Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Ron Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Woman preachers? | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 58768 | ||
I don't think this is the right question. The question should be, "where does the Bible authorize woman preachers?" (see Colossians 1:17) I can't find anywhere where it authorizes women to publically preach. | ||||||
2 | Why should women be silent in churches? | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ron | 58764 | ||
Not to try to be "smart," but it is because Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said for them to. I suppose you are refering back to Mary and Elizebeth when you say "women were the first to proclaim the gospel." However, was that a public proclaimation? Was it in the worship assembly of the saints as 1 Corinthians 14:34 is dealing with? There is one thing for sure, women cannot go wrong if they follow Paul's admonition. But what if they don't follow it? | ||||||
3 | what happened to souls BC? | Bible general Archive 1 | Ron | 58760 | ||
In answer to your first question, Luke 16:19-31 answers it. They are in the Hadean realm. The righteous in what is called "the bosom of Abraham" (LITV). | ||||||
4 | Luke 10:18 before or after Gen 1:1 ? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 58746 | ||
The event in Luke 10:18 occured when the demons were subjected to the seventy (verse 17). It is figurative language indicating Satan's power being overcome by their casting out demons and their preaching. | ||||||
5 | Did this occur before Gen 1:1 or after? | Is 14:12 | Ron | 58619 | ||
After. It's speaking of the King of Babylon. Read verse 4. "Falling from heaven" or literally "from the heavens" is figurative language describing the King's fall from power. | ||||||
6 | what does water refer to? | John 3:5 | Ron | 58617 | ||
Please read the following study on baptism http://www.geocities.com/w4et.geo/baptism1.htm It answers the question concerning John 3:5. |
||||||
7 | Is the Law abolished or not? | Eph 2:15 | Ron | 58609 | ||
This is one of the unfortunate problems with some of the new versions of the Bible. The KJV renders the word "abolish" in Matthew 5:17 as "destroy" and the word in Eph. 2:15 as abolished. The words translated "abolish" and "abolishing" in the new versions are actually two different Greek words. The word in Matthew 5:17 is kataluo which Thayer defines as: "to destroy, demolish, overthrow" etc... The word in Eph. 2:15 is katargeo which Thayer defines as: "to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative 1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency 1b) to deprive of force, influence, power." Jesus did not come to destroy the Law but He did render it inactive in the sense that "he took it out of the way nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14). In other words, Jesus did not come to destroy the Old Covenant but to fulfill it, and He did this by establishing His New Covenant which would necessarily render the Old Covenant without force. It is unfortunate that many of the new versions of the Bible make Paul contradict Jesus by rendering both words by the same English word. |
||||||
8 | God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 552 | ||
Verse 5 uses the word too, in reference to Job's sons. Verse 6 and verses 4 and 5 use the word "ben" which means sons. Do we not "stand before" God when we worship Him? You misunderstood. I did not interpret the "sons of God" in verse 6 to mean Job's sons, although if they were worshipers of God they may have been there too. In worship, God is the audience since it is He whom we worship. We literally "stand before" Him to offer our worship to Him. Thus, your objection doesn't seem reasonable. You well stated the reason I object to the NIV. It is a "thought for thought" translation rather than a word for word translation. Of course, I believe in verbal inspiration. By that I mean that each word placed in the original manuscripts originated with God. Or, to be more exact, every word placed in the Bible was placed there by God through inspired men (2 Peter 2:21; 1 Corinthians 2:13). If this is so (as I firmly believe) then a "thought for thought" translation injects man's words into the text and is unreliable. In fact, it is not a translation at all. It is a paraphrase of what the person "thinks" the writer is thinking. If you translate "word for word" at least you have the words the Holy Spirit gave. There are very few words in the Bible where there is debate as to what English word(s) is to be used to give an exact meaning of the original word. "ben" means son and the phrase in verse 6 means "sons of God." Why not translate it like that and then let the reader figure out what it means from the context, rather than injecting man's word in it by using the word "angels" or the phrase "heavenly beings"? Also, we need to let the Bible interpret itself. Look the word (phrase) up and see how it is used in other passages. That will help in determining how the Bible uses it in general and may help interpret what it means in the context you are studying. |
||||||
9 | God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 551 | ||
Verse 5 uses the word too, in reference to Job's sons. Verse 6 and verses 4 and 5 use the word "ben" which means sons. Do we not "stand before" God when we worship Him? You misunderstood. I did not interpret the "sons of God" in verse 6 to mean Job's sons, although if they were worshipers of God they may have been there too. In worship, God is the audience since it is He whom we worship. We literally "stand before" Him to offer our worship to Him. Thus, your objection doesn't seem reasonable. You well stated the reason I object to the NIV. It is a "thought for thought" translation rather than a word for word translation. Of course, I believe in verbal inspiration. By that I mean that each word placed in the original manuscripts originated with God. Or, to be more exact, every word placed in the Bible was placed there by God through inspired men (2 Peter 2:21; 1 Corinthians 2:13). If this is so (as I firmly believe) then a "thought for thought" translation injects man's words into the text and is unreliable. In fact, it is not a translation at all. It is a paraphrase of what the person "thinks" the writer is thinking. If you translate "word for word" at least you have the words the Holy Spirit gave. There are very few words in the Bible where there is debate as to what English word(s) is to be used to give an exact meaning of the original word. "ben" means son and the phrase in verse 6 means "sons of God." Why not translate it like that and then let the reader figure out what it means from the context, rather than injecting man's word in it by using the word "angels" or the phrase "heavenly beings"? Also, we need to let the Bible interpret itself. Look the word (phrase) up and see how it is used in other passages. That will help in determining how the Bible uses it in general and may help interpret what it means in the context you are studying. |
||||||
10 | Who are the sons and daughters? | Gen 6:4 | Ron | 206 | ||
The sons of God refer to the descendents of Seth who were righteous and the daughters of men refer to the descendents of Cain who were wicked. | ||||||
11 | where was good hell b4 Abrahams bossom? | Luke 16:19 | Ron | 205 | ||
The answer is found in Luke 16:19ff. The "hell" there is literally "hades" defined as "the place of the unseen." Evidently hades consists of two compartments or parts, one of which is torment and the other one paradise. The events depicted in Luke 16:19ff took place while the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant) was still in effect. Thus, the righteous entered the same place as Lazarus did and the wicked entered the same place the rich man did when they died. This is how it has been from the beginning of creation. | ||||||