Results 1 - 20 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How to Understand andApply this Passage? | 2 Cor 10:12 | Tamara Brewington | 205976 | ||
Dear forum members, How do you think this passage should be understood and applied? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
2 | God's Regard for Cain's Offering? | Gen 4:5 | Tamara Brewington | 205975 | ||
Dear forum members, Why did God not have regard for Cain's offering? Was it heart attitude, type of offering, or something else? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
3 | Binding and Losing? | Matt 16:19 | Tamara Brewington | 205974 | ||
Dear forum members, What is Jesus talking about here? Is this talking about verse 18 where it says the gates of Hades will not prevail over the church? I am thinking here about Revelation 1:18 where Jesus has the keys of death and of Hades, meaning He has triumphed over them and how in Mathew 16:19 Jesus says I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It seems like He has two sets of keys, all the power over Hades and death and over heaven. So is Jesus saying we have the power over things on earth, those things in the power of the devil to bind them and lose them because Jesus triumphed? Or is this talking about the same principle of Mathew 18:15-20 to bind (not to forgive a sin) or to lose (to forgive a sin)? I am looking at the text here and trying to see here what the scope of the actions of the church is here in "binding and losing", and trying to see if that is what is meant in Mathew 16:19. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
4 | what does I cor 12 : 24 mean | 1 Corinthians | Tamara Brewington | 205973 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
5 | what does I cor 12 : 24 mean | 1 Cor 12:24 | Tamara Brewington | 205971 | ||
Dear hrnaval, Welcome to the forum! You have to go back a pace there and see verses 22 and 23; On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable. There was a situation in Corinth of exalting one type of gift above another type of gift and Paul is using the analogy of the parts of the body to say that each part is necessary to the growth and well being of the other part in the use of the gifts. Then he starts talking about in verses 22 and 23 about answering the pride he is seeing by stating those gifts in the body that do not appear to be so very appealing, as tongues happened to appear so appealing to them, should be given more respect because they are so very needful. A good example would be this, they were exalting tongues above all other gifts, the other gifts would be those in the list in verse 28 - apostles, pastor teachers, prophets, healings, helps, adminstrations, and in that list Paul list them in order of importance. Note how tongues is at the bottom of the list, but the Corinthians have exalted that above teaching and pastoring and prophecy (which Paul calls a superior gift in chapter 14). So he says in verse 22 that the gifts which appear to be weaker than the outward gift of tongues are more needful to the body. And in verse 23 those gifts that are not being exalted like tongues should have more adundant honor bestowed on them. When we come to verse 24 Paul is saying that the more presentable gift of tongues has no need of being made more presentable, but that God has arranged the gifts so that more honor is to be given to the other gifts which build up the body of Christ which are not yet being honored, so that the gifts that are not being regarded as honorable will be given greater honor than they were before. Hope this helps, God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
6 | 3 brothers descendants changed | Col 1:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205969 | ||
Dear Jim, I have read this whole long thread and something struck me that Val pointed out early on and here is a complete quote of her post that actually addressed the issue directly with scripture what God did in placing one man on the earth from whom came all the nations. Quote, Val; "The Bible and “Race” The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but it does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).16 The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again. This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations. - Answers in Genesis "The Bible and Race" Do you see what the Bilble says about where all peoples comes from, which would include all races as you described them in one of your posts as being the divisions of peoples? Whether we can begin tracing the actual break point for diversity as stemming from the descendants of Noah, or the Tower of Babel, the Bible says that God made every nation from one man, being Adam. I have been reading your posts on this and see one thing about what you are saying there; Quoting you; "The Theory that, " Adam who had the DNA for all the features we see in humankind". Cannot be backed up by scripture. There isn't even 1 scripture that you could misconstrue, to get to that point." I do believe that the Acts 17:26 scripture does provide Biblical evidence that from Adam's DNA, I like the word blood better, comes all nations. We don't have scritural proof of when God diversified the "races" the way you defined "races", all we have is conjecture about it by saying that when the Tower of Babel happened that it means the "races" got created. We have the wife of Moses who was a Cushite, a Ethiopian woman, descendants of Ham who settled in Ethiopia. Historicaly speaking Ethiopians are said to have been dark are named after Cush, the descendant of Ham. But Ham was born before the flood so then the diversity could be said to begin before the flood, which goes more to Adam having the blood of all the nations in him, then it does to DNA changing after the flood. In DNA dominant traits prevail between parents in offspring, at some point before the flood some dominant traits came about that originated in Adam, the father of everyone, in the parents of at least Ham to eventualy produce a Cushite, a darker skinned individual. We can't say that Adam's DNA did not play a part because all genes originate from him, that is scientific fact that is not contradicted by the Bible. That is just what I could see about this... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
7 | who will receive the crown of glory | 1 Pet 5:4 | Tamara Brewington | 205966 | ||
Dear John, Yeah John that was kind of cool! I am wondering what the difference is between the crown of glory in I Peter 5:4 and Revelation 4:10,11 and the crown of life in Revelation 2:10? I am seeing too in II Timothy 4:8 the crown of righteousness? The crown of rejoicing I Thessalonians 2:19? Do you know John? Those are three different Stephanos's, victor's crowns... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
8 | Confirmation of Humbledygraces Warning | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205958 | ||
... | ||||||
9 | Confirmation of Humbledygraces Warning | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205957 | ||
Heads up you guys, Glen La Bella tagged me with a new twist; he asked if I was open minded... When I repplied that I was now identifying him as a well known JW and would he like to study with me, he sent me another email begging off dealing with my offer to study his Bible with him in the spirit of exegesis to see exactly what the Greek and Hebrew are saying about his texts, saying that he read my posts and notes and begged off that venture all of a sudden. Everyone keep giving a reason for the hope that is in you. Sola Scriptura... God's Day, Tamara |
||||||
10 | who will receive the crown of glory | 1 Pet 5:4 | Tamara Brewington | 205956 | ||
Dear Barbs, I Peter 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. The saints will receive the unfading crown of glory. Try looking things up by typing in one word at www.blueletterbible.com God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
11 | Who are they ? | Matt 7:23 | Tamara Brewington | 205954 | ||
Dear lookin, I have heard two theories on this; I will paraphrase John MacAruthur first - he says that these people have a false profession of faith and that they merely claim to have done works in Jesus name and that the good tree bears good fruit and the bad tree bears bad fruit so what ever they were claiming they did in Jesus name was a false claim to greatness, and that they were making claims to salvation based on these false works, and so Jesus says, depart I never knew you. Now here is the other theory I have heard - Did not Jesus send out the seventy in Luke and to heal the sick, and to cast out deomns, and to proclaim the kingdom of God is at hand in His name. Then in John 6 we find that a large number of disciples desert Jesus because they could not recieve the teaching of eating Jesus flesh and drinking His blood, but some of these same disciples were also of the seventy. And then there is Judas who was sent out to heal, to cast out demons and to prolaim the kingdom along with the twelve in Jesus name, but who was a traitor to Jesus and the faith. Between these two we get those who may have very well gone and done great miraculous wonders in the name of Jesus, but who left off the faith having never believed in Jesus but having used His holy name to perform works which made them believe they were saved, but Jesus says to them, depart from Me, I never knew you. Now, doing the will of the Father would include but not be limited to doing miraculous wonders, and it is possible for an evil doer to perform miracles by the power of the devil according to Revelation and Daniel. And it may, I say may, be possible to make a false profession of Christ and run around spouting His name while actually doing miracles by the power of the devil. Just a last thought there, that was a real head cruncher there that one... you got there Lookin, your brain cognates sometimes there... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
12 | Purpose of the parables? | Matt 13:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205951 | ||
Dear Stone, I was looking at what you have said here and I would say that the vast majority of this scene was for the benefit of the disciples and us by attrition and for the detriment of those whom Jesus new would never turn around and believe. I have been thinking about something that Doc posted as a stand alone and how God's sovereignty works through the parables. Here is what I thought about it all after reading his post; although it is true that the crowds had already rejected the message and then it appears as if Jesus then takes action to seal their hardness of heart by speaking in parables lest they turn and understand... But from eternity past it was already a done deal, they were never going to be foreknown, predestined, or elected - so from the finite mortal point of the crowds rejecting the message and then Jesus sealing their fate, it actually from an infinite eternal stand point is that Jesus was merely carrying out the divine sovereign plan. It took some thinking but I did get there in a few minutes. That is one. Two is Jesus is not so much winking at us in the future in giving us a secret as He is sincerely giving the disciples then a secret, a true mystery, which according to Jesus is what all parables are, the mysteries of the Kingdom. We always have to remember that the historical context and the grammatical content is drives the meaning of the text. Jesus was specifically addressing the disciples in that day and age primarily in the parables and the crowds in that day and age secondarily. Where we come in is in the application for us today based on that we too are disciples and all parables are to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom to Jesus' disciples. I am trying to click with your understanding of why the crowds were following Him because we are talking about parables in general here and not one specific parable. Each situation was different and they had different reasons sometimes to be following Him; to get fed more food, to see more miracles, to get more healings, to hear more of the teachings of Jesus, He had a huge number of disciples following Him as part of the crowds until they became angry and confused and left off of Him at one point. This points to that a lot of them were at one point disciples but that they deserted Him when they no longer like what they heard about eating His body and driking His blood. We still only have two groups here, disciples and unbelievers, which is always true of the parables... That is what I think, God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
13 | Isa 6:9-10 translated differently in NT? | Is 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205919 | ||
continuation, Tamara You noted; But then the translation done from the Septuagint to English says: "You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' This people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed eyes" The focus is not on whether or not God makes them dull, it is on that they have choosen this. You noted; In the Hebrew, it looks like God is commanding His people not to understand. I mean, they've been denying Him so long, it makes sense that, like Pharaoh in Exodus, they're out of opportunities. The second version looks more like a prophesy..."you will...never [understand]." Here's the issue: when this passage is quoted in the NT, different versions are used. John 12:40 makes it seem like God deafens people, and Luke 8:10 shows that He accomplishes this through parables. They quote the first form; however, Matthew 13:14-15 and Acts 28:27 quote the Septuagint version and make God seem more passive and less like He forced them into a lack of understanding. When we come across these verses that seem like commands and then prophetic and then passive we should look for the pervasive guiding principles that drive what the authors were saying and what Jesus also was saying about it. The issue accroding to Isaiah was that someone had to be sent to tell the people their spiritual state - that they were not listening and because they were not listening they would keep on not preceiving, and that because of this God would make sure that they would not be saved. That was Isaiah's intent to his audience. Jesus did not change that intent, He upheld it in Mathew and used to parables according to what He said in both Mathew and Luke, to seal their fate according to what they had already choosen to do, not to listen and not to see. Isaiah by the way was prophesying about this according to John's account. Why wouldn't the NT authors quote the same version? I realize that they didn't speak to one another to coordinate, but since the Bible can't be wrong, I don't know how to explain the differences. The NT authors all had the same intent in mind, that in choosing not to listen or see, then God rendered them unable to understand and be saved. The differences are minor in detail, and not contradictory, but the substance remains intact. However, how does this fit with 2 Peter 3:9? Before we come to Mathew 13 Jesus has already preached many times to the crowds about the kingdom and shown them by miraculous wonders and forgiveness of sins that He is God and He knows also who will come and who will not to salvation at this point in time. So how this fits in the picture of II Peter 3:9 is that you have used II Peter 3:9 out of context. II Peter 3:9 is about that the whole earth and the whole heavens are going to pass away and be burned up, and that the Day of the Lord to judge the wicked is coming in the future, so then Peter says two things about this - with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day - and that this is refering to that the Lord is not slow about coming back to judge the wicked, but that He is patient toward those who still need to be repent and be saved before He comes back. So this is not talking about what happened to the wicked whom Jesus was addressing in the gospels while He was walking around alive, it is talking about why the Lord is taking so very long to come back before judgment day. What's the purpose in living anymore if God is done with you and you have no chance at hearing or understanding? Jesus gave them a chance to hear Him and come to an understanding but He knew they were rejecting Him and closed them off from the chance they threw away. We now have to hear and make our descision and not turn our backs on Him, Jesus says whoever will deny Me, I will deny him to the Father. Hope this clears it up, God Bless You, Tamara |
||||||
14 | Isa 6:9-10 translated differently in NT? | Is 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205918 | ||
Dear Live, Welcome to the forum! Interesting stuff indeed... You write; Looking for some assistance on the answer, especially the first part about why the translation differs in the NT... The Hebrew form of the text in NIV says: " 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." I take it this is from Isaiah 6, you said in the Hebrew from the NIV? I found this in the NASB for the same passage perhaps it will help; Go, and tell this people: Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking but do not understand, render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and return and be healed. Do you see how the NIV says "make the heart of this people calloused", but that the NASB says " render the hearts of this people insensitive"? In this case the KJV comes closer than either translation here; Make the heart of this people fat, and make their eyes heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Notice the word fat, that translation of the word is closer to the Hebrew in the Strong's, and it is talking about being anointed with good things to the point of being fat. It does not really mean calloused, but insensitive does not quite capture it either, it is talking about being opulent, anointed with the things of life and becoming full of life in the heart, unable to hear and see. Let's deal with the problem of God making or rendering them dull of seeing and hearing; Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. He hardned Pharoah only after Pharoah chose to harden his own heart first in the OT right? I believe the same thing is the case with these verses you are studying; it is not that God makes them unable to see or hear, they are already unwilling and so God decides to render them unable to see or hear because of what they chose for themselves. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
15 | WHAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF JESUS PARABLE | Matt 13:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205915 | ||
Dear d, Jesus says in Mathew 13:11,13 To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while the seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. There are two parts to the audience, those who were His disciples and the those in the crowds who were not believers. It was appropriate to the disciples to reveal to them how the mystery of the kingdom works - Jesus used this parable about seeds not to illustrate seeds and farming, but to illustrate that when the word of God fell in the way of life something came and destroyed it. The subject of this parable is about what happens to the word of God in accomplishing salvation. Jesus reveals this in verse 15 where it says that if they would hear and see He would heal them, He means save them. The explanation of the parable is in verse 18-23; When one hears the word of God and does not understand it Satan comes and takes it away, the man who hears the word and receives it with joy but without a firm root falls away when persecution comes, the man who hears the word and worries about the world and wealth and has the word choked in him and is unfruitful, but the man who hears the word and understands it brings forth other believers some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty. Then Jesus says who has ears, let them hear because only to the disciples was it granted to understand the parables, but to others it has not been granted. It was appropriate to the unbelievers in the crowd because in verse 15 it says that the heart of the people has become dull and they scarcely hear and have closed their eyes and that He is speaking in parables, veiled mysteries lest they understand and be saved "heal them". With the parables sometimes Jesus explains it sometimes He doesn't, you always have to read further to find out if He did. Parables are all about the mysteries of the what the kingdom of heaven is like according to Jesus. They are stories about Biblical truths about Jesus and us, the word of God and us, and our relationship to Him and to God and His relationship to God, and the nature of the kingdom itself - what characterizes it the preciousness of it. Hope this helps, Tamara |
||||||
16 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205912 | ||
Dear Doctrinsograce, Thank you very much for that outline, the bar shows it was in answer to the original question I posted, however I never received it as a note via email, but stumbled on it by mistake... God Bless you have a wonderful Lord's Day, I plan to, Tamara |
||||||
17 | Can you say no to God too many times? | Matt 7:21 | Tamara Brewington | 205910 | ||
Dear MickysMom, Thank you back and you are welcome! God Bless You, Tamara |
||||||
18 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205908 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Yes I have always agreed with this and still do... I was taught Sola Scriptura in church without ever knowing or hearing the term! I do believe that inconsistent theologies come about because the exegesis was never done properly - 1)the intent of the author to his audience and what he wrote as it had to have been understood has been tossed aside in favor or how modern society functions in order to make it "relevant to today". 2)the structure of the grammar and the meaning of the words and phrases are restricted to their English transliterations and the true thrust of all these is missed because the Greek and Hebrew were not looked at. 3)the type of Biblical literature being looked at is not read with for what it is; prose, narrative, history, epistle, etc., and then it has not been studied in light of what kind of features and literary devices that those types of literarture contains. 4)problem areas in the Bible which happen when what was being practiced as normal and known as common in the first century have no comparable equivalent in the twenty-first century because the things described in the Bible no longer occur and which appear to have no practical application for today (II Timothy 3:16 - all scripture is profitable) have not been examined properly to determine what the essence of the teaching is that should be applied today (made relevant to today) without changing, destroying, transforming or otherwise distorting the original intent and meaning of the text. 5)a pre-existent theology from today or through out the ages has been imprinted on one's understanding of the meaning of the Bible's theology from the first century changing how the author intended the text to be understood and used. I agree whole heartedly of Sola Scriptura, which is the literal intrepretation of the Bible, however, there is no such thing as just leaving the interpretation standing there - it has to be applied in order to be effective now, and in every time, and the application has to be from the literal interpretation of the Bible and be able to address what life is like today because the Bible is always relevant. What I have been saying all day long is that there has to be an effort made to take first century applications that could only have applied to first century settings and make them be applicable to today by taking their essence without losing the original intent and "making it relevant to today". But I am not talking about liberation theology or the Jesus movement as I despise these two things; the one is theolgoy from the bottem up - taking the problems of society and making a stunted theology out of finding a solution to today's problems by looking at and twisting only parts of the Bible, and the other is to distort the person of Christ and to "remake the Bible and make it relevant to today" by giving it an iterpretation the author never intended. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
19 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205907 | ||
Dear BraK, Thanks yes it does... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
20 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205906 | ||
Dear BradK, Thanks again! God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [28] >> |