Results 1 - 19 of 19
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BigJohnUkraine Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Do God love everyone or not? | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 176085 | ||
Hello, Yura. I lived in Odessa, Ukraine for two years and absolutely loved it. I think Mark 10:21 sheds some interesting light on this. A rich young man comes to Jesus and asks him what he must do to inherit eternal life. The man was wealthy and presumably loved his wealth too much. The Scriptures record that Jesus "looked at him and loved him". Then Jesus tells him to sell everything he has, give it to the poor , and then to come follow Him. The man went away sorrowful, because he had great wealth. Now we are not specifically told that this man never returned to Christ, but we are given no reason to believe otherwise. The implication, then, is that this man was not a believer--he did NOT follow Jesus. Yet, Jesus still loved him. I agree with one of the other people who said it would be difficult to interpret the word "world" as anything other than all people. If God had meant "his elect", He probably would have used that word. God bless you. |
||||||
2 | Child may go to hell | Acts 4:12 | BigJohnUkraine | 176078 | ||
You bring up a good point. I appreciate the clarification. There certainly are those who reach such a conclusion through careful and diligent study, and the do deserve my respect. However, I am wearied by many others in our day who loudly proclaim positions which they affirm from association rather than investigation. I jumped to a conclusion in assuming that the person being referred to in the post was in this genre. Thanks for calling me on that. |
||||||
3 | Child may go to hell | Acts 4:12 | BigJohnUkraine | 176063 | ||
That's an interesting position. A key question to ask him is, "Why do you believe that is true?" "From where in the Bible do you derive this?" The implication is that if a child's parents are believers and the child dies, it goes to heaven. That would mean that a child's eternal destiny is determined by the will of his parents. This is unthinkable, that one person determines the eternal destiny of another. Another question for this person would be, "What if the parents become Christians later?" What if just one parent is a Christian or eventually becomes a Christian? Even if he could find a place in the Bible where it infers that the faith of the parents determines eternity for a child who dies in infancy--which he cannot--he will by no means be able to point to a Scripture and answer these other questions. Yet, the question, "Where does a child who dies in infancy go?" is a great question. Unfortunately, we are not give much to go on for that. The best example is the death of the child born to David through his immoral relationship with Bathsheeba. In his prayer he states, referring to the child, "You will not return to me, but I will go to you." The question could be broadened to encompass mentally handicapped individuals who appear to be unable to understand the things of God. What I always come back to for these questions is the Cross of Christ, because I am convinced that it is the place where the character of God is most clearly revealed. If He, being God, suffered and died to purchase my pardon because of His love for me, the unloveable, then I can trust His character and know that He will do what is noble reqarding difficult questions such as these. I would be interested in hearing what this pastor has to say when asked to prove his position from the Scriptures. With all due respect, though, this is not a position that seems to have been arrived at after a great deal of study and thought. I hope this helps. |
||||||
4 | Where does Jesus speak of Moses speaking | John 5:46 | BigJohnUkraine | 175856 | ||
John 1:45 is another reference where Philip tells Nathanael, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law and about whom the Prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." | ||||||
5 | Give whatever to whomever?Mt 5:40 Lk6:29 | Bible general Archive 3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175788 | ||
I see that this has gone unanswered for a few days. Let me see if I can provide some perspective. The question is definitely, "What did Jesus mean by these statements?" One possibility is that whenever anyone asks a Christian for anything that the Christian is obligated to give him whatever he asks. The inevitable result of this would be that very greedy people would figure this out and would then ask every Christian for everything they own, become very wealthy in the process and leaving all Christians completely bankrupt and the greedy people of the world even more morally bankrupt. This seems untenable. It seems, rather, that Jesus is calling His Church to generosity and servanthood and away from materialism. That Christians should be generally open-handed and seeking to help others fits well with our calling to be Christ-like. It should also be noted that Jesus did not even speak these words to Christians, since He had yet to go to the Cross. The people who heard this were followers of Judaism. To be sure, these principles apply to us as well, though. A good thing to take into consideration in your situation is how the Apostle used his Roman citizenship in his ministry. In one place, he had been either beaten or punished in some way from which Roman citizens were exempted. Paul, rather than continuing to be mistreated, proclaimed his citizenship to the surprise of the rulers who had done that to him. From that time on, the rulers in that city treated him with great dignity, hoping that he would not turn them in for what they had done to him. By the same token, God sets up governments "to punish those who do evil and commend those who do good." I think you would do well to use the laws God has instituted in this country to seek justice, but to do so with grace rather than malice. I pray things turn out well for you. |
||||||
6 | who has the most accurate bible | Bible general Archive 3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175736 | ||
The KJV was good for its time, but the English language has changed a great deal over time. If you are really interested in a thorough discussion, let me know and I will go into greater detail. Yet, to keep it simple, the best translation will typically be the New American Standard Bible (which has an update now as well) or the New King James Version. The Literal Translation is obviously quite literal as is Young's Literal Translation. However, these can be a little "rough" in their translation as well. The Interlinear, as someone else mentioned, is going to be about the same. However, these are definitely more "rough", while the NASB or the NKJV smooth out the translation. It is very uncommon for two separate languages to say things exactly the same way. For instance, a direct translation of a Russian phrase would be, "I brought myself forth", while we would say "I was born." A translator understands these differences and endeavors to smooth out the translation. Greek uses word order for emphasis, but that is rarely done in English, so a good tranlsator will attempt to convey that in another way. Hope this helps. |
||||||
7 | Is this love? | 1 John 4:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175669 | ||
There appear to be two responses to sin. One is characterized by people like King David and the Apostle Peter. David responded to his sin by admission, sorrow, and mourning. Peter "went out and wept bitterly." The other response is seen in people like Cain and Saul. Cain said, "my punishment" is more than I can bear, and Saul still wanted to look good. One response focuses on the severity of the punishment, while the other is alarmed by the severity of the offense. God has always given mankind a way back to Him. As I mentioned before, although He is a God of Justice, He is also Love. He does not treat us as our sins deserve, but is always willing to extend mercy. However, if mankind absolutely refuses mercy and denies God, then He allows them to be separated from Him here on earth and in eternity. |
||||||
8 | Why did God Provide us with Free Will | 1 John 4:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175607 | ||
Love is not just something that God does. Love is something that God is. Love is not love if it is compelled. Love must be a choice. So, free will is intrinsic in all creatures endowed with the ability to love. In God's wisdom, He endowed both angels and mankind with the capacity to love. Along with that is the capacity to choose, and with the capacity to choose is the capacity to sin. God did not create us with free will so that He could threaten us with hell if we choose sin. He created us with free will so that we could choose to love and enjoy His love. |
||||||
9 | How can you prove God exists? | Rom 1:20 | BigJohnUkraine | 175603 | ||
What often happens in debates of this type, whether formal or informal, is that the atheist attempts to place the entire burden of proof on the Christian, and the Christian usually accepts these terms without question. Now, certainly, the mass of evidence is on our side, but it can be very effective to shift the burden of proof from time to time. "So, you are absolutely convinced that there is no God? That's interesting to me. Could I ask you what evidence you found that was so irrefutable that it convinced you there is no God?" This question assumes that their denial of God was not simply due to emotional reasons or an attempt to excuse themselves from guilt, while that is often the case. I have found very few people that can answer such a question. One person said, "Common Sense" and "Logic". Well, then, the sense does not appear to be common, since I and many others do not share that. Furthermore, what is that logic? Some pay attempt to say that there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, but that just means that their position is indefensible by their own admission. If that is the case, then they should be sifting through the positive evidence for the existence of God and weighing the strength of that. A good question for this is, "How much time do you spend investigating this?" The answer is probably "not at all", which then infers that they are atheist because they want to be, not because there is any convincing evidence. |
||||||
10 | Gen. 1:1, Jn.1:1-3 | Bible general Archive 3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175601 | ||
The common assumption appears to be that since God is the Creator, He is the Creator not only of every entity, but also of every action that every entity carries out. However, in creating both mankind and angels, God endowed them with free will. I think it is instructive to reflect on what the creation would be like had free will been excluded. Perhaps the greatest tragedy would be the absence of love. Love cannot be compelled, it must be offered. Since love is not just something God does, but something He is, He endowed creation with the capacity to love and to enjoy His love. Inherent with this is free will. Consequently, mankind has free will. That is a good thing, just as love is good and right and pure. Now, it is true that in the capacity to choose to love, there is also the capacity to choose to not love. There is the capacity to choose to love one's self rather than one's neighbor. Obviously, Adam and Eve chose to love themselves most when they ate of the fruit, because the reason they did so was selfish--that it was good for food, pleasing to they eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom. Satan's sin was similar as well. Consequently, sin arose from something good that men and angels used for evil. |
||||||
11 | Question regarding father's role. | Bible general Archive 3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175446 | ||
I don't know of any place that says this. However, there are a few things that should be considered. First of all, children are commanded to "obey" their parents. This infers that both parents have authority over the child. It should be noted, though, that the word here is "child" and not "son" or "daughter". Sons and daughters, while they are children, are subject to the authority of their parents and are commanded to obey them. However, when those sons and daugthers enter adulthood, they are no longer subject to that command. Even then, though, one of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 is to "honor" your parents, irrespective of what age you happen to be. Father and mothers are never given any such command with regard to their children, except the command to fathers to "not embitter their children." |
||||||
12 | Man's days limited to 120 years | Gen 6:3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175409 | ||
It should be noted that there are two interpretations here. The first one is that man's age would be limited from then on to 120 years. The second is that in 120 years from that day, the Lord would destroy the earth (with a flood). The latter interpretation seems to make more sense, because there are people who were born after the flood that lived longer than that, and there was even a lady recently who celebrated her 128th birthday. I called my dad when I heard that to let him know he was now middle-aged (64). |
||||||
13 | The serpents curse | Gen 3:15 | BigJohnUkraine | 175404 | ||
That is an excellent question. I agree with BradK in that there appears to be no evidence that angels can procreate. If they could, then presumably God could have become an angel and redeemed the race of angels as well. Yet, this appears to be reserved to the race of mankind. I think it is proper to acknowledge that God did not give us a great deal of knowledge about angels. Certainly what He has revealed about Himself is infinitely more important. It seems, though, that there is a distinction in how terms could apply to different things. That Jesus is called the Son of God does not mean that God the Father had relations with God the Mother who then gave birth to God the Son. This is unthinkable for many reasons, and it's absurd because we are applying human constraints to deity. The Sonship of Christ is eternal. He never came into existence. He is, has always been, and always will be (Heb. 13:8, Rev. 1:8). By the same token, it would seem improper to ascribe human characteristics to angels. It appears likely that the "Seed" of Satan is referring to the host of other angels that followed him in his rebellion. Interestingly enough, there is a scene in "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson that likely refers to that passage. You may recall when the "Satan" figure is peering at Christ from among the crowd while carrying a young demonic-looking child with him. I think that is wholly inaccurate, but it's at least intriguing. I hope this helps. I wish you success in your quest to understand the Bible better. God bless you. |
||||||
14 | wipe your feet of their existance | Luke 10:10 | BigJohnUkraine | 175364 | ||
Hello, Mystified. That passage of Scripture appears in Luke 10:10-12. In it, Jesus is instructing his disciples on how to go about preaching His message at that point. It is extremely imporant to note that this was prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This behavior is more in line with the Old Testament prophets and any teacher of the day in Israel. They were only supposed to do this if the people of the city absolutely rejected the teachings of Christ at that time. In contrast, Jesus says something quite different in Luke 22:36 as He looks toward their ministry after His resurrection. He tells them to no longer go out as an esteemed teacher, but as a humble messenger. That is the precedent and standard for Christians today. You seem to be a seeker, so you would not have received that treatment from the disciples of Jesus even back then. Furthermore, Christians today should not treat others in such a manner any way. I'm very sorry you were treated so poorly by this individual. I wish you success on your quest for truth. |
||||||
15 | Can Satan read your mind? | Daniel | BigJohnUkraine | 175300 | ||
When Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, he ordered his magicians to tell him what his dream was and then interpret it. If Satan could have read his mind, then he could have relayed that to one of his magicians. However, it seems that Satan was unable to do so. | ||||||
16 | What does the word Begotten mean? | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175279 | ||
Thanks, Mark! I'm not in Ukraine right now, but I lived there for two years and continue to go back for short-term trips. I agree. Isaac is a pretty awesome picture of Christ! |
||||||
17 | What does the word Begotten mean? | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175268 | ||
This is a great word study. The Greek Word is "monogenes" from "mono" and "genes". Mono obviously means "One". You would recognize the word Genus from Biology-Genus, Phylum, Species... So, basically this word means "one of a kind", "unique", or, as I like to put it, "wholly unlike any other". In the Septuagint, it was used of Isaac. Now Isaac was NOT the only son of Abraham or even the first born (Ishmael), but he was unique. How was he unique? His conception was miraculous and he was the child of promise. Likewise, Jesus is not God's "only" son, since we too are also called "sons of God". However, He is unique in His Sonship--wholly unlike any other child of God--in that He is divine, eternal, Creator, etc. We are born into God's family and adopted as well, but He is eternally the Son of God and is divine in His essence. |
||||||
18 | What do you think the word "world" means | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175264 | ||
That is interesting that you believe that, but the important question is, "Why do you believe that?" What would prompt you in this instance to restrict the meaning of this word so much from its typical usage? When you look at the text, there doesn't seem to be any reason to do that. It really seems rather arbitrary to me. If Jesus meant "those who were predestined for salvation", it seems obvious that he would have used a different word altogether, such as "the elect", "the saints", "his own", or something like that. Two great exegetical questions are "Why WAS this word used?" and "Why WASN'T another word used?" If "the world" means "the elect", then why didn't Jesus use that word? |
||||||
19 | What do you think the word "world" means | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175263 | ||
That is interesting that you believe that, but the important question is, "Why do you believe that?" What would prompt you in this instance to restrict the meaning of this word so much from its typical usage? When you look at the text, there doesn't seem to be any reason to do that. It really seems rather arbitrary to me. If Jesus meant "those who were predestined for salvation", it seems obvious that he would have used a different word altogether, such as "the elect", "the saints", "his own", or something like that. Two great exegetical questions are "Why WAS this word used?" and "Why WASN'T another word used?" If "the world" means "the elect", then why didn't Jesus use that word? |
||||||