Results 1 - 20 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does TNIV eliminate gender distinctions? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 98172 | ||
'Is The TNIV Faithful in Its Treatment of Gender? Yes 'The TNIV does not eliminate gender distinctions but rather clarifies them. 'By Mark Strauss : posted 09/27/2002 'Much of the negative press concerning Today's New International Version comes from a misunderstanding of Bible translation and a misrepresentation of the TNIV. Here are seven facts you should know. '1. The goal of the TNIV is the same as that of the NIV (and other versions): to render the meaning of the original text accurately into contemporary English.' To read more, including opposing viewpoints, go to: (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/011/38.37.html) |
||||||
2 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102207 | ||
At times God is saddened. Saddened maybe, but not disappointed. How can we disappoint the One who knew everything about us from beginning to end, before we were ever born? Disappoint -- "to fail to meet the expectation or hope of" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). How could the omniscient God expect or hope something of me that He knew from eternity was not going to happen? Not trying to be argumentative, Ed. Just offering something for us to consider. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
3 | Can we disappoint the omniscient God? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102208 | ||
At times God is saddened. Saddened maybe, but not disappointed. How can we disappoint the One who knew everything about us from beginning to end, before we were ever born? Disappoint -- "to fail to meet the expectation or hope of" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). How could the omniscient God expect or hope something of me that He knew from eternity was not going to happen? Not trying to be argumentative, Ed. Just offering something for us to consider. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
4 | The choice to abstain from alcohol | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77048 | ||
"Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to abstain [from alcohol] be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern." __________________________ 'The term "abstinence" is often identified with the question of the use or nonuse of alcoholic beverages. The Bible consistently condemns drunkenness, but it cannot be viewed as teaching total abstinence from fermented wine. The linguistic, historical-cultural, and contextual aspects of Scripture are often abused by those who claim that the Bible requires total abstinence. The primary Hebrew terms are yayin [Iy:y], tiros [v/ryiT], and asim. All three may refer to fermented wine in a negative connotation (cf. in order Prov 23:31; Hosea 4:11; Isa 49:26) and all three refer to the expected positive use of fermented wine (yayin [Iy:y] - Lev 23:13; Num 6:20; 28:14; Deut 14:26; Psalm 104:15; Isa 55:1; Itiros [v/ryiT] - Deut 14:23; asim - Joel 3:18). All three are used interchangeably and no hard-line distinctions for a linguistic reference to unfermented as opposed to fermented wine can be sustained for any term. The Greek word oinos [oi\no"] commonly translates all three terms in the Septuagint and is the common term for wine in the Greek period and in the New Testament. Paul cites oinos [oi\no"] as a nonissue equivalent to the meat offered to idols in Romans 14:21. The less-used Greek term gleukos [gleu'ko"], "new wine, " may also mean fermented (cf. Acts 2:13). The ancient world often diluted wine with water for a more or less fermented effect, although this could be viewed as an insult (cf. Isa 1:22). 'The historical setting of Israel as one of the leading and most respected wine-producing nations in their part of the ancient world is well documented. The blessings of this product are recorded in the Bible along with the evils that come from its abuse. Wine is a major image of joy and blessing (cf. Gen 27:28; Psalm 104:14-15). The messianic era is depicted as a time of great blessing via this imagery (Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13; Zech 9:17). The destruction of wine is noted as a calamity in the life of Israel (Deut 28:30-39; Isa 62:8; 65:21; Micah 6:15; Zeph 1:13). 'Believers in any given time period or geographical location may choose total abstinence from alcoholic beverages for numerous reasons. One may use certain passages of Scripture to warn against abuse just like ancient Israel did. The abuse of strong drink has plagued all cultures and reasons to abstain abound. Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to abstain be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern.' Gary T. Meadors Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
5 | Failure to communicate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77584 | ||
Do we have a failure to communicate? "If we may cast aside the 'norm' of immersion, what other norms may we cast aside?" "...May be used as substitutes IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" does not equal "cast aside." Cast aside is not only an exaggeration, but also an apparently deliberate misquote of what I previously wrote. |
||||||
6 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80751 | ||
IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White 'Summary 'King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) 'The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. 'Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.' ------------- To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates Also recommended, James White's book: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations?" James R. White/Bethany House Publishers/1995 (Type: Trade Paperback) |
||||||
7 | Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81555 | ||
Exposing Doctrinal Errors: Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? 'Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, that Christians are simply supposed to love one another and be united together in faith. Should we, therefore, regard as divisive those Christians who speak out against teachings in the church which are clearly unbiblical?' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0601.pdf) |
||||||
8 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81842 | ||
What about so-called revelation knowledge? 'Teachings of Kenneth Copeland 'FATALLY FLAWED 'Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can be attributed to the following four reasons. 'First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even to be led by GOOD SENSE" (emphasis in original). Copeland's statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not led by logic. He was not led by the mind." Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us REASON together." 'Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge (information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words (e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). 'Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, "I don't preach doctrine, I preach faith." Although he may not realize it, HIS PREACHING ON FAITH AND OTHER TOPICS DO IN FACT CONSTITUTE DOCTRINES, which combined form his theology (however inconsistent). He would do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice to "watch your life and your doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16). 'Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and disrespect for the historically established views of the church. Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God. However, it should be recognized that certain historically accepted views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine (e.g., the nature of faith, the nature of God, the nature of man, and the person and work of Jesus Christ), are significant, time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith. 'It is regrettable that someone so influential within contemporary Christianity continues to preach a message that overturns virtually every major biblical teaching. To date, Copeland refuses to discuss with his critics the issues raised in this article. We only hope that he will soon realize the dangerous road he is traveling. As Scripture warns, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). For now, Copeland, being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland by Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
9 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81891 | ||
What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? (Latter-Rain) What in the world is "dominion theology"? And is it really consistent with the Bible? 'DOMINION THEOLOGY 'Dominion theology is associated with two distinct movements. In order to give an accurate assessment of this very controversial issue, I'll need to spend a few moments discussing the elements which characterize these two movements. [Reconstructionism] 'The first of these movements is known as "Reconstructionism," which arose within Reformed (Calvinistic) Christianity...Well, no matter how controversial you may think Reconstructionists are, the fact remains that this is a perfectly acceptable orthodox movement. ["Latter-Rain"] 'The same, however, cannot be said about "Kingdom Now Theology," which represents the other movement associated with dominion theology. This movement, popularized by Earl Paulk, basically boils down to a systematic presentation of what is commonly referred to as "Latter-Rain." Central to this system is the belief that since the time of the Reformation, God has progressively restored "truths" to the church. It also includes the view that the offices of apostle and prophet remain in effect to this very day, which is why submission to spiritual leaders is so heavily emphasized. Kingdom Now Theology also subscribes to the "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine, which holds the heretical position that the church is the incarnation of God and is therefore to "take dominion" -- politically and otherwise -- before Christ can return. For these and a host of other reasons, we strongly advise Christians to steer clear of Kingdom Now Theology.' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0606.pdf) |
||||||
10 | No need of proof? Faith in faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81887 | ||
No need of proof? Faith in faith? People MUST believe in spite of the lack of any evidence? I know because I know? What is this -- the "We Say So" School of the Bible? Hank's post, ID# 81883, is excellent as it stands. Also it is a post that stimulates me to ask questions. These questions are directed to any and all -- anyone who wishes to reply. Could it be that people who need no facts, no proof, no reason, no logic are also people who are receptive to voodoo apologetics? If an unbeliever initially does not accept the authority of the Bible, do we just give up on him/her? Do we write that person off? If someone asks us WHY we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, we'd better be ready to give a good reason. We need to have to have something to say in addition to or instead of "Because it says so." There are a number of good reasons for accepting the authority of the Bible. One of them is that fulfilled prophecy is proof of inspiration. If we are not familiar with this and other proofs, it's time we made the effort to become familiar with them. "And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to EXPLAIN IT" 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) (Emphasis added.) We need to be ready to explain it. KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth. Finally, the idea that someone's faith could be LESS because of the proof they've found doesn't even make any sense. How could a person have less faith in a fact after he's discovered more evidence to prove that fact? |
||||||
11 | What is the "Force of Faith"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82146 | ||
What is the "Force of Faith"? 3. 'THE FORCE OF FAITH: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'THE FORCE OF FAITH 'Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers,10 Copeland focuses primarily on an understanding of faith as a force. "Faith is a power force," he claims. "It is a tangible force. It is a conductive force."11 Moreover, "faith is a spiritual force....It is substance. Faith has the ability to effect natural substance."12 As "the force of gravity...makes the law of gravity work...this force of faith...makes the laws of the spirit world function."13 'Copeland affirms that "God cannot do anything for you apart or separate from faith,"14 for "faith is God's source of power" (emphasis in original).15 Moreover, "everything that you're able to see or touch, anything that you can feel, anything that's perceptive to the five physical senses, was originally the faith of God, and was born in the substance of God's faith."16 In other words, "faith was the raw material substance that the Spirit of God used to form the universe."17 'Copeland adds that "God used words when He created the heaven and the earth....Each time God spoke, He released His faith - the creative power to bring His words to pass."18 For "words are spiritual containers,"19 and the "force of faith is released by words."20 'Copeland derives his definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). He interprets the word "substance" as some transcendent, primary element that makes up the universe; it was and is activated by spoken words at the onset of creation (both God's original creation of the world and all subsequent creations, whether by God or man). 'Contrary to Copeland's view, the word translated "substance" in the King James Version is the Greek word hypostasis which, in the context of Hebrews 11:1, means "an assured impression, a mental realizing."21 Far from being some tangible material or energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to God. It is an assurance that God's promises never fail, even if sometimes we do not experience their fulfillment during our mortal existence. Other translations render hypostasis more precisely as "being sure" (NIV), "to be sure" (TEV), and "assurance" (NASB). 'Neither the original Greek text nor any of the modern translations support Copeland's understanding of faith. The same holds true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea of words functioning as faith-filled containers makes no sense if there is no such thing as a "force of faith" (requiring packaging and transportation) in the first place. ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
12 | 4. A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82162 | ||
4. A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Copeland's deflation of God is best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the Bible...is God."* (*Kenneth Copeland, Praise-a-Thon, TBN, 1988. Copeland has, in another instance, stated that God "is not a failure" (Kenneth Copeland, The Troublemaker [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, n.d.], 23).) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. 'A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his understanding of faith. He describes God as someone "very much like you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches across."22 'Copeland's statement is based on his hyperliteral reading of Isaiah 40:12 ("Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, marked off the heavens with a [nine inch] span,..." [AV]). Yet following the same line of interpretation, one would also have to conclude that God literally held a basket full of dust and weighed mountains on a gigantic set of scales (v. 12b) - an absurd proposition ruled out by the context of the passage. The fact is that Isaiah 40 makes extensive use of figurative language to underscore the vast difference between the Creator and His creation. 'Giving a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms, Copeland makes God out to be a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet."23 However, the Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical features like His human creation. Anthropomorphic descriptions were simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus declared, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deut. 4:12). The Creator is, after all, "God, and not man" (Hos. 11:9). 'The idea of God possessing a body (physical or spirit) implies the unbiblical view that the Trinity is actually composed of three separate beings. Moreover, a God who has a body with definite, measurable dimensions cannot truly be omnipresent, unlike the God of Scripture who is present everywhere in all His fullness (Jer. 23:23-24). (It is true that in His human nature Christ has a body and is localized in space and time. But in His divine nature He remains nonphysical and omnipresent, sharing this immutable nature with the Father and Holy Spirit.) Copeland's deflation of God is best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the Bible...is God."24 In stark contrast, the biblical God is an all-powerful being (Dan. 4:35) whose plans cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2) and who considers nothing too difficult (Jer. 32:17; Luke 1:37). 'Copeland's diminished view of God is further amplified by a correspondingly inflated view of the universe in general and man in particular. He claims that the earth is "a copy of the mother planet [i.e., heaven] where God lives."25 Exactly how Copeland could "squeeze" God on any planet is difficult to fathom, especially since Solomon pointed out that heaven itself cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27).' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
13 | 5. MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82384 | ||
5. MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth. The thing don't belong to Him."37 (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.)' (Footnote 37. Kenneth Copeland, The Image of God in You III (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-1403), side 1.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. 'MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS: : The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in the text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland overemphasizes similarities between God and man to the point where any distinction becomes virtually nil: "God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh" (emphasis added).26 'Referring to his so-called law of genesis, Copeland asserts, "Adam was created in God's own image and likeness, a spirit-being...[and] takes on the nature of his spiritual father or lord."27 In explaining the terms "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1:26, he adds: "If you stood Adam upside God, they look just exactly alike....If you stood Jesus and Adam side-by-side, they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image is that they look just alike, but the likeness is that they act alike and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's authority, all of God's faith, all of God's ability was invested in that man."28 'Actually, the terms "image" and "likeness" refute Copeland's point. The Hebrew word for "likeness" (demuth) simply means similarity or resemblance, not identity.29 Furthermore, the term itself actually "defines and limits" the word "image" (Hebrew: tselem) in order "to avoid the implication that man is a precise copy of God, albeit miniature" (emphasis added).30 'Humans are created in God's image in the sense that they share, in a finite and imperfect way, God's communicable attributes (e.g, rationality and morality). These attributes, in turn, give individuals the capacity to enjoy fellowship with God, develop personal relationships with one another, and take care of God's creation as He has commanded.31 God's incommunicable attributes (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, self-sufficiency), however, remain solely His. 'Along with the "image of God," Copeland also refers to "the life of God," which he interchanges with the terms "the absolute life of God," "absolute life," "life force," "life in the absolute sense," "eternal life," and "everlasting life."32 He applies these terms to a quality of life, the source of which is God.33 But he also speaks of it as "the substance - the source, the power - the unseen force that makes God, God...[and] places Him above everything else that exists."34 'Copeland states that "man was created to know that great life force and he longs for it in his dreams. Adam had that life force in him before he committed high treason" (emphases added).35 This is yet another sense in which Copeland believes Adam to be created in God's class. He was made to partake of "the unseen force that makes God, God" - once again diminishing severely if not altogether destroying any final distinction between creator and creature. 'Furthermore, this "force" is at times spoken of as a reality more ultimate than God Himself, conferring deity not only on the Creator but on His creation, man. This again puts God and redeemed man in the same class. 'In Copeland's theology, Adam (and, consequently, the rest of humanity) does not appear to have a uniquely human nature. Initially possessing the nature of God, "when Adam committed high treason [sinned] against God and bowed his knee to Satan, spiritual death - the nature of Satan - was lodged in his heart."36 Adam had, in effect, allegedly traded in his divine nature for a satanic nature, otherwise called "spiritual death." However, Scripture reveals that mankind is wholly distinct from both God (2 Sam. 7:22; cf. Mark 12:32) and angelic/demonic beings (Ps. 8:5; cf. Heb. 2:7). And even after the Fall, man is still said to bear the image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). 'Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth. The thing don't belong to Him."37 (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.) And supposedly, since "the sin of Adam went all the way up to, but not including, the throne of God...[even] the Heavenly Holy of Holies had to be purified."38 ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
14 | "Lost books" of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 84426 | ||
Do the "lost books" of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? | ||||||
15 | If this is a parable, what does it teach | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 84475 | ||
Questions (unanswered) Luke 16:19-31 Lazarus and the Rich Man 'Some say that this is a parable. However, if it is, it is unique because no other parable actually names a person. It isn't a story. It is history. It really happened. But many who believe in no consciousness after death will say it is still a parable.' There are questions about Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16) that remain unanswered. Tell me, if you can, what are the answers to these questions? QUESTION: 'If this is a parable, What is it teaching?' 'If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth.' QUESTION: 'If it is a parable what does the consciousness after death symbolize?' QUESTION: 'Also, what does the agony in flame symbolize?' 'Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there.' QUESTION: 'After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them?' If it was temporal, they'd get out in a while. But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong. 'Jesus said, "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell," (Matt. 5:29-30).' (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/hell.htm) |
||||||
16 | Did Christ take back the keys? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 90864 | ||
Did Christ take back the keys? Nowhere in the Bible is there a clear verse of Scripture to indicate that Christ TOOK BACK any keys or that Satan had possession of keys. In the entire King James Version of the Bible, the word "key" appears in 6 verses. The word "keys" appears in 2 verses. Thus, "key" and "keys" appear a total of 8 times in the KJV. The following is ALL the Bible has to say about key(s): Jud 3:25 And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth. Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. Lu 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Re 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Re 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. Re 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Re 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. |
||||||
17 | Spiritual death of Christ? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83092 | ||
SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin...anybody can do that."63 Jesus supposedly "put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."64 Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam would die spiritually - that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death."65 He adds that "the day that Jesus was crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself."66 'During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off."67 We are told that Jesus "had to give up His righteousness"68 and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."69 'Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of God,"70 Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God" as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12). 'Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has "life in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity. 'Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in original).71 Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to suffer."72 'The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."73 However, Copeland explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."74 God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again - the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him - and He whipped the devil in his own backyard."75 'Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily resurrection - not some spiritual resuscitation in hell). 'Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed "over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John 19:30) - not by becoming a satanic being, but through His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22). ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
18 | How can we discern meaning of Bible? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 85243 | ||
If the meaning of the Bible "cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV) He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." "Compare Gen. 1:27; 2:23-24. Observe in Matt. 19:4-6 Jesus' confirmation of the Genesis narrative of the creation" (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hank: Your post is excellent. In addition to what you have written, I urge readers to consider the above, as well as the following. Radioman2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Avoid allegorizing the Bible "Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) |
||||||
19 | If Gen 1,2 are not true, then what is? | Gen 1:27 | Radioman2 | 85247 | ||
Hank: Surely you do not take the English dictionary literally, do you? In my imagination, I've always believed that the dictionary was a collection of myths, fables and stories that don't necessarily mean anything in particular. Isn't it possible that the entries in the dictionary could be true without necessarily being literal or making any sense? "Strawberry fields Nothing is real Nothing to get hung about Strawberry fields forever." Maybe each of us should write this rhyme on the flyleaf of his/her Bible . . . Or not. In addition to your excellent post, I urge readers to consider: If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Radioman2 - - - - - - - - - - Creation: Believe it or Not "Understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. (...) "Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " [Excerpt from "Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm)] |
||||||
20 | Continue in sin that grace may abound? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79678 | ||
"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" Someone here seems to be implying that we should. You ask: "If Cain does bad doesn't that give God a chance to show his power?" Romans 6:1-2a (ESV) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! You write: "Cain only did what he was made to do." NASB James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. AMPLIFIED James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted from God; for God is incapable of being tempted by [what is] evil and He Himself tempts no one. But every person is tempted when he is drawn away, enticed and baited by his own evil desire (lust, passions). |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |