Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: BigJohnUkraine Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Child may go to hell | Acts 4:12 | BigJohnUkraine | 176078 | ||
You bring up a good point. I appreciate the clarification. There certainly are those who reach such a conclusion through careful and diligent study, and the do deserve my respect. However, I am wearied by many others in our day who loudly proclaim positions which they affirm from association rather than investigation. I jumped to a conclusion in assuming that the person being referred to in the post was in this genre. Thanks for calling me on that. |
||||||
2 | How can you prove God exists? | Rom 1:20 | BigJohnUkraine | 175603 | ||
What often happens in debates of this type, whether formal or informal, is that the atheist attempts to place the entire burden of proof on the Christian, and the Christian usually accepts these terms without question. Now, certainly, the mass of evidence is on our side, but it can be very effective to shift the burden of proof from time to time. "So, you are absolutely convinced that there is no God? That's interesting to me. Could I ask you what evidence you found that was so irrefutable that it convinced you there is no God?" This question assumes that their denial of God was not simply due to emotional reasons or an attempt to excuse themselves from guilt, while that is often the case. I have found very few people that can answer such a question. One person said, "Common Sense" and "Logic". Well, then, the sense does not appear to be common, since I and many others do not share that. Furthermore, what is that logic? Some pay attempt to say that there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, but that just means that their position is indefensible by their own admission. If that is the case, then they should be sifting through the positive evidence for the existence of God and weighing the strength of that. A good question for this is, "How much time do you spend investigating this?" The answer is probably "not at all", which then infers that they are atheist because they want to be, not because there is any convincing evidence. |
||||||
3 | Man's days limited to 120 years | Gen 6:3 | BigJohnUkraine | 175409 | ||
It should be noted that there are two interpretations here. The first one is that man's age would be limited from then on to 120 years. The second is that in 120 years from that day, the Lord would destroy the earth (with a flood). The latter interpretation seems to make more sense, because there are people who were born after the flood that lived longer than that, and there was even a lady recently who celebrated her 128th birthday. I called my dad when I heard that to let him know he was now middle-aged (64). |
||||||
4 | The serpents curse | Gen 3:15 | BigJohnUkraine | 175404 | ||
That is an excellent question. I agree with BradK in that there appears to be no evidence that angels can procreate. If they could, then presumably God could have become an angel and redeemed the race of angels as well. Yet, this appears to be reserved to the race of mankind. I think it is proper to acknowledge that God did not give us a great deal of knowledge about angels. Certainly what He has revealed about Himself is infinitely more important. It seems, though, that there is a distinction in how terms could apply to different things. That Jesus is called the Son of God does not mean that God the Father had relations with God the Mother who then gave birth to God the Son. This is unthinkable for many reasons, and it's absurd because we are applying human constraints to deity. The Sonship of Christ is eternal. He never came into existence. He is, has always been, and always will be (Heb. 13:8, Rev. 1:8). By the same token, it would seem improper to ascribe human characteristics to angels. It appears likely that the "Seed" of Satan is referring to the host of other angels that followed him in his rebellion. Interestingly enough, there is a scene in "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson that likely refers to that passage. You may recall when the "Satan" figure is peering at Christ from among the crowd while carrying a young demonic-looking child with him. I think that is wholly inaccurate, but it's at least intriguing. I hope this helps. I wish you success in your quest to understand the Bible better. God bless you. |
||||||
5 | What does the word Begotten mean? | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175279 | ||
Thanks, Mark! I'm not in Ukraine right now, but I lived there for two years and continue to go back for short-term trips. I agree. Isaac is a pretty awesome picture of Christ! |
||||||
6 | What do you think the word "world" means | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175264 | ||
That is interesting that you believe that, but the important question is, "Why do you believe that?" What would prompt you in this instance to restrict the meaning of this word so much from its typical usage? When you look at the text, there doesn't seem to be any reason to do that. It really seems rather arbitrary to me. If Jesus meant "those who were predestined for salvation", it seems obvious that he would have used a different word altogether, such as "the elect", "the saints", "his own", or something like that. Two great exegetical questions are "Why WAS this word used?" and "Why WASN'T another word used?" If "the world" means "the elect", then why didn't Jesus use that word? |
||||||
7 | What do you think the word "world" means | John 3:16 | BigJohnUkraine | 175263 | ||
That is interesting that you believe that, but the important question is, "Why do you believe that?" What would prompt you in this instance to restrict the meaning of this word so much from its typical usage? When you look at the text, there doesn't seem to be any reason to do that. It really seems rather arbitrary to me. If Jesus meant "those who were predestined for salvation", it seems obvious that he would have used a different word altogether, such as "the elect", "the saints", "his own", or something like that. Two great exegetical questions are "Why WAS this word used?" and "Why WASN'T another word used?" If "the world" means "the elect", then why didn't Jesus use that word? |
||||||