Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 2261 - 2277 of 2277		Pages: << < [ 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ]
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
2261	Is anything in the bible proven untrue	Ps 119:160	Hank	3075
	PK, in all the annals of written history, the Bible stands without peer as being the body of writings that has been the most beloved and most despised, the most quoted and most misquoted, the most believed and most doubted, the most highly eulogized and the most bitterly criticized. It has been more thoroughly dissected and more microscopically examined than any other book in the world. It is unlikely that any other body of writings could withstand such intimate critical examination and endure. What a monument that is to its Author who said that His words will stand forever! Although there have been literally legions of men and women down the halls of time who have done their utmost to disprove the Bible, no one to date has succeeded. There have been a number of assertions that the Bible was wrong on this point or that point, or as for that, on all points. Scores of archeological discoveries made in our time have proved various Biblical statements to be absolutely true that hitherto were considered false. I wave my Bible high in joyful, tearful assurance and conviction that it is indeed all that it claims to be, the absolute and inerrant truth of the Almighty God.
2262	Why is "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 in	2 Tim 3:16	Hank	3058
	Bud, your question is decidedly not a nit-picking one and involves issues far wider than a simple parsing of what "is" is. If the true sense of Paul's meaning were to be construed that "all Scripture inspired by God is profitable..." it would change the dynamic materially with far-reaching consequences. We would find ourselves in the unhappy position of then seeking to determine which parts of Scripture are inspired by God and which are not. By what yardstick are we to measure that? The obvious answer is that we have no such yardstick. I shudder to think what total confusion would ensue if this line of interpretation prevailed. One alternate reading of this passage that has been proffered reads, "All Scripture, because it is God-breathed, is profitable..." I cannot shed any light on the italicized "is" in the earlier edition of the Amplified. Perhaps the translators erred and corrected it in subsequent editions. The Bible is a large and enormously complex book, and translators, after all, have feet of clay along with the rest of us. A boo-boo here and there is virtually inevitable, especially in a first edition of a new translation. Look at how many revisions the revered King James Version has undergone in its long history. As you have noted, the NASB uses the "is" without italics, footnotes or other embellishment. I believe, the NASB translators' fidelity to the ancient texts being what it is, we have both the words and the meaning of the original text. Hank.
2263	who did cain marry?	Gen 1:1	Hank	3042
	Whom did Cain marry? His sister is the only logical answer in view of the Genesis context.
2264	Heaven	Matt 22:30	Hank	2928
	And I don't mean to be flippant, but don't you think that if God could give to a fallen world so great a gift as sex (properly used), that He just might have even greater things in store for His children in heaven? The primary reason God created us as sexual beings was, and is, for procreation. The Bible supports no such notion as procreation in heaven.
2265	Non-denominational theology?	John 3:16	Hank	2343
	Friend, I suppose I'm dense and have friends to prove it, but I don't quite get the drift of your question. All Baptists across our world are by no means cut from the same piece of cloth and one will find diverging theological views among them. Non-denominational theology encompasses, in my view, an even broader spectrum. Is there such an entity, really, as non-denominaional theology? I wonder. Some of the more noted points of Baptist doctrine that one would be likely to get a concensus on among a majority of Baptists I should think would be the eternal security of the believer, the priesthood of the believer, baptism defined as immersion, salvation by grace alone, the rite of baptism by the consent of the believer (which excludes infant baptism), the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. There may be more, but I believe my list will find sanction among most Baptists, especially Southern Baptists. Now concerning non-denominational theology, I suspect that many churches who subscribe to no organization outside their own congregation would surely find a common bond with other non-denominational churches on a great number of issues. But I suspect also that the differences may be greater and more widespread than would be the case where a number of churches attempt at least to wave the same banner. This answer, if it is one, may run far afield of what you wished to elicit by your question, but I've given it my best shot. Perhaps you'd like to recast your question, or perhaps a better head than mine on the Forum will be able to add something. God's blessings! Hank.
2266	Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit?	1 John 4:1	Hank	2909
	"Beloved, do not believe every spirt, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." I've seen Benny Hinn in action a couple of times and a few others of his stripe on occasion. I receive more nourishment from eating a hamburger. Ever read "Elmer Gantry"? Biblical? You'll have to make that decision for yourself, I'm afraid. I've long since made mine.
2267	Is baptism needed for salvation? (One.)	1 Pet 3:21	Hank	2714
	JVH, you have posted a well-researched dissertation on baptism, and I concur with you in your conclusion, and with your reasoning that led to it: The New Testament does not teach that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation. I'm thinkig about the man on the cross, one of two criminals who were hanged alongside Jesus, who said in his hour of death, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." What was Jesus' response -- was it something about figuring out a way to get the man down from the cross and finding some water so he could be baptized and thus be saved? The record is clear what Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23).It may sound trite and simplistic, but I'll say it anyway: Jesus saves, water doesn't. The corpus of New Testament teaching confirms this. It is always a grave mistake to base a major doctrine upon an isolated verse or two of Scripture without taking the whole body (corpus) of teaching on the subject into full and careful consideration. It is quite possible to lift a Bible verse out of its context, call it a "proof text," and thereby extrapolate an infinite number of bizarre doctrines. "Accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) is a fearful responsibility of every Christian.
2268	Why five words?	1 Cor 14:19	Hank	2710
	Why ten thousand, the number Paul uses next? I doubt very much that Paul was into numerology and it would be fairly safe therefore to infer that the numbers per se are not especially suggestive. He juxtaposes a very low number with a very high one for contrast, for emphasis, to make his point. The first illustrative example that comes to mind is this. Which carries the better message -- to yell clearly "The building is on fire" (5 words) or to read to the occupants a pamphlet on fire safety printed in Sanskrit (10,000 words)?
2269	is it wrong to masterbate?	1 Cor 7:9	Hank	2680
	Charlene, I believe this passage cleary refers in broad terms to the libido, the sex drive ("burn with passion"), that God implanted in us at creation, not only to insure obedience to His command to "be fruitful and multiply" but to provide a means to express and share, in an intimate and pleasurable way, the love of spouse, one for the other. In that love they become "one flesh" meaning, among other things, that they become as one in conjugal union. Genesis 38:9 that has been cited in reference to masturbation, but a careful reading of that passage would suggest that Onan was practicing coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The one form of sexual activity that clearly and incontrovertibly has the sanction of our Creator is sex within marriage. Of any other form the Bible is either condemnatory or silent. Paul does mention in this passage "self-control" -- something the believer should make every effort to exercise in every area of his life every day of his life. I believe that this issue, if it becomes troubling to a Christian should, along with all others, first be taken to the Lord in prayer and, if so led, discussed with a trusted pastor or other qualified Christian counselor.
2270	"even" is confusing.	John 1:12	Hank	2657
	Notice that the word "even" is printed in italics in the NASB text. This indicates that the word does not appear in the original language but, in the view of the translators, is implied. By inserting italicized words into the text, it is their aim to give the English sentence more clarity or a better syntax. Obviously they do not always achieve their goal, as in the verse you cite. "Even" is one of those annoying little words of which the KJV translators were so fond. The NASB uses it too, although to a far lesser extent. For the word "even" in this verse, try reading it "...children of God -- to those who believe in His name." Believing in Christ is a prerequisite to receiving Him.
2271	"even" is confusing.	John 1:12	Hank	2654
	Notice that the word "even" is printed in italics in the NASB text. This indicates that the word does not appear in the original language but, in the view of the translators, is implied. By inserting italicized words into the test, it is their aim to give the English sentence more clarity or a better syntax. Obviously they do not always achieve their goal, as in the verse you cite. "Even" is one of those annoying little words of which the KJV translators were so fond. The NASB uses it too, although to a far lesser extent. For the word "even" in this verse, try reading it "...children of God -- to those who believe in His name." Believing in Christ is a prerequisite to receiving Him.
2272	Did the Amplified come from Wescott and	Bible general Archive 1	Hank	2599
	The Amplified Bible is the fruition of the life work of Frances Siewert who died in 1967 at the ripe old age of 86. This woman had a keen interest in the Scriptures and devoted her life to the study of Biblical languages, customs, archeology of the Holy Land and so forth. I am not aware that the Amplfied is a knock-off of ASV, NASB, or any other version. Having just now re-read the introduction to this translation, I get the real sense that she tended to be eclectic in her sources. Anyone with but a nodding aquaintance with the Amplified could likely be persuaded that Frances in all probability owned a well-worn Roget's. The Lockman Foundation set up an editorial board to carefully review Mrs. Siewert's work and, in a joint effort with Zondervan Publishing House, issued the Amplified New Testament in 1958, the one-volume Amplified Bible in 1965. I find the Amplified useful in aiding in the clarification of a troublesome locution here and there, but I find it ponderous to read large portions of it at one sitting. It hardly lends itself to public reading. In summation, it can be fairly noted that this work is, in the main, the work of one person, albeit with a little help from her friends. There are those, I among them, who feel uncomfortable with any translation so conceived and executed. Sorry I couldn't speak more to your point, but I hope this helps a little.
2273	Public profession, explanation. etc.	Rom 6:4	Hank	2591
	Only one, if I understand your question. "We have been buried with Him [Christ] through baptism into death" to "walk in newness of life." --Romans 6:4. The clear inference is we have thereby witnessed once and for all that we have become new creations in Christ Jesus. Paul is, of course, writing here about believer's baptism, water baptism, immersion, hence the metaphor "buried with Him." I somehow fear I've not fully spoken to your question. You may be talking about something else. Care to elaborate?
2274	Holman Bible: Critical or Majority Text?	Bible general Archive 1	Hank	2546
	Good question, Chris! And wouldn't you know -- I just happen to have the answer straight from the Holman's mouth, as it were. The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition,and the United Bible Societies' Greeek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. Footnotes immediately below the text indicate significant differences among Greek manuscripts of the NT. In a few cases, brackets are used to indicate texts that are omitted in some ancient Greek manuscripts. Here's another item of some interest I gleaned from the Introduction. Under the heading TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY they review two philosophies that are old hat to most of us, i.e., formal equivalence (word for word) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). Then they expose us to a third translation philosophy -- the one they subscribed for this translation -- which they call Optimal Equivalence and define it thusly: "This method seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence by applying each method to tranlsate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy." They continue for several more lines of exposition, but what I've cited constitutes the real kernel of their concept. Is this -- this Optimal Equivalence -- really a new concept? Or is it, in the words of that great language master, Yogi Berra, deja vu all over again?
2275	Apostles4-2day	Bible general Archive 1	Hank	2442
	At first glance your user name, RCSCROLL, set me aback. I read it as RCSPROUL, the well-known apologist for the faith and theologian of some renown! Your question is a complex one, if only because the definitions of apostle and prophet are incredibly complex. Scholars differ widely on their definitions. In the strictest Biblical sense, an apostle is generally a person who witnessed the Risen Lord and who was sent out with authority (which is what the word apostle actually means) as a messenger to proclaim the gospel. Matthew (10:1-5) uses the terms disciples and apostles interchangeably when speaking of the calling of the Twelve. Luke in Acts extends the title apostle beyond the Twelve. And Paul calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the greeting of virtually every letter he wrote that we have in the New Testament canon. In light of the scriptural record, therefore, it is difficult to see how anyone living today could be called an apostle -- not, at any rate, in the Biblical sense.Prophets. Do they exist today? Yes, they do and Scripture supports this view, particularly the existence of false prophets. Jesus issued a stern warning to beware of false prophets and false Christs (Matt. 7:15; Mark 13:22) Paul referred to genuine prophecy as a gift in 1 Cor. 13:2. Prophecy simply means "spokesman for God" and does not always entail the foretelling of future events. The Old Testament is replete with instances in which the prophets spoke to Israel a message from God that had to do with current events here and now and nothing at all about the future."Beloved," said John (1 John 4:1) "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."It would appear that we are running well above quota almost 2000 years later. I'm keenly aware that in this poor attempt to answer your question I have not even begun to skim the surface. But your subject matter, as I said at the outset, is a complex one. At the risk of appearing to play the pedant, I'll venture a pair of suggestions. Consult entries for apostles, disciples, and prophets in a good Bible dictionary. I like Holman's. That will give you a fairly broad background on the subjects. Next, run the Scripture references provided by an exhaustive concordance. I use NASB. The concordance will allow you to do what amounts to an inductive study of these subjects, wherein you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. I think there is nothing on earth that takes the place of searching the Scriptures for ourselves. It means digging, and digging is had work any way you slice it. But the nuggets to be found, and found in abundance, are without price.
2276	Why believe 'on' not 'in' the Lord?	James 2:19	Hank	2402
	This is far more than a semantic exercise about two little words, in and on. James 2:19 says, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." One can believe in God, that is, that there is a God, that He is the Creator of the universe, that He is all-powerful, and the list goes on. One can believe in the Lord Jesus to the extent that He was a real, historical figure and that He went about doing good and healing people, and that he came from God, that he was indeed the Son of God. But even Satan admitted as much in his dialogue with Jesus in connection with our Lord's temptation (See Matthew 4:1-12). But to believe on the Lord carries with it the idea of accepting him fully, of being willing to surrender our will to His will in simple, child-like obedience, of trusting Him, of believing that He alone is able to redeem us. When we believe on the Lord, we are of course believing in him (that He is) but we are taking a further step, and what a giant step it is indeed, of inviting Him into our lives and asking him to forgive us and save us from the bond of sin. It's recognizing and admitting to Him that we need a Savior. It's being honest with ourselves and admitting that we are solely dependent on Him for life and being. It's truly a willingness to lean on the everlasting arms.
2277	WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE?	Matt 28:19	Hank	2382
	Pyle, your question begins with that big 'if' and perhaps in revisiting your ideas on the doctrine of election, or predestination, or whatever else we may conceive it to be, some light will fall. My view is that election is not the same thing as fatalism. Election says that God in His infinite love has elected (chosen) us to be heirs with his own Son of the riches of His glory. He calls us by His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and we have the option to respond or not to respond. The Scriptures clearly teach that whosoever will may come, that God is no respector of persons. In eternity God willed that no one should perish but that all should come to salvation. That is why He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). But the Bible clearly supports the notion that not everyone will receive Him, and it makes it crystal clear that no one can come to the Father except through the Son. The view of fatalism says that, since God has already decided in advance (even before I was conceived) whether I would be saved or whether I would be condemned, why does it matter what I do or don't do, what I believe or don't believe, whether I accept Jesus as my Lord or not? -- the whole thing is out of my hands anyway. That view puts God in the role of puppeteer and us as mere puppets on His string. The Scriptures don't even remotely support such a doctrine. When God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and he became a living soul, God endowed him with the power to choose. In the Garden it was Adam and Eve's choice, not God's, heed the serpent's call and fall away in sin and disobedience. God did not will it, did not preordain it, did not elect them to disobey His will. What they did was neither God's choice nor His good pleasure. Adam and Eve sinned and thus fell short of the glory of God. Thus by their actions they created the absolute need for a Redeemer, a Savior, for someone who was empowered to retore them to a right relationship with their Creator. It was Christ then (He was in the beginning with God) and it is Christ now whom God entrusted with this awesome power, the power to restore us to a right relationship with Him. If God had already determined from all eternity that Joe would be saved and Bill would be condemned, why would it have been necessary for Him to put His Son through the agony of the cross? The way I interpret the Word is that God elected (predeterined) to offer salvation to all of his created sons and daughters through Jesus.I do believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that no one comes to God unless His Spirit calls them. But I believe the Holy Spirit calls everyone, without exception. But the response is left up to us. This subject is High Theology indeed and I surely don't pretend to be a theologian by any measure unless, as I heard one time, a theologian is a guy who says things he doesn't understand to people who don't understand them either. Now to the second part of your question, Why evangelize? Having attempted to estabish the Bible's doctrine of "choosing this day whom we shall serve" it therefore follows that Christians are entrusted with the awesome responsibity of heralds, to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to a fallen world. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."Whosoever will may come, true enough. But how shall they unsaved hear without someone to tell them? That "someone" is not just the paid preachers and missionaries. It's every child of the King. Does it make sense that Jesus would have commissioned his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone if the whole business of specifically who would be saved and who condemned had already been settled in advance? That is precisely what the Devil would love us to believe, because it would stop evangelism in its tracks! Jesus was fond of comparing His mission with a vineyard. We sow good seeds and reap a good harvest. If we don't sow seeds for Him in His vineyard, who will? Should we take the view, "It doesn't matter what I sow, or even whether I sow or not. God's already determined what the harvest will be." I truly and prayerfully trust, Pyle, that these random thoughts will help in some small way to answer your question.

Result pages: << First < Prev [ 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ]

Search for your Bible question and answer here: