Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 20 of 53		Pages: [ 1 2 3 ] > Last [3] >>
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: wak Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	Is there nothing we can do?	Matthew	wak	38720
	No difficulties. I just thought you originally said God loved only some people. Therefore, died on the cross only for some people and some sins. Glad we cleared that up! Jesus was very precise on what his most important commandment was and I would think he would follow that commandment himself. Even one the Pharasees (who was close to heaven) fiqured that out.
2	Is there nothing we can do?	Matthew	wak	38680
	What's so tremendous about God loving "some" people. Even I love some people. That's easy. Didn't Christ say someplace in the Bible that loving some is easy, loving everybody is the hard part. Do you think God would ask us to do something that he doesn't do himself?
3	Was John the baptist doubting?	Luke 7:19	wak	38486
	My opinion: John the Baptist was human. He had faith. He believed Christ was the Messiah. He did not absolutely "know" Christ was the Messiah. So, he struggled with his faith ... he questioned... just like all humans. That's one of the best things about the Bible: it doesn't sweep people's questioning or doubts under the carpet. There may be a reason for that.
4	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38343
	If I read the Psalms, which i love, and David is going on about his many human enemies. Can I in my own mind,for me , interpret that as Satan or even my " self" (my worst enemy). Is that flippant or taking the scripture out of its pure context? Am I breaking a rule?
5	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38341
	Joe: Actually, there's three definitions for objective. The way you essentially defined objective: Having actual existence or reality (unaffected by opinion) does work. With that definition, you can then say the Bible is objective truth. I agree. Thanks for the insight and volcabulary lesson
6	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38325
	Makarios Objective truth was a phrase my bible instuctor used. Reformer Joe gave a good definition Reread my post. I said I believe the Bible is truth but I wasn't sure if it was objective truth because of the subjectivity in the interpretation of even some basics. My second post said I have "faith" in God but I do not "know" there is a God. If you believe those are "faithless"statements or they challenge the authority of the bible or they do not make me a Christian... well, I don't know what to tell ya Makarios.... keep smiling? Do the JW's always smile?
7	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38310
	Well, Makarios, if you define your opinions of a person as the truth... then that explains it. We simply have a difference of opinion on the definition and standard for the word "truth".
8	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38277
	Makarios What in your own mind even BEGINS to give you the right to comment about me to someone else? Who are you to do that? Makarios, are you a legend?
9	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38273
	Is was a good faith question not a point. It was a question from a bible class I took yesterday where we only had a short time to discuss it. Why is my question faithless? Why is it not legitimate for this board ?
10	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38258
	No! I don't agree. If God were objective truth we wouldn't need faith, because we would "know". I "know' water is H2O, I have faith in God and his truths. I think your diluting the word "objective" and making it limp. People disagree on the existence of God because God is not an objective truth. Thus, faith. If God was an objective truth why would we need faith?
11	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Not Specified	wak	38226
	How can the Bible be "objective" truth when good intelligent people with godly intentions, study and prayed over the Bible their entire lives, disagree on even the most basic tenets such as: what it takes to be saved?, once saved always saved?, free will, grace vs. works etc. Even the most simplest of questions (Who did Christ die on the cross for?) are not consistently answered. If the Bible was objective, wouldn't these basic (milk) questions be clear to the above Christians who are so earnest and dedicated in their pursuit of really knowing Christ? To be clear, I'm not arguing the truth part , its the "objective" part I have a problem with
12	How can the Bible be "objective" truth	Bible general Archive 1	wak	38232
	How can the Bible be "objective" truth when good intelligent people with godly intentions, study and prayed over the Bible their entire lives, disagree on even the most basic tenets such as: what it takes to be saved?, once saved always saved?, free will, grace vs. works etc. Even the most simplest of questions (Who did Christ die on the cross for?) are not consistently answered. If the Bible was objective, wouldn't these basic (milk) questions be clear to the above Christians who are so earnest and dedicated in their pursuit of really knowing Christ? To be clear, I'm not arguing the truth part , its the "objective" part I have a problem with
13	why is Acts 2:44 not practiced today	Acts 2:44	wak	38180
	Was the church ever that selfless or not concern with position/ambition? I think of James and John's Mom asking about her son's rank, right after Christ announces his upcomong death! Can you get any more selfish (or crass) then THAT... even in 2002? Just read yesterday where Paul couldn't send anyone but Timothy to the Philippians (2:21) because " they ALL seek after their own interest, not those of Christ". Think about that; even in Paul's own inner circle(the best!) in the supposedly idyllic selfless church no christian could make the grade. Somehow, I find that comforting. Thank God for grace. (did someone ask earlier, if you could be a christian and be in sin?) There's no reason to pine for the past. For the most part, it's always been the best of times and the worst of times...in 100AD or 2002AD. Has there ever been a generation of preachers who didn't think it was the worst of times?
14	Saved by belief or belief and baptism?	NT general Archive 1	wak	37621
	Seems to me any kind of of cookbook formula goes against the sprit of what Paul's and Jesus's overall message was.... it's the heart, not the law. Simple stuff.
15	Fear God!	1 Pet 1:17	wak	35846
	RElder I have never studied Edwards... not a single second... he wasn't on the GED. Never heard of him Since I answered your direct question, you to have answer mine: What does phenomenological mean?
16	Fear God!	1 Pet 1:17	wak	35845
	Hank To answer your question directly if the 80/20 rule applies to God's Shepard's (like widgets), I would ballpark it and say that 80 percent of preachers, preach a biased message. I wholeheartily agree with you that it should be 100/0, but even the Christian world doesn't work that way. I doubt it ever has... even from day 1.
17	Fear God!	1 Pet 1:17	wak	35800
	Hank I agree with your overall point ... balance is needed... but I also think of the 80/20 rule. My sense is that the average preachers of Edward's time were preaching 80 percent fear, don't(s) and sin and 20 percent Love, do's and grace. Today's preachers have reverse that, 80 percent love, etc. and 20 percent fear, etc. Needless to say, God's message needs to be balance. but if I had to pick in the "real world" (please,don't recite the ideal) I'll take the typical 2002 preacher over the typical 19th century preacher. I guess I'm even more wary of nostalgia " the good old days", than I am of the baby boomer mentality.
18	Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not	Genesis	wak	35732
	Hey Tim Nope, not arguing for a purpose... just trying to reconcile Genesis 1- 4 with 99 percent(?) of the scientists and 65 percent(?) of clergy. I guess it's like like Free Will and "who does God's grace apply to"... no clear cut answers. Just good people doing their best to fiqure out answers My percents are just rough estimates
19	Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not	Genesis	wak	35685
	I never picked up on that specifically. That's a good insight. The overall flow of Genesis I think is the best indication that Genesis may be sound blow-by-blow history. Again, I don't think God HAD to limit himself to historic precision. Perhaps creation took only seven seconds rather than 7 days or 700 billion years. I don't know. (and I don't its that important in the end) My point is not to start the 1001st argument about fossils and young earth but to say that God did not have to limit himself to literal historical truth in Genesis 1-4 to communicate his Truths and therefore the Bible is still reliable* if Genesis is not a precise literal history lesson. Is my postulate wrong? Thanks *I think that's very important in the end
20	Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not	Genesis	wak	35678
	Sorry I didn't answer your questions from your first post. But I didn't say a SINGLE word about " wishing what I could know about God that is not in the Bible". Your questions in your second post are EVEN more confusing, examples:: Q)"What part of truth is dangerous"? A)I didn't say the truth was dangerous. I said YOUR postulate " strikes me has dangerous". Big big difference. Did you intend to be that presumptuous to say that YOUR postulate was truth ? (rhetorical) Q "Please give specifics as to what limiting factor Genesis binds on God". A)Please, please tell me where I said Genesis limits or binds God??? I said virtually the opposite. Why are you putting words in my mouth and then creating questions from them. Is that a not-so subtle debate technique??? Sorry I don't have time to debate for debate sake. PS: Actually , now, I do see a single question (0f six) that honestly reflects something I said. Wow Q:"In fact wouldn't it be fair to say He has chosen to select truth as reliable? He surely doesn't select untruth" A: I'm saying he MAY have selected literal historical truth or he may have used other means to express his Truths.... because it's not verbatim history does not mean it's "untruth". Historical truth is only a tiny fraction of Truth( and it's expression!). If Genesis is verbatim dictated history, great. If not, that great too (He's God!). Just as long as we understand his message. I go back to your postulate that; the Bible is not reliable, if Genesisis 1-4 is not literally, historically true. I challenge that. Let me know if I summarized your postulate incorrectly or if your other 5 questions pertain to what I actually said. Please use quotation marks. Thanks

Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here:

Support us when shopping at smile.amazon.com