Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Shythiyl Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Love other than Agape, conditional? | 1 Cor 13:1 | Shythiyl | 167623 | ||
It is my understanding there are 5 Greek words for the word love, 4 definitions of which I can recall. Godly, marital, parental and brotherly. You state, "Agape (which I know as Godly love) is the love that expects nothing back." I can't picture "ANY" true love, as a love which expects anything back. I don't consider "love" as being conditional. I know that Agape is the only perfect love, but Searcher56, can you Please elaborate on your comment. |
||||||
2 | unnessisary brain strain... | Acts 13:22 | Shythiyl | 165896 | ||
Thank you for such words. Your name, combined with these words puts me in mind of a "spiritual Doctor." Would you please expound on your comment "Since Absalom had slept ...., if David had had relations with them it would have been adulterous. This seems to me, to say that, if one were to sleep with anothers wife, even if it were not with the wifes concent, for the husband of that wife to sleep with her again, would be adultry, but then we are not talking about a wife, but a concubine which, as you stated in not so many words, is no longer permissable. If 3 pluss 5 equals 8. Why does 4 pluss 4 not equal 8? But then 4 is no longer 4. It is now the square root of 16, but then, what is that square root, if not 4? I was never good at that kind of math, for I see absolutely no ryme or reason to it. Perhaps this one of those a/b equals 4 equasions. If this is the case, why can (a) and (b) not be 16 and 4? I know it could also be 200 and 50, but WHY CAN'T THE CORRECT ANSWER STILL NOT BE AS I HAVE STATED???? Whew... I'm getting a little dizzy headed with all this unnessisary brain strain... |
||||||
3 | faith in the truth | Matt 24:6 | Shythiyl | 165753 | ||
"Faith in the truth." ID# 165749 Such a glowing statement. Yet how can the many have faith in the truth, when they have no faith in themselves? They so adamantly refuse to reconize that truth. "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God." I find myself teaching and preaching the truth of scripture. It seems I have started in the middle. Jesus Christ, and the Salvation He provides, is the end. Yet, it is only the beginning. The law is the beginning of salvation, for we would not know sin, were it not for the law of God. How can I convince anyone of "the truth," that they are in dire need of the salvation Jesus provides, without first convincing them of their guilt? |
||||||
4 | We have seen Jesus... | 1 Timothy | Shythiyl | 165224 | ||
In having read the book umpteen times over the past 1/2 centry, apon my most recient re-reading of it, a thought just came to mind. Keep in mind John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Now consider what Jesus states in John 14:21. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." “And will manifest (show) myself to him.” Now... My thought is, "He has manifest Himself to me in His word." I believe, but have yet researched it, that scripture states something to this affect, elsewhere. Many take this passage literally. I firmly believe that, just like the rest of scripture, depending on the specific circumstances, this passage can be taken either way. literally or figuratively. Having no desire to get into a doctrinal discussion on the matter, I would like to ask, what passages you would provide in support, or contrast to this thought? |
||||||
5 | Context versus what is translated. | 1 Sam 25:22 | Shythiyl | 164997 | ||
King James translates 1Sa 25:22, "So and more also may God do to the enemies of David, if I leave to the light of the morning any that is his of one who urinates against the wall." NASB; "May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave as much as one male of any who belong to him." I can understand the variance in the discription of the male. What has me confused is the use of the word "enemies" ( 'oyeb ) This appears to me, to be totally out of context with the thoughts of the passage. NIV translates; " May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him!" This seems to be more fitting to the context, Yet in the original transcripts, the word "enemy" ('oyeb ) is used." I know that there is no perfect translation and that, if it is important enough, my Lord will give me an answer in His own time. He has never failed me. But I am curious. Can someone shed some light on this subject? Please forgive me, I am not asking for opinions. I seek knowlege and understanding. |
||||||