Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does the Holy Spirit work differently? | Bible general Archive 2 | Sir Pent | 114998 | ||
How does the Holy Spirit work differently then and now? There seems to be 3 main schools of thought regarding the working of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament believers as compared to the New Testament believers. I would appreciate your input on this subject. 1. The Holy Spirit came “on” people of the OT, and comes “in” people of the NT and now. 2. The Holy Spirit came temporarily to people of the OT, and comes permanently to people of the NT and now. 3. The Holy Spirit came to small numbers of people in the OT, and comes to all believers in the NT and now. What do you all think? |
||||||
2 | GeneralWas and Bill Mc? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 14479 | ||
Greetings GeneralWas, This is a very interesting post, but I can't help but notice the uncanny similarities between this paper and a website referred to in a previous thread (composition of man) by Bill Mc. Is there any reason for such extreme similarity, or is this purely coincidence? |
||||||
3 | May I share a simple story to help? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15113 | ||
There once was a old farmer, whose son returned from college with a degree in agricultural engineering. The old farmer took the son on a tour of all 10 of his fields, and told him that he wanted to give them all to his son as an inheritance. Before, that though, he wanted him to do all the planting for one year. The old farmer took his son to each of the 10 fields, and told him what to plant; corn in this one, wheat in this one, potatoes in that one, etc. That night, the son decided to check up on his father's choices for planting based on all of the new techniques that he had learned in school. So he went out and tested the soil for pH, and nitrogen content, etc, and came to a surprising conclusion. His dad had actually been right at picking the best crop for 9 out of the 10 fields. The only field that was wrong was the cotton field. The soil there was just completely wrong for cotton. In fact, it probably wouldn't grow any at all. So the son planted all the fields, just like his father instructed, except for the cotton field, which he planted with peanuts instead so that the field wouldn't be wasted. As the summer progressed, all the fields grew very well, and when it came to harvest time, the old farmer decided to tour the farm. As he and his son came to the peanut field, he asked his son why there was not cotton there like he had instructed. The son explained that he had discovered that cotton would not have grown in that field, and so that it would not be wasted, he had planted peanuts instead. The old farmer shook his head and sadly told his son that he could no longer give him his farm, because the son had not followed his instructions. The son argued that he had followed his directions 9 out of 10 times, and had only disobeyed for the father's own good. But the old farmer explained that in truth, the son had just followed his own will 10 out of 10 times. It just so happened that their wills were the same 9 times. You see the old farmer knew that that cotton field wouldn't grow any cotton, but he wanted to see if the son would plant what the old farmer instructed, or what his own intelligence and study recommended. What he learned was that the highest authority for the son was himself, and not his father. Often, we treat God's Word the same way. We will take 10 passages, and follow 9 of them and then explain that the last one doesn't apply. We rationalize our interpretation by saying that it is not meant to be literal, or was only written for the people back then, or means something completely different in the original Greek or Hebrew. Then we say that God's Word is the authority in our lives. But this is not the truth. Our authority is ourselves. It is our logic, our knowledge of ancient culture or languages, our personal experiences. You see, if we can simply explain away one passage of scripture, then we could do that to any passage that we don't understand, or don't want to live by. Suddenly, we become the highest authority through which all Truth must pass to be approved, and this will inevitably cause us to lose the farm in the end. |
||||||
4 | When did God's inspiration stop? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15364 | ||
It seems that I am being misrepresented here as trying to throw out all scholarly work throughout the centuries, and all of the wonderful things that have been discovered through knowledge of ancient languages and cultures. This is deffinately not the case. I think that this information can be very helpful for mature Christians to glean further insight into many Biblical passages. My point is quite simply that they are not necessary. In other words, they are like the dessert in the meal, they may taste sweet, but are not essential nutrients. I think that really the question becomes when did God stop inspiring His Word. If you believe that the translations that we have today are merely a "scholarly help", then I agree that regular folk can't truly read God's message to them, and that they would have to "go back to the original manuscripts". On the other hand, I believe that God loves the regular folk so much, that He has continued to inspire His message to them throughout the centuries. It just doesn't make sense that He would leave something as important as the truth and completness of the Bible to depend on the hands and minds of His fallible creation. Therefore, I believe that God has maintained ALL of the ESSENTIALS even in the current English translations of the Bible. |
||||||
5 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15402 | ||
There seem to be three main answers to this question. The first would be that the Bible is not really inspired at all. It is merely mankind's attempt to chronicle his experiences with God. The Bible is just an ancient book, which has some good ideas in it which we can learn from. The majority of the world seems to believe this, however, very few people on this forum. The second perspective is that the Bible was originally inspired as each author wrote it. In other words, Moses was inspired by God as he wrote large parts of the Torah. David was inspired by God when he wrote most of the Psalms. Matthew was inspired by God when he wrote his gospel, and Paul was inspired by God when he wrote his letter to the Romans. Therefore due to this inspiration, the Bible was inerrant in its original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). However, since that time, men who were uninspired by God have copied, translated, or even paraphrased the Bible, so that there are now some mistakes. This can only be fixed by going back to studying the Bible in its original language, and in context of its original culture. This view seems to be held by the majority of our forum members. The third perspective is that the Bible is God's written message to all people throughout all time. As such God has inspired the people at each step in the process of bringing it to the masses. In this perspective, not only are the original manuscripts inspired, but also the copies, and also the translations. Therefore, when a person reads the NASB today in English, it is equally inspired as the original letter to the Phillipians was when it was read by the church there for the first time. This is the view that I believe. What does everybody think? |
||||||
6 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17840 | ||
Dear Lockman and Forum Colleagues, I noticed that many months ago, there was some discussion about implementing some sort of moderation on this forum. It also appeared that this was eventually dropped due to valid concerns about censorship and how it would be regulated. I would like to propose a possibility which I think would be very helpful for this forum, yet would not sacrifice anyone's free expression. My suggestion would only be possible for the hosts at Lockman to accomplish. It is to delete any duplicated posts. There are many of these, and I don't think anyone would be offended if they were taken off. In the cases where there were seperate answers to each of the duplicates, I would suggest simply combining those threads. This could also be done with threads that were not "exact duplicates" but were essentially the same. Unfortunately, this would require a small amount of interpretation, however, I think it would be very helpful for people looking for answers to have everything in one thread. What does everyone think of this idea? Would any of you mind if you're duplicate posts were deleted, or if highly similar threads were combined? |
||||||
7 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17951 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, I think you brought up a very important point in a recent post. If a person comes to this forum looking for help and answers, and sees nothing but confusion, then they will be hurt instead. There are several solutions to this problem. I would like to share a few ideas that I have. 1. After a person asks a question, only have three people respond initially, and wait for the original person to elaborate again before everyone else jumps in. I know that there's no way to stop people from posting, but those of us who post most often (see the top 20 in my voting post recently) could just agree amoung ourselves to refrain from posting if there are already 3 responses. 2. While a thread is "alive and kicking", we could all agree to stay within the scope of the original question. In other words, if the original question is about baptism, we refuse to digress into a debate about free will. At the same time we could preface our statements with a phrase such as, "from a perspective which believes that we have the ability to choose to accept or deny God's free gift of salvation, we believe such and such about this issue, based on these verses." Then others who didn't agree with the perspective could instead of arguing that point say, "that makes sense from that perspective, but from the perspective that God alone decides the salvation of mankind, we believe such and such about the issue, based on these verses". Then what is being discussed is the original issue, and if anyone wants to discuss which perspective is correct, they can start a seperate thread on that. 3. After a thread has pretty much closed down, the person who started it (or another of their choosing) could write up a summary statement. This would be done after many people had already given their ideas on a subject, and a certain time period (perhaps a week) had passed since anything new was added. There could be a standard heading for these type of posts (perhaps "Consensus of the Thread"). That way at the end of each thread there would be one post that people could go to in the future who were interested in that topic. This would also be an opportunity to show that although we disagree on some details, we are unified on the essentials. This summary thread could focus on the overall answer to the question that everyone seemed to agree to while just mentioning some of the nuances of specific posts. An example where I tried to do this can be found by searching "native consensus". I think that if we could agree (or at least many of us) to do these things, that it would make this forum a much more helpful place for others to come to for guidance and truth. There could of course be other, better plans, but this is what came to my mind. What do you guys think? |
||||||
8 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #3 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18277 | ||
Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #3? As I have been trying to get an idea about everyone's thoughts about my own suggested improvements for the forum, there have been some ideas suggested by my esteemed colleagues. At this time I would like to get some feedback on some of these issues. #1 Would you like to be able to use symbols in your messages? This would be more efficient than writing out certain words like percent. #2 Would you like to have a spell checker built into the forum? Many email programs have this type of thing and it might be possible here. This could be especially helpful for those of us who are challenged in this area. #3 Would you like there to be a chat room added to supplement the forum itself. This could be a place for people to converse in real-time, and might help eliminate many of the "personal" posts that take up space in the threads. Thanks ahead of time for your help in determining whether these are ideas which most of us would find beneficial to our already wonderful Lockman Study Bible Forum :) |
||||||
9 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #4 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18278 | ||
Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #4 In the ever continuing mission to make this Lockman Study Bible Forum the best it could possibly be, I have one more suggestion that has come to my attention. In case you are looking for a pattern, Improvement Posts #1 and #3 depended on changes that Lockman could make. Improvement Posts #2 and #4 depend upon changes that we members could make ourselves. This new sugestion is that we make the beginnings of posts to be more descriptive and standardized. This would make it possible to tell more clearly how ideas have been expressed, when looking at the thread as a whole. If you like this idea, do you have any ideas as to how it might be accomplished? What kinds of things could we use on a regular basis that would be helpful in this way? Possibly labels such as: Further Support Contrary View Personal Note Also possibly stating the basis of the idea: Bible Commentary Link Logic These could be combined: Contrary View, Bible Further Support, Logic These are just ideas, what do you all think? |
||||||
10 | How can we tell figurative from literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19549 | ||
Dear Forum Members, An interesting question has arisen on the forum recently in multiple posts, which I would like to address directly. We would all agree that it is possible to interpret one part of scripture figuratively and another literally. The question is, "What are the criteria that can be consistently applied to tell the difference?" This is something that creeps into many different threads. It impacts how we interpret the creation story in Genesis, and the end of the world in Revelation. It even affects whether we believe that there was a certain number of soldiers, years, etc, or whether those numbers are figurative to mean something else. |
||||||
11 | How can we tell figurative from literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19550 | ||
Dear Forum Members, An interesting question has arisen on the forum recently in multiple posts, which I would like to address directly. We would all agree that it is possible to interpret one part of scripture figuratively and another literally. The question is, "What are the criteria that can be consistently applied to tell the difference?" This is something that creeps into many different threads. It impacts how we interpret the creation story in Genesis, and the end of the world in Revelation. It even affects whether we believe that there was a certain number of soldiers, years, etc, or whether those numbers are figurative to mean something else. |
||||||
12 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19627 | ||
I agree that we probably could not come up with a method that would work 100 percent of the time. However, I think that a process that could tell 95 percent of the time would be good enough for me. I like your ideas of combining things, however, let's take a look at a specific example and see how it would apply. Genesis as a book would I guess fall under your category of Gospel (historical narrative), and therefore we would assume that it was literal unless noted otherwise. Then if we look at the Creation story, we discover that it is written in the form of ancient poetry, and doesn't make a lot of sense literally. It would seem that this method would tell us that it was meant to be figurative, yet you and I both believe it is literal. How do we reconcile this? |
||||||
13 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20325 | ||
I have recently been introduced to a new perspective regarding salvation and free will. It is called the "Amyraldian" perspective, and a good description of it can be found at http://members.aol.com/briangord/amyrad.htm It sounds like the basic idea is that Arminias was theoretically right and Calvin was practically right. A summary quote would be that "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." My question is how is this possible? The word "sufficient" means "enough to meet the needs". Therefore, if Christ's sacrifice was enough to meet the needs of sinners to gain salvation, then nothing more could be required. Conversely, if salvation requires both Christ's sacrifice AND being elected, then the sacrifice alone is not sufficient. It seems that this belief has an inherrant contradiction within itself. Does anyone have any ideas on this? |
||||||
14 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 21147 | ||
Dear Forumites, I think that there has been a slight frustration building for quite some time regarding our forum here. Reformer Joe has recently articulated it well. There are many threads which are either of minimal value (see Kalos' questionable question post), or which leave little room for discussion (like where is such-and-such). Then there are the neverending discussions on issues such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism (with the recent additionof Amyraldianism). While these are still threads that need to be addressed on the forum, I believe that some of the most regular members (especially who have been here for a while) could lose interest. I wonder if this partially explains a trend that I discovered while looking at the history of the forum. There are some members who have been here forever like Kalos, Charis, and Hank. However, there are also many people who are very active and supportive for a time and then just kind of disappear. Some of these RCScroll, RElderCascade, Brent Douglass, Xapis, Heir of God, KBurgee, Melchizedekau, Reformedreader, Jim, InHzsvc, and GMsmith101. And there's also our most prolific poster Nolan Keck, who has been on sabatical for over a month. I think that it is worth addressing to discover a way that we could continue to improve the forum so that people will want to stay. Their experience and valuable input is sorely missed when they leave. What does everyone think? For those of you who have been here a long time, do you remember why some people left? Why have you stayed? Are people really frustrated, or do I interpret Reformer Joe and others incorrectly? |
||||||
15 | Has EdB hit to close to home? | Ex 20:15 | Sir Pent | 15367 | ||
It is interesting to me that when so many other threads get so much response, that this thread seemed to just drop into oblivion. Many threads are on issues which are very theoretical and abstract. On the other hand, this question is very practical, and has the potential to impact our lives on a daily basis. Perhaps so few people want to respond because it hits to close to home? | ||||||
16 | If God knows all,why create the universe | Deut 29:29 | Sir Pent | 13788 | ||
If God knew from before the beginning of time, everything that would ever happen, then why go to the trouble to actually go through it. In other words, if God know everything, then what is the purpose of the universe? 1. I can think of a couple examples on the level of humanity, but neither seem to fit. Humans eat the same foods over and over even though they know what they'll taste like, and how long they will be filling. This is becuase we need food, but does God NEED the universe. In my view, He is self-sufficient. 2. Humans often will watch a movie that they have seen before, just because they enjoy it. But the universe contains real people and real suffering (even eternal suffering for some people), and in my view, a holy God would not enjoy experiencing that. The "Sunday School" answer to this question is that God created the universe for His glory. But isn't that the ultimate of selfishness to create a universe where some people would eternally suffer just for a beings own glory? |
||||||
17 | May we return to the original question? | Deut 29:29 | Sir Pent | 13792 | ||
1. The only reason the I started my question with the word "if" is because it is a statement which some would disagree with (although probably not on this forum). However, God's omniscience, is a necessary assumption for the question to make any sense. I do not intend to be merely hypothetical, but am genuinely interested in discovering God's purpose here, as I hope are you. 2. As for my user name, I apologize that you were offended, but the meaning is clearly stated in my personal preferences, and is actually biblical. Anyone can click on my name to find out. 3. I would appreciate any input that you have as to the original question. |
||||||
18 | God has the right, but why do it? | Deut 29:29 | Sir Pent | 13873 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong, Thank you very much for your response to my question. I must admit that I felt a little attacked by the first two responses. For the most part, I completely agree with your perspective. I too think that it is "logical" for God to be the "end of all things", for indeed He is the only true purpose for our existence. I also agree that He has the right as God and Author of everything to do whatever He pleases with the universe. I do have two thoughts though. The first is that the universe is different than a book or movie, in that the characters are real people. I don't think we would enjoy a movie if we knew that the actor who played the bad guy REALLY got killed in the end. The second thought is that although God should be the purpose of our existence and actions, that doesn't really tell us what the purpose of God's actions are. We don't do everything that we have the "right" to do, so why did God choose to act on His right to make the universe as we know it? Or more personally why did He make me? |
||||||
19 | What's God's purpose in life? | Deut 29:29 | Sir Pent | 13935 | ||
Once again, I must wholeheartedly agree with my fellow believers. You have both done an excellent job of articulating two very important characteristics of God. Namely His "transcendance" (focused on by Debbie), and his "imminence" (focused on by Lionstrong). I also appreciate and agree with your suggestions about OUR purpose in life. At the same time, I would still appreciate more input as to ideas about what God's purpose is. As a follower of Christ, I strive to understand God as much as possible. I feel therefore, that discovering His motivations, can help us immensly. Any more ideas? |
||||||
20 | Perhaps we found God's purpose in life | Deut 29:29 | Sir Pent | 13946 | ||
Welcome to the discussion Steve, That is an interesting point that you bring up. I read Romans chapter 8 again, keeping this idea in mind, and it would seem to say that God's purpose is to bring about good for the people who love him. Based on that interpretation, then God created the universe becuase if there were no universe, there would be no people to love Him, and He would not be able to bring about good for them. What does everyone think? Is this the answer? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |