Results 1 - 20 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Only one way to baptize? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 77534 | ||
Only one way to baptize? The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)." (http://www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
2 | Isn’t this playing with the text? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 79074 | ||
Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? | ||||||
3 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 79740 | ||
Here is another question we might ask: Often a verse or passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, yet it is left in a particular translation. Is it dishonest or unethical not to let the reader know that such a passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts? |
||||||
4 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 80734 | ||
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) |
||||||
5 | Are we back to the absurd view...? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 80850 | ||
Are we back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles? Many people, such as the KJV-Only advocates, are scared to death that someone might get hold of a so-called corrupt Bible translation that will somehow deceive them into committing apostasy or heresy. The inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, God's plan of salvation, the Second Coming of Christ, etc. can be proven using the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB, or any number of other translations. The idea that the same passage in one version will be translated to have an opposite meaning in another verison is pure nonsense. I see no need for people to become hysterical in their fierce opposition to this translation or their fanatical defense of that translation. Moreover, the differences in the wording of various translations is due more to the aim of the translators (to produce a word-for-word or thought-for thought translation) than to differences in the underlying Greek texts, which are minor. |
||||||
6 | Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 81554 | ||
Exposing Doctrinal Errors: Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? 'Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, that Christians are simply supposed to love one another and be united together in faith. Should we, therefore, regard as divisive those Christians who speak out against teachings in the church which are clearly unbiblical?' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0601.pdf) |
||||||
7 | Are all interpretations equal? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 81695 | ||
Some Things Are True - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'It is impossible to know the meaning of any written text. If this is true, log off the web now. If not, read this commentary to find out about self-refuting arguments.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Let me give you a picture of my world, by and large, at least as it touches this particular issue. My world is a world in which thinking matters, in which there is such a thing as truth, in which truth can be known and in which we use thinking to assess ideas to determine whether they are true or not. There's really not much room in my thinking system for comments like, Well, that's just your interpretation, or just your opinion, when the emphasis is on "just." Of course it's my interpretation. Of course it's my opinion, but it's not just those things in that I'm not simply sharing my point of view, I'm sharing my reasons why I have a point of view. 'Now it could be that my opinion or my interpretation is mistaken, but the only way for me to find out whether it's mistaken or not is to get at the reasons I draw the conclusions which form either my opinion or my interpretation. I don't believe that all opinions are equal. I don't believe that all interpretations are equal . . .' To read more go to: (www.str.org/cgi-bin/daily_commentary.pl) (Some Things are True by Gregory Koukl) |
||||||
8 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 81810 | ||
What about so-called revelation knowledge? 'Teachings of Kenneth Copeland 'FATALLY FLAWED 'Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can be attributed to the following four reasons. 'First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even to be led by GOOD SENSE" (emphasis in original). Copeland's statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not led by logic. He was not led by the mind." Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us REASON together." 'Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge (information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words (e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). 'Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, "I don't preach doctrine, I preach faith." Although he may not realize it, HIS PREACHING ON FAITH AND OTHER TOPICS DO IN FACT CONSTITUTE DOCTRINES, which combined form his theology (however inconsistent). He would do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice to "watch your life and your doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16). 'Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and disrespect for the historically established views of the church. Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God. However, it should be recognized that certain historically accepted views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine (e.g., the nature of faith, the nature of God, the nature of man, and the person and work of Jesus Christ), are significant, time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith. 'It is regrettable that someone so influential within contemporary Christianity continues to preach a message that overturns virtually every major biblical teaching. To date, Copeland refuses to discuss with his critics the issues raised in this article. We only hope that he will soon realize the dangerous road he is traveling. As Scripture warns, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). For now, Copeland, being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland by Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
9 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 81876 | ||
What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? (Latter-Rain) What in the world is "dominion theology"? And is it really consistent with the Bible? 'DOMINION THEOLOGY 'Dominion theology is associated with two distinct movements. In order to give an accurate assessment of this very controversial issue, I'll need to spend a few moments discussing the elements which characterize these two movements. [Reconstructionism] 'The first of these movements is known as "Reconstructionism," which arose within Reformed (Calvinistic) Christianity...Well, no matter how controversial you may think Reconstructionists are, the fact remains that this is a perfectly acceptable orthodox movement. ["Latter-Rain"] 'The same, however, cannot be said about "Kingdom Now Theology," which represents the other movement associated with dominion theology. This movement, popularized by Earl Paulk, basically boils down to a systematic presentation of what is commonly referred to as "Latter-Rain." Central to this system is the belief that since the time of the Reformation, God has progressively restored "truths" to the church. It also includes the view that the offices of apostle and prophet remain in effect to this very day, which is why submission to spiritual leaders is so heavily emphasized. Kingdom Now Theology also subscribes to the "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine, which holds the heretical position that the church is the incarnation of God and is therefore to "take dominion" -- politically and otherwise -- before Christ can return. For these and a host of other reasons, we strongly advise Christians to steer clear of Kingdom Now Theology.' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0606.pdf) |
||||||
10 | Spiritual death of Christ? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 83091 | ||
SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin...anybody can do that."63 Jesus supposedly "put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."64 Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam would die spiritually - that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death."65 He adds that "the day that Jesus was crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself."66 'During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off."67 We are told that Jesus "had to give up His righteousness"68 and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."69 'Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of God,"70 Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God" as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12). 'Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has "life in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity. 'Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in original).71 Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to suffer."72 'The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."73 However, Copeland explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."74 God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again - the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him - and He whipped the devil in his own backyard."75 'Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily resurrection - not some spiritual resuscitation in hell). 'Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed "over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John 19:30) - not by becoming a satanic being, but through His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22). ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
11 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 83160 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
12 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 83376 | ||
T or F? "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." 'Sloppy Slogans' 'There's nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff. 'Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain. 'One truism I've heard regarding the problem of God's sovereignty versus man's freedom goes something like this: "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done. 'For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn't make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn't even imply that God is a gentleman who won't interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite. 'Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it. 'Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.' ____________________ Faith and Philosophy by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org) |
||||||
13 | "Lost books" of the Bible? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 84417 | ||
Do the "lost books" of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? | ||||||
14 | Christians living in unbroken carnality? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 86992 | ||
What does the Bible teach concerning the notion that millions of Christians live in a state of unbroken carnality? Is such a notion biblical? In your answer, please include specific Scripture references. |
||||||
15 | Short version is not possible. Thank You | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 92952 | ||
It is not advisable to attempt to use this forum for counseling. Please contact a trusted family member or qualified counselor. | ||||||
16 | Inability? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 93663 | ||
JibbyJee: Congratulations! You have succeeded in being insulting and condescending to several of the most trusted, trustworthy, respected, proven, and scripturally accurate members of this forum. CAUTION: Posting to the Forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. Radioman2 |
||||||
17 | GOD TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS WHEN JESUS | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 93899 | ||
You won't find it in the Scriptures because it is not there. | ||||||
18 | GOD TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS WHEN JESUS | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 93903 | ||
You won't find it in the Scriptures because it is not there. | ||||||
19 | GOG TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS WHEN JESUS | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 93905 | ||
You won't find it in the Scriptures because it is not there. | ||||||
20 | is it wrong to date or marry outside of | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 94881 | ||
Chief Exponent of Name It and Claim It Frederick K. C. Price 'Fred Price is the most notable of a growing number of black prosperity preachers. His church in Los Angeles now claims some 16,000 members. He is seen nationally on television and has referred to himself as the "chief exponent of Name It and Claim It."[33] Price has added his own unique twists to Faith theology by asserting that Jesus took on the nature of Satan prior to the crucifixion[34] and by claiming that the Lord's Prayer is not for Christians today.[35] Despite telling his followers that he doesn't allow sickness in his home, Price's wife has been treated for cancer in her pelvic area.[36] Referring to his wealth, Price says the reason he drives a Rolls Royce is that he is following in Jesus' steps.[37]' ____________________ NOTES 33 Frederick K. C. Price, "Name It and Claim It! What Saith the WORD? . . ," Ever Increasing Faith Messenger, Summer 1989, 2. 34 Frederick K. C. Price, "Identification #3" (Inglewood, CA: Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, 1980), audio tape #FP545, side 1. 35 Frederick K. C. Price, personal correspondence, 14 October 1992. 36 Pat Hays, "Betty Price Speaks at 1991 'Wisdom from Above' Luncheon," Ever Increasing Faith Messenger, Winter 1992,12-13. 37 Frederick K. C. Price, Ever Increasing Faith (television program), TBN, 9 December 1990, available from Crenshaw Christian Center, Inglewood, CA (audio tape #CR-A2). (http://www.equip.org/free/DC755-1.htm) |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [66] >> |