate. Should they be elevated to the lofty status of proper nouns, or must they ever remain among the undistinguished lot of common nouns? I'm gently ribbing, not ridiculing, your dilemma, Ray, for in truth the problem of capitalization regarding names of, pertaining to, or descriptive of, Deity is a knotty one, not only for us laymen who read and study the Bible, but especially for those whose business it is to give us a faithful translation of the Scriptures in modern English. One of the obvious difficulties lies in the fact that God is not consistently called God in the Bible; Jesus is not always called Jesus; the Holy Spirit is not always called the Holy Spirit. So what do the translators do with such nouns as rock, stronghold, door, shepherd, vine, or comforter when they are used in connection with Deity? Of even greater difficulty are some of the prophetic Messianic passages of the Old Testament, e.g. Isaiah 53:3 in which the NKJV capitalizes "Man" but the NASB and NIV do not. So the capitalization question is not an easy one; it varies among different versions..... According to standard English usage guidelines pertaining to pronouns, they are all "common" pronouns, i.e., they have no counterpart for "proper" nouns. The only times pronouns are capitalized in ordinary English usage are when they begin a sentence or when the pronoun is in the first person singular (I). Capitalization of personal pronouns that refer to Deity is a contrivance of certain schools of translation. They usually cite two reasons for doing so. First, they say, it shows reverence for God; and, second, that it benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. The King James Bible never capitalized pronouns, nor does the NIV or the RSV. The NASB and NKJV are two that do...... Ray, I can't help but muse on how much easier Bible reading would be for us if our native language was German. In that considerate tongue, they take no chances on getting capitalization right. Every time a noun, any noun, comes along.....Bam! They capitalize it before it has a chance to escape. Sounds almost too good to be true, but it is true. That's the way they do it in Deutschland. --Hank | ||||||
3952 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Hank | 20176 | ||
Kalos, what a charming idea to start a new thread on Calvinism and Armenianism! But let's add a third topic, The Weather, thus giving us three topics that everybody talks about but nobody does anything about. --Hank | ||||||
3953 | How does this relate to the context? | John 4:16 | Hank | 20173 | ||
Debbie, I can't be sure, but I suspect Colonel Mustard called Colonel Sanders a chicken, whereupon Sanders barbecued Mustard. Mustard got very mad and smeared Big Mac and now they all are really in a pickle. The Burger King had them all arrested. I'd continue but don't want to be too Wendy. --Hank | ||||||
3954 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 20089 | ||
CDBJ, I'm at a loss to understand how or why you would draw the conclusion that the people at Institute for Creation Research just might be evolutionists. I've met and talked with the president of ICR, Dr. John Morris, and his wife, Dalta. I am totally convinced that neither they nor anyone associated with this organization espouse Darwinianism...... In my former note, my use of the words "hack" and "star-gazers" did not even remotely pertain to you. Please read the note again and pay careful attention to the context in which I employed the terms. If you feel that the ICR material is not of help to you, I, while being disappointed that it does not meet your needs, have no other remedy to offer. --Hank | ||||||
3955 | rock or Rock,god or God,savior or Savior | Hos 13:4 | Hank | 20071 | ||
Shame on you, Kalos, questioning an English major :-) But you caught me dead in my tracks! Yes, it was "proper noun" that I meant and it was "proper noun" that I should have said. They "learned" me better in school, but then it has been more than 40 years since I took an English lesson. Until now. Thanks for yours :-) Best regards, brother. --Hank | ||||||
3956 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20068 | ||
Dear Ed, friend and brother, this post is certainly no attempt on my part to drive a wedge between you and Charis, both of whom are, I surely do believe, honorable and dedicated servants of the King. Both of you have made some good talking points and your unity of spirit overrides your minor points of view. I simply wish to make a couple of casual observations that, it is hoped, will provide some small catalyst for more thought on the matter of biblical study and interpretation..... Let me begin with an analogy taken from my long experience as a Christian, a Bible reader, a church-goer -- and a radio listener and TV viewer. When I was very young, my father listened every evening on the radio to H.V.Kaltenborn or Gabriel Heater, two popular newsmen of the time. They gave the world and national news and, this is the point, they gave it in half an hour, once a day. That was it. Today we are deluged by two major 24-hour TV news networks, not to mention the overwhelming number of radio news-talk shows that go round the clock, 24/7. It's an information overload. No one can absorb this much informational input and keep his head straight.... When the President of the United States makes a speech, we are told in advance what he is going to say; we are told afterward what he said and what he meant by what he said and what he meant by what he didn't say. But even this is not enough. We are told by everyone from the White House butler to Madonna what they thought about what the President said. The result of this process is that we become so confused and rattled, we don't remember three words of what the President actually said..... Now for the Bible aspect to complete my analogy. When I was a young lad, my parents read and studied the Bible, the text. They didn't jump around among a dozen versions or consult this or that Study Bible, and for good reason. There was only one of the former and none of the latter at their disposal. When a locution in the text was unclear, they didn't question the accuracy of the text but simply dug in deeper for themselves, reading a difficult passage over and over, comparing one gospel account with another, cross-referencing passages, all in an effort better to understand what the Bible had to say. They committed large portions of Scripture to memory. They studied the Bible with other believers. And, unless my memory is playing evil tricks on me, my recollecion is that there was far more harmony then among the members of the church community than there is now.... One of the pitfalls to which Christians, I among them, have fallen prey in our approach to Bible reading and study is that we are looking for the quick fix. When we come accross a passage we don't immediately understand, we hasten to open our Study Bibles or go to the Internet to get ourselves a quick, easy answer. I am not in any sense opposed to the use of Bible study aids; in fact, I'm on record on this forum as having advocated the use of Study Bibles, Bible dictionaries, and other such helps to enhance our understanding of the Bible. But let me make clear that no extra-biblical sources do, or ever can, relieve us of the absolute necessity of reading and studying the text itself...... What I have said about the news-media overload can be said about Bible materials as well. Not in all history have we had anything approaching the number of different versions of the Bible that are now available in English. Never before have we seen such a plethora of study Bibles, and they keep coming in tidal waves, flooding an already glutted market. I happen to know a few people who will read the commentary footnotes of a variety of study Bibles before they will even read the full text itself. And I find myself comparing this approach with the one that a well-known Bible scholar and commentator is said to have used: "I never make a comment nor write a single word about a book of the Bible," he said, "until I have read that book at least 50 times."...... It may be a naive view in this age of sophisticated ignorance, but it seems to me that a truly dedicated and thorough study of the Bible, with open hearts and minds, just might effect more unity among believers than all the ecumenical conferences they could attend in a lifetime. --Hank | ||||||
3957 | rock or Rock,god or God,savior or Savior | Hos 13:4 | Hank | 20041 | ||
Hello again, Ray. You ask whether I think God has a common name. No, Ray, I don't. I don't think there is anything common about God. He is omnipotent. He is transcendent. He alone is God. There is none like Him. To Him all majesty ascribe, as the hymn goes. --Hank | ||||||
3958 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 20037 | ||
CDBJ, with malice toward none and charity toward all who continue to post speculative dissertations on the Gap Theory, I fervently implore all of you to go to icr.org and type in the single word "gap" in the search space provided on the upper left of the home page. You will be led to a number of articles that treat of the subject of the Gap Theory, researched and written by qualified men and women, not hacks or star-gazing theorists, but serious and learned scientists, who also happen to be conservative Christians. --Hank | ||||||
3959 | Earth was without form, and void. | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 20009 | ||
Tim, the "bad choice" of the word "replenish" in the King James Bible is no error of the translators and it is, in fact, not a bad choice at all. The fault lies, not in the KJV translators, but in ourselves, that we assume, wrongly, the word "replenish" to mean to refill or put back something that was there before, when such is not the case nor ever has been. The word "replenish" has been in the English lexicon since the fourteenth century and it meant then, and means still, simply to fill. The first definition given in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary is as follows: "To fill with persons or animals." The Collegiate gives a second definition, which is "to fill or build up again." It is the acceptance of this second definition and the ignorance of the first that has given rise to much confusion and largely upon which an outlandish idea of a pre-Adamic race has been advanced. --Hank | ||||||
3960 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20007 | ||
To expand on a meaning is not necessarily to distort it. There is no "slippery slope" argument involved in what I said. To address a passage as literal when the meaning clearly is not literal is to miss the point entirely. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 ] Next > Last [217] >> |