Results 1 - 20 of 109
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should Christians Vote in elections? | Not Specified | Chris | 2636 | ||
Should Christians vote for their leaders? (Scriptural documentation, please.) | ||||||
2 | Sexual lust vs. other lusts of flesh? | Not Specified | Chris | 2758 | ||
Why is it that we are asked to overcome all sins of the flesh, with the exception of sexual lust? If we have this desire we should satisfy it in a Biblical manner (marry), but still it is treated differently than other lusts of the flesh, any ideas why? | ||||||
3 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Not Specified | Chris | 3600 | ||
I've caught the broadcasts for Benny Hinn and John Hagee this week, and it seems they are both speaking about 'Divine Healing'. Does anyone know if there is Scripture to support this theology? And, what about the 'Prosperity Gospel', any Scriptural documentation? Please give me your opinion! | ||||||
4 | Implications of Mat 17:20 vs I Cor 13:2? | Not Specified | Chris | 8670 | ||
Mat. 17:20 Vs I Cor 13:2; How are these verses to be interpreted in the light provided by each? Are the actions Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:1-3 possible? | ||||||
5 | Is I Cor. 13:2 possible vs. I Cor. 13:9? | Not Specified | Chris | 8782 | ||
In I Cor. 13, Paul says in vs 2, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and undertand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." But, in vss 9,10 he states, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." Is it possible to prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, or not? |
||||||
6 | Please add prayer requests in user info | Not Specified | Chris | 8783 | ||
I'd like to make a suggestion, we may already be doing this, but can we start putting are prayer requests in our user information? May requests are there, and I would appreciate any and all prayer in the name of our Lord Jesus! I hope many others will (are) doing the same:-) | ||||||
7 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2152 | ||
Many believe the best translation for study is the NASB. It is the most literal english translation, which is important for study. Many other translations are good. The King James and New King James are literal translations as well, but they use the received text, rather than the critical text. Most consider the critical as the closest to the original manuscript. The NKJV footnotes all major variations between the RT and CT, and it also considers another group of manuscripts called the majority text. So, this may be a good translation to study with, if you like constantly checking the footnotes for textual variations. (Actually all known manuscripts of the Bible agree around 85 percent of the time!) However, for a study in Revelation the RT has quite a few variations; for this reason I am currently using the NASB for study pruposes. For reading there are a number of other translations: NIV, CEV, NET, NLT, etc. Hope I helped more than I hurt!? God bless!! |
||||||
8 | Can someone tell me about original greek | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2533 | ||
There are three major groups of manuscripts; the Received Text (RT), the Critical Text (CT), and the Majority Text (MT). The KJV, and NKJV are both from the RT, and both are LITERAL translations, or the translators attempted word for word accuracy. The RT was composed of 6 greek manuscripts and the sections that were not available at the time in greek were translated back from the Latin Vulgate. (These translated section are the biggest problem with the RT, much of Revelation was missing and because of that there are many differences in Rev between the RT and the MT, CT.) The NKJV give footnotes for all variation between the RT, CT, and MT, but you spend most of your time in the margins! (slight exaggeration ;-) The RT also has some obvious additions, see 1Jn 5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (All added; in neither the CT nor the MT!) Wescott and Hort prepared the most widely used version of the CT. Critics of the CT say that the majority of the text is based upon two very old manuscripts (4th Century?!) both found in Eygpt. The problem with this is that at the time there is substantial Church Father writing to suggest that there was great apostasy in Eygpt. The Pro-CT folks say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. The two manuscripts disagree on many renderings which suggests there was no collusion, and if the two manuscripts agree, that must have been the original writing! Many translations use the CT: NASB, NIV, NRSV, etc. The MT is the last group, it is similar to the RT, but much more reliable because of the vastness of the manuscripts(hence, majority). Critics say that the manuscripts in the MT "evolve" towards agreement; thereby, eliminating descrepancies and difficult readings. Pro-MT folks say all the original letters with the exception of perhaps one (drawing a blank??) were sent to western Europe, so they would have the originals to correct any incorrect manuscripts. So, if the originals were compared to the copies every decade or so, the manuscripts in Eygpt would be more likely to have errors, and the majority of manuscripts would agree because as mistakes were found in manuscripts those manuscripts would be destroyed! Hotly debated topic! I prefer the MT; because, the CT eliminates Jn 7:53 - 8:11, I love that passage!! For further study see: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html (MT site; gives thorough and well reasoned arguments.), and NET Bible: (Dallas Theological Seminary) - http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/theology.htm(CT site) go to Bibliology (The Written Word) and click on anything that mentions the MT or KJV. (Very thorough, they really go at the MT!) You'll have to make up your own mind RevC, but a very good question. Unfortunately there is no main stream version using the MT, so our options are limited!(Though it doesn't seem that way with the vast amount of english translations!!) Hope this helps, those websites are great! You may want to put the NET Bible site on you Fav's, great theological site!! GOD bless! Chris |
||||||
9 | Holman Bible: Critical or Majority Text? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2534 | ||
Hey Hank, what group of greek manscripts did the translators use for the Holman Bible; Critical Text or Majority Text? | ||||||
10 | Why not Jesus' words in Red? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2675 | ||
My personal reason (silly as it may be) is that in the Bibles I buy (even Zondervan) the red print is faded in some areas. This is distracting, espescially when the print is blood red on one page and you turn to the next and it is so faded you can't make out the words! For a more mature and reasoned answer, I believe the primary reason is that all Scripture is inspired, so it all comes from GOD. It is possible, and I have seen this happen, that those that don't know much about their faith, or what they think is their faith, believe that the words in red mean more than the rest of the NT. Especially for some of the controversial topics spoken of by Paul in his letters. I still use red-letter but I know some that don't. GOD bless! |
||||||
11 | Did you know? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2768 | ||
That is great!! the LORD truly is doing a wonderful work!! GOD bless!! chris | ||||||
12 | Use Info Update? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2770 | ||
I updated mine charis, but it Info was on the left side of the screen for me. Thanks, GOD bless!! chris | ||||||
13 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2874 | ||
I believe in a Pre-Trib rapture based upon I Thessalonians 5:2. As I read it, Jesus will not come as a, "theif in the night" at the second coming. He will come as the dominating ruling of the universe and everyone will see Him, and those who oppose Him will fear! The rapture doctrine is based upon a 'gap' in the Biblical information. Why do so many of the apostles and the Lord, himself, emphasize the idea of Jesus' immenint return as a theif in the night, if at the second coming all the world will see Him? (Mat. 24:30) What about the parable of the ten virgins? Notice, the bridegroom took in the PRUDENT virgins (believers) and left the foolish outside! (Mat. 25:1-10) And, lastly if we were to look for the anti-christ the apostles would tell us to look for him, not our Lord! | ||||||
14 | RE: "immenint return" in first answer | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3072 | ||
I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness!) Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.) |
||||||
15 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3112 | ||
But you avoid the problem. What about the scriptures that show that Paul 'thought' he would be alive at the Lord's return? I am not predicting anything, suggesting that I did is somewhat insulting. I am saying that NOTHING is holding our Lord back! He could come at ANY time, I never said a specific time! This, I believe is taught in scripture. Yes, at the end of their lives Paul and Peter knew they where going to die, and the fact that Peter had to include that section(2Pet. 3:4-8) in his second letter PROVES MY POINT!! Why would he have to say, "the Lord is not slack in His promise" if people where not saying that it should have already occured! Since it had not occurred, people were saying that it was not going to occur! You're correct! It is not for us to know times, but the Bible says clearly, BE ON THE LOOK OUT!! It says this because Jesus COULD come back at any minute! That is why, when the apostles were alive they thought that He would come during their own lifetimes. We should live everyday of our lives expecting the Lord to come, that day! In constant expectation! Do you see what I am saying and what I am not saying? There will be no predictions out of this mouth (or address, as it were!) Let me know what you think, do you have a profile? If not fill one out!! GOD bless!! |
||||||
16 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3172 | ||
You speak of TRUTH; however, you hide your eyes as not to see! If our interpretation of these scriptures are wrong, please correct us. I've given you 5 to 10 verses in the BIBLE (i.e. TRUTH), so if the interpretation I use is incorrect then you must know the correct one! Your view of Inspiration is difficult to understand. So, when Jesus said, "And what I say to you I say to all; Watch!" (Mk. 13:37) He must have, according to your interpretation, made a mistake; because, he told the apostles to WATCH for His return and it didn't take place! What is your procedure for eliminating verses from the Bible? Do you mark them out in red or white them out? What do you do? I apologize, but I truly don't understand your way of interpreting scripture! If it is true that Christ could come back at anytime would it still be an error to expect or, at least, hope for His return? And, if Paul knew, when he was alive, that it was indeed possible for Christ to come back during his life would it be wrong to expect or hope that Christ would come back in his(Paul's) lifetime? (Notice, in no verse in the BIBLE does Paul say, "I WILL be alive when he comes." But only when giving a demonstration of what will happen at the Lord's return, and since, I believe, he thought it could happen at anytime, he of course included himself in with the living; because, he was, at that time, alive! The fact that he demonstrates a TRUTH through an example that happened at that time shows he thought it could happen at that time, but giving an example of something in the year 60 AD, when the event could take place at anytime is not an error! It is simply giving the example under current conditions. If I were to say to you, if I were standing here when a nuclear bomb hit, I would be burned up! If a nuclear bomb hit when I wasn't there, would that make my statement untrue? No, what I said was still accurate, I just wouldn't be burned up; because, I was not in that spot.) I don't see this as an error, only proof of expectation! That expectation is the TRUTH! Paul, James, John, and the writer of Hebrews, in my opinion, suggest by their writings that they expected Christ to return during their lifetimes! Please notice John 21:20-23, would John be incorrect in thinking he MIGHT live to see the return of our Lord? If that EXPECTATION would have made him wrong then our Lord MISLED him. And, I think we both would agree that our Lord could not do that; because, as you said, GOD is Truth! I must say that this debate is interesting and your points are note worthy, but I think it profits us little. I love you in Christ, whatever you believe, but if it be the will of GOD for us to disagree on this subject, so be His will! Please let me know if I've misrepresented anything in this message, and I would love to hear your continued opinions on this subject, but I do surrender for the sake of dissapation. GOD bless! |
||||||
17 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3181 | ||
Sorry, last comment: You said; "If John had interpreted that as teaching the "imminent return" as meaning that Lord could come back any day now, John's interpretation would be incorrect." To say someone 'could' do something is not the same as saying, someone 'will' do something. If our Lord wanted to take all of the sea out of the Sea of Galilee 'could' he have done it? OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE!! Just because He did not, does not mean He could not! You said, "We have 2000 years plus or minus of proof that Jesus' coming could not have occurred to date, because He did not come." If I would have wanted to, could I have stuffed myself full of choclate yesterday? Yes, I could have, but I didn't! This does not imply that I was unable at that time, it only implies that I, in fact, did not. And, I quoted several scriptures, not just one. I apologize again! GOD bless! |
||||||
18 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3237 | ||
Sam, I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. I want to preface my comment, with a realization of the debate between Mike and myself. I truly have been blind to an important fact during our debate! As you probably noticed, Mike made it very clear that GOD's time schedule does not allow for immanent return, and for some reason I was blind to the fact that this was a major sticking point, that needed to be rectified. I agree with Mike fully, there is no such thing as immanent return for GOD! He knows everything! And, if you like Charles Stanley, you've probably heard that GOD cannot have expectations; because, He already knows the outcome. Immanent return is only relevant in Man's realm of time and space. Man does not know when the Lord will return, so he must always be looking for the Lord. This problem was clearly stated by Mike, but unfortunately, I was oblivious to this important point of contention. And, to note the difference is crucial! Immanent return is an idea that only exists in the limited time and limited knowledge in the realm of man. The reason I write is because I don't think I understand your comment. You say that all christians, in the past, who have believed in immanent return were wrong, but they were only wrong if it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have returned at that time. I assume that GOD is and was free to choose ANYTIME to send our Lord back to earth. Therefore, if GOD can choose anytime to send Jesus back or could have chose anytime in the past to send Him back, they were, in fact, correct in thinking that Christ COULD have come back during their lifetimes. Immanent return does not mean Christ WILL come back immediately, only that He COULD come back at anytime (which COULD be soon or even today). And, since I believe we would agree that NOTHING IS (or ever has been) IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD; He could have sent Jesus back in the past if He would have chosen to do so. So, for the sake of not 'being caught unprepared' our christian forefathers were, in my opinion, correct in keeping their heads up looking for Jesus. Notice, that immanent return is not to blame for any of the faulty predictions made in days past. The idea does not espouse a date for the return and in fact, suggests the opposite, since we CANNOT know the date we should always be on the look out; because, our Lord said, 'I am coming quickly!' |
||||||
19 | RE: "immenint return" in first answer | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3241 | ||
Lifer1J511 I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your (and everyone else's who may read this debate) forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. In response to your comment, I copied this message from a previous corrospondence; I have added an explanation or two of the comments, so if you have already read it, look for (**) before and after the new comments. I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness! **My interpretation of this verse has been questioned, so I will try to defend it, I believe that when we die, WE GO to be with the Lord, I believe Paul teaches this clearly in Philippians 1:23, ‘But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better:' It seems to me, that Paul is strongly implying that if he would have died in prison, he would immediately GO and be with Christ. Why is that important? If John were not talking about the return of Christ when he used ‘we' in include himself, then Christ would not be manifested, but John would GO and be with the Lord, rather than the other way around. So, the fact that John includes himself being present and having boldness before Him he must be talking about if he were alive when Christ came, not when he died and went to be with the Lord. And, some might also suggest that John may have thought that he would live for an extended period of time because the Lord said that he might, but again, if that were the case he would use ‘I' not ‘we' to include people other than himself.**) **This comment made by our Lord** Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.) |
||||||
20 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6855 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |