Results 41 - 60 of 4934
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 158934 | ||
Greetings Mark! I would say that v. 17 would indicate that some don't receive the mark, so the 'all' of v. 16 would probably refer to his intentions or his order. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
42 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 158935 | ||
Greetings Kalos! I just found another good example as I was looking up Marks question about the Mark of the Beast. Rev. 13:8 begins with, "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast...". Yet, the last part of the verse reads, "...all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." So, my contention is that Scripture always means 'all' when it says 'all', unless the text modifies the word 'all' in some manner. Of course, this is how we would also use the word in English as well. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
43 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 162581 | ||
Greetings Adtcross! You wrote concerning 1 Peter 4:19: "1 Pet 4:19 – It is “according to the will of God,” not that they suffer but that they go through the suffering in a godly manner (cf. v.12-16)." Yet, that is not what 1 Peter 4:19 actually says. It says, "...those who suffer according to God's will..."! It is the suffering itself that is according to God's will in this verse. Certainly, there is a right way and a wrong way to respond to suffering, but let's not mistake what the verse actually says. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
44 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 162823 | ||
Greetings Atdcross! Thanks for the response my friend! :-) You raise many points, and I will try to address them. 1) God's will and suffering: There seem to be two mistakes that you are making with this text. a) First of all, you are denying the clear statement of Peter that the suffering in 1 Peter is a direct result of the will of God. No matter what our personal feelings on this subject may be, God's Word is quite clear. Peter did not say, 'those who suffer according to the will of men'. He said, 'those who suffer according to the will of God'. b) Secondly, you then take the word 'suffer' from it's context and make it refer to 'all suffering'. The text does not say that 'all suffering' is a result of God's will. The suffering mentioned in 1 Peter seems to be focused mostly upon the way someone is treated because one is a Christian and trying to live righteously. One cannot take Peter statement to mean that every act that brings suffering is a direct result of God's will. In fact, 1 Peter 3:17 makes it clear that not all suffering is a result of God's will. My original point to you was simply that 1 Peter 4:19 does tie some suffering to God's will, while you had stated that it is not God's will that they suffer. Yet, Phil. 1:29 explicitly states that suffering for Christ is a gift from God. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
45 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 163058 | ||
Greetings Atdcross! You asked: "The question I would ask, is the word “and” included in the Greek (not that I know Greek)?" Yes, it is! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
46 | False prophet problem | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 164470 | ||
Greetings CeeBee7! I doubt that he (?) got your address from this web site for several reasons. 1) I have not heard of anyone else getting these e-mails. 2) You have not listed your e-mail address in your profile, so no one would have access to it anyway. One of mine is listed in my profile, but I have not gotten any such e-mails. I would suggest that you contact his internet provider and file a spam complaint. I would also suggest that you block his e-mails, if your software will allow you to do so. Good luck! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
47 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 166731 | ||
Greetings Hank! Excellent comments, as usual my friend! My pet peeve from the Greek perspective is the clear cut distinction made between 'literal' and 'dynamic equivalent'. Having worked from the Greek for a number of years now, I know that all translations engage in some dynamic equivalence out of necessity. :-) Because of the nature of Greek, there is no such thing as a strictly literal translation. There are many times when the verb is not supplied in the Greek. The translator must supply it in order to make sense in English. There are many cases where clauses are not completed in Greek, and the translator must finish them to make sense in English. Every translation changes the word order to make sense in English. Then, there are the cases where the translator isn't even sure what a particular word means. I don't say this to disparage our translations. I simply hope that people realize that there is no true 'literal' translation. There are certainly some that are more literal than others though! ;-) The NASB is an excellent translation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
48 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 166740 | ||
Greetings Hank! I'm not much for paraphrases myself! :-) Even though the Message is of Nazarene origin, I don't care much for it. A variety of translations though can be a very helpful thing, especially if one does not know the original languages. Keep up the good work my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
49 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 166981 | ||
Greetings Ocelot! Allow me to quote from a former post of mine on this issue: "I think that part of the struggle people face concerning human events and God's sovereignty is that many operate under a definition of sovereignty that is philosphical not necessarily biblical. What I mean is simply this: Where in the Bible does it say that Sovereignty means that every act and every decision must be a direct result of God's determinitive will? A. W. Tozer used an example years ago that explains both sovereignty and free will very well. Imagine that God has placed us upon an ocean liner. We have no way to steer the liner. We have no way to change the speed. We have no way to determine the destination of the liner. All of this has been determined by God. However, within the confines of our limitations, we have a multitude of choices. We can choose what we will eat. We can choose with whom we will fellowship. We can choose the attitude with which we will approach our journey. This is an excellent illustration of the tension between God's sovereignty and our freedom. God doesn't determine what we will eat for breakfast. We freely choose our food. God doesn't force us to obey His commands. We freely choose to obey or disobey. However, we suffer the consequences of our choices." It is certainly clear that God's sovereignty is a Biblical doctrine and concept. What is not so clear is how that sovereignty should be defined. Does God's sovereignty allow His creation to do things that He does not wish? The answer is found in Mt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." Here, Christ clearly speaks of individuals rejecting His will. So, any definition of sovereignty that rules out limited human freedom is clearly not biblical. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
50 | How did Ishmael sin like Hagar | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167029 | ||
Greetings Ebrain! Well, Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned! ;-) Sorry, I couldn't resist! :-) I too was curious about this particular question. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
51 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167105 | ||
Greetings Atdcross! The word used in John 3:36 can also be translated as 'not believe'. This would actually make more sense in the context of the chapter since John constantly contrasts 'believe' and 'not believe'. This contrast is found in the following verses: John 3:12 - " I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:18 - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:36 would then make the same contrast. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
52 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167137 | ||
Greetings Adtcross! We could play dualing quotes, but that wasn't my intention. :-) I was simply trying to point out that the word can be and often is translated as 'not believe.' For instance, the NAS does translates it once as 'not believe', while the RSV translates it three times as 'unbelief' out of 14 occurances. Clearly, there is not much difference in meaning between the two either lexically or contextually. Thanks for the response my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
53 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167147 | ||
Greetings Doc! This is one of those interesting examples of how words can take on meanings over time that may have not been original. 'Apithia' is disobedience. However, the ultimate act of disobedience is to refuse to respond to the Gospel. Thus, the word has also taken on the meaning of unbeliever or unbelief. If Christ commands 'repent', and one refuses, that one is both an unbeliever and disobedient. :-) The verb is only used 14 times in the NT, but several times it is used in contrast to 'believe', which is why many translations have translated it as 'not believe'. Well, time for work! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
54 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167156 | ||
Greetings Doc! The 'a' is a negative. So, 'a' 'pistia' is 'no' 'faith'. Apithia is a little tricker. It is based upon a word that means 'persuaded'. So, the negative form can mean 'unpersuaded', 'disobedient', or 'unbeliever'. But, to answer your question, they are entirely two different words with similar meanings under certain circumstances. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
55 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167157 | ||
Greetings Adtcross! I'm not sure I understand your position well enough to judge it. :-) I was simply pointing out that any position based upon a hard fast distinction between 'disobey' and 'unbelief' might be shaky since the word can mean either. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
56 | Gift of speaking in tongues for all? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167959 | ||
Greetings Mitch! I would add my recommendation to Mark's as well. E-sword is an excellent Bible study resource - and it is free. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
57 | Gift of speaking in tongues for all? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167961 | ||
Greetings Kalos! Just to add another perspective on Rom. 8:26, Leon Morris makes the following comments. "There is no way of deciding the question with finality, but perhaps there is a little more to be said for the view that the groans are uttered by the believer. The Spirit is not said to groan, but to intercede 'with' or 'in' groans, and these may well be those of the beleiver. Paul seems to be saying that when we cannot find words in which to express our prayer and can do no better than make inarticulate sounds, the Spirit takes those sounds and makes them into effective intercession." Now, Morris is not pentecostal. So, he also says, "Some exegetes regard this as a form of praying in 'tongues'. Thus Kasemann thinks it makes sense if 'what is at issue is the praying in tongues of 1 Cor. 14:15' (p. 241). But there seems little reason to hold such a view. Charismatic praying may well be included, but Paul's words are wide enough to cover 'all praying of Christian men' (Cranfield)." The text simply isn't clear enough to be definitative either way. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
58 | Gift of speaking in tongues for all? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167968 | ||
Greetings Kalos! I am not one to argue with facts! :-) It is interesting that the word tongue only occurs twice in Romans, but it is only used 50 times in the entire NT and 19 of those are in 1 Corinthians. It is a bit surprising that the second most occurances of the word are found in Revelation (8 times), even more than the six occurances in Acts. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
59 | Gift of speaking in tongues for all? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 167976 | ||
Greetings Mitch! The number of times is only important in several ways. 1) The more often a word or term is used the easier it is to define it's meaning. There are some words in the NT that never occur anywhere else (as far as we know) in Greek literature. In those cases, it is very difficult to even know what the word means. 2) Secondly, different authors can use words in different ways. So, examining how a word is used in different books can be very enlightening. 3) The number of times a word is used can indicate it's importance to a particular author. This doesn't mean that less frequent words are unimportant, but that the themes behind them simply may not be used as often by one author as opposed to another. However, if a word or phrase is used seldom, it would certainly be one indicatation that it was not as important as other concepts. For instance, the various forms of 'repent', 'repentance', ect..., occur 74 times in the NIV. So, it would be an important word. But, Kalos' point was simply that the concept of 'tongues' is not mentioned in Romans at all (though some would argue that Rom. 8:26 is a possible exception). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
60 | 2 Timothy 2:15 | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 169627 | ||
Greetings Calmrage! The only problem with your proposed format is that the same answer would pretty much apply to every cult. Every cult: 1) Accepts the Bible but adds some additional revelation to it. 2) Denies the full deity of Christ. 3) Has some sort of works salvation. 4) Denies the Trinity. Ect... Every cult has some unqiue differences, but they pretty much agree on the basics. :-) p.s. - Welcome to the forum! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [247] >> |