Results 1 - 20 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Do you try to find what a verse means? | Luke 10:26 | Radioman2 | 104065 | ||
Do you try to find what it actually means? What Does That Verse Mean To You? '...There are times when certain scriptures are difficult to understand and that our opinions on these verses might be equally valid. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be valid. Furthermore, I pointed out that we must not subject God's word to our opinions. It is a mistake to have a group of people look at a Scripture and offer varying opinions on what it means as though God's word means only what it means to us at that time and that we can contradict each other and that's fine. Instead, we should ask ourselves "what does a text SAY?" We should work hard at trying to discover what the best single possible meaning to the text is -- if that is applicable. We should not view God's word as a well from which we draw whatever feeling, sensation, or opinion that suits us for the time. Instead, we must do our best to find out what the word actually says to the best of our ability instead of "feeling" our way through the scriptures using relativism as a guide. Otherwise, we would be saying that God does not actually mean anything specific when He inspired the writers of the Bible. If we were to say that God's word can mean different things, then the word of God doesn't mean anything at all. The problem here is that relativism [is] creeping into the Bible study. (...) So I ask you. When you study God's word devotionally, or otherwise, do you hope to find what it actually means so you can subject yourself to what it says, or do you try and find a meaning for Scripture that suits your needs, your feelings, and your desires? (http://www.carm.org/newsletter/2002/08-23-02.htm) (Emphasis added.) |
||||||
2 | Under the Law but not under water? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103268 | ||
AO: You write: "Also, note that the thief on the cross did not die in the Christian age, but under the Law of Moses." My question is: Does this mean that under the Law there was no legal requirement to be baptized, but now that we are no longer under law there is such a legal requirement? If this were the case, then it would seem to be a contradiction. If we are no longer under Law, then why this new and additional legal requirement? --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 | 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 |
||||||
5 | The Law: Abolished or Not Abolished? | Matt 5:17 | Radioman2 | 102137 | ||
Why are there so many extremists when it comes to the question of the Mosaic Law? At one extreme there are those who would have us bound to the Law regarding sabbath keeping and tithing. At the opposite extreme are those who say that we are free from the Law. What does that mean? Does it mean that now we are free to steal, murder, commit adultery, bear false witness? --Radioman2 |
||||||
6 | TV or not TV? | 1 Cor 10:31 | Radioman2 | 102013 | ||
What should we do as parents? Turn off the TV? 'Kids’ TV use may impact reading 'ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Very young children who live in homes where the television is on most of the time may have more trouble learning how to read than other kids their age, according to a study of media habits of children up to 6 years old... '“Watching TV is far inferior to playing with toys, being read to or playing with adults or talking with parents,” said Dr. Henry Shapiro, chairman of developmental and behavior pediatrics at the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Watching TV without a parent is a junk experience, especially for young children.”... '...so much time in front of TVs can cause kids to become fat, eat junk foods and not get enough sleep or adult interaction.' (www.msnbc.com) --Radioman2 |
||||||
7 | What are we to say? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101679 | ||
Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone; it's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever the reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. John Reformed, I appreciate your clear and relevant answer. However, if other answers are muddled and not clear, then you all will have answered the question by default. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
8 | Should one try to be clear or muddled? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101171 | ||
Should one try to be clear or muddled? 'There's another problem, and it's a practical one. I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, apparently. Then what am I to do? If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? What do I say then when communicating my faith? If I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, then what am I to do? Should I work at being clear when I communicate? Or should I try to be muddled lest I depend on clarity and not the Spirit to make the difference? Should I give reasons for what I believe or only gently make assertions with a smile on my face being careful not to respond to challenges someone might raise lest it sound like I'm trying to argue for the Gospel and not depend on the Holy Spirit?' ____________________ Quoted from the transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. |
||||||
9 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101160 | ||
A Logical Defense But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
10 | IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98777 | ||
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) |
||||||
11 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98776 | ||
KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] --Radioman2 |
||||||
12 | 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) |
||||||
13 | "Chronos-time" is no longer? | Mark 9:1 | Radioman2 | 97990 | ||
"Chronos-time is no longer in the days whenever the 7th Trumpet is about to sound (Rev.10:6,7)"? The King James Version says: "that there should be time no longer:" Re 10:6 (KJV) And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: The NASB says: "that there will be DELAY no longer, " NASB Revelation 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer, The Amplified Bible says: "that NO MORE TIME SHOULD INTERVENE and there should be NO MORE WAITING OR DELAY." AMPLIFIED Revelation 10:6 And swore in the name of (by) Him Who lives forever and ever, Who created the heavens (sky) and all they contain, and the earth and all that it contains, and the sea and all that it contains. [He swore] that no more time should intervene and there should be no more waiting or delay, "Time" no longer? NASB Revelation 22:2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Note: "yielding its fruit every MONTH." --Radioman2 |
||||||
14 | How are we to view "The Message"? | Acts 17:11 | Radioman2 | 97860 | ||
MEASURING "THE MESSAGE" (Eugene Peterson's The Message (NavPress)) ____________________ '...while the phrase "the Message" is Eugene Peterson's translation of "the Gospel," not everything in The Message should be treated as gospel.' ____________________ 'So how are we to view The Message? It is an expansive paraphrase that is not so labeled, as is The Living Bible. Beset with inconsistencies, its idiom is not always "street language"; its terminology is often idiosyncratic to its author. Compared by noted literary figures to the groundbreaking translation of J. B. Phillips, I believe The Message often lacks Phillips's creativity and conciseness. 'In the introduction, Eugene Peterson compares his pastoral ministry to his work as a translator: "I stood at the border between two languages, biblical Greek and everyday English, acting as a translator, providing the right phrases, getting the right words so that the men and women to whom I was pastor could find their way around and get along in this world" (p. 7). Much of The Message reads like a sermon: text plus interpretation and application. Unlike a sermon, however, the reader does not know where the text ends and the sermon begins. 'Because of its interpretive and idiosyncratic nature, The Message should not be used for study. If read for enlightenment or entertainment, the reader should follow the advice of Saint Augustine, as quoted in the original preface to the KJV, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for evaluating Paul's teaching with the Old Testament Scriptures. In the same spirit, The Message needs to be evaluated against more consistent and traditional translations, especially when its renderings evoke a response such as, "I didn't know the Bible said that!" or, "Now I understand what it means." 'In sum: while the phrase "the Message" is Eugene Peterson's translation of "the Gospel," not everything in The Message should be treated as gospel.' — Reviewed by John R. Kohlenberger III John R. Kohlenberger III is the author or co-editor of 25 biblical reference books, including Words about the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible (Zondervan), All about Bibles (Oxford University Press), The NIV Exhaustive Concordance and The Greek New Testament: UBS4 With NRSV and NIV (Zondervan). ____________________ STATEMENT DB130, BOOK REVIEW, A SUMMARY CRITIQUE: The Message by Eugene Peterson (www.equip.org/free/DB130.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
15 | "...an insult to your infallibility"? | Num 28:11 | Radioman2 | 97461 | ||
"...an insult to your infallibility"? "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others" (Spurgeon). "My opinion, when I have Bible study, all other books except the Bible are put away. DL5" If all other books (except the Bible) are put away, then what you end up with will be *your opinion*. Since the inception of the Forum in February 2001 we have had to endure the frequent repetition of the odd idea that, although the commentators are not infallible, somehow certain forum posters are. (I have never said or implied that any commentator or Forum reader is infallible.) Often when one has no argument, he tries to divert attention from the issue at hand by attacking the scholarship or even the very character of the quoted commentator. Of course, no man is infallible. But one who has studied the Bible, say, 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages just might be better equipped to get at the meaning of the Scriptures than one who hasn't devoted that much time and effort. But, these self-sufficient ones reason, don't listen to men who've spent years and years studying the Bible in the original languages. Instead harken unto the many Internet self-appointed Lone Ranger Bible experts who overpopulate this forum. They seem to think the rule of interpretation is not sola scriptura (Scripture only), but is instead solo scriptura (me and my Bible). The following quote from Spurgeon answers these odd notions better than I've ever seen them answered. *************************************** "In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. " - C. H. Spurgeon --Radioman2 |
||||||
16 | Why will God judge the church? | 1 Pet 4:17 | Radioman2 | 97386 | ||
Will God judge the church? And if so, why? Aren't we promised to be spared God's wrath in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9? Aren't we told in Romans 8:1 that those who are in Christ Jesus are not subject to condemnation? What does the apostle Peter mean in 1 Peter 4:17? |
||||||
17 | As you say, "there is nowhere in scriptu | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96431 | ||
As you say, "there is nowhere in scripture that an individual SEEKS the Holy Spirit and there is also nowhere in scripture where an individual is expecting to speak in tongues as evidence that He has come." Since this is not in Scripture, then WHY are there, in this day and age, *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? --Radioman2 |
||||||
18 | Where in Acts do you find individuals... | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96404 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If one cannot back up their answer with chapter and verse, then one has not answered the question. --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
19 | Where in Acts do you find individuals... | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96247 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If one cannot back up their answer with chapter and verse, then one has not answered the question. --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
20 | Where do you find individuals seeking | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96217 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |