Results 1 - 20 of 39
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: koinekid Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should we call gov;t leaders' sin sin? | Not Specified | koinekid | 15688 | ||
Based on Romans 13, should Christians offer absolute deference to the government to the point of refraining from pointing out the sinfulness of personal actions of governmental officials, i.e., ignore the sexual exploits of former President Clinton and Senator Condit? I've been engaged in an e-mail debate with the author of an inflamatory book on the subject (who would go so far to say that Christians should avoid voting since God appoints governmental leaders), and would like some input from fellow believers. Any answers would be appreciated. Thanks, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working toward the glory of God and the salvation of man. |
||||||
2 | Agree now? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4366 | ||
The passage used to suggest that Jesus descended to hell of death is Ephesians 4:8-10. This can be interpreted one of two ways. Either, this took place between Christ's death and his resurrection and refers to the a descension from earth to Hades, or it took place at the time of his incarnation and refers to his descension from heaven to earth. Remember also that this is Paul's analysis of a quote from Psalm 68:18. Be sure to take that into consideration when you are interpreting the passage. In Christ, Koinekid |
||||||
3 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4367 | ||
Mary, His mother, was descended from David. You can find her geneaology in Luke 3 (Most people think that Joseph is considered the son of Eli in the sense that Eli was his father in law.) In Christ, Koinekid |
||||||
4 | DINOSURES OR ALIENS IN BIBLE ? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4419 | ||
In the book of Job there are references to two strange creatures: the behemoth and the leviathan. Classical interpretation has taken these to be references to dinosaurs. Some Modern interpretators, have say that these behemoth is a hippo or an elephant, and that the leviathan refers to a crocodile. However, let's look as the passages in question. Behemoth Read Job 41:15-24. It seems very odd to think that this creature is a dinosaur. Leviathan Job 3:8 Let those curse it who curse the day, Who are prepared to rouse Leviathan. Job 41:1 1 Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? Psalm 74:14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. Psalm 104:26 There the ships move along, And Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it. Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea. Notice: crocodiles do not live in the sea. Therefore how can leviathan be a crocodile? I encourage you to read all of Job 41. This is most definitely not a crocodile. As for otherworldly beings, there is no Scriptural evidence for their existence. I once had a teacher suggest that Jesus' comment that He had sheep of another flock might suggest aliend. However, it's abundantly clear that He's talking about Gentiles there, so please don't do something like that, bud. In Christ, Koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||
5 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4613 | ||
Actually, both the italicized words and the capitalized words result from the translation. Capitalized words in the New Testament mean that the words are a quote or aparaphrase from the Old Testament. Italicized words are words that do not exist in the Greek or Hebrew text, but were added to help the text make more sense in English. Neither is used for emphaisis. In Christ, Koinekid Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability. |
||||||
6 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4726 | ||
rexar, Sorry, I'm still getting used to the layout of the forum and did not see the posts that had come before. A little insight into the history of the discussion would have helped me answer more accurately. Basically, no, I do not believe that the italicized "He" takes away from Jesus' words. Take John 8:24 for example. Jesus said, "...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In Greek the phrase I am is Ego eimi. It is basically what we would call a transitive verb in English, that is, it has to have a direct object or a predicate nominative, or something like that. In essence, the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought. This noun can be in the text or spelled out. In this case, the translators went witht the safe interpretation, "He." They could have inserted "God", or "Messiah", but this would have required more interpretation that translation. Is this, however, an occasion where Jesus is expressing his deity once more? Maybe. Is is an important question? Sure. But I'm just glas that the deity of Christ is expressed outright in other passages, so we do not have to rely on the interpretation of these solely. Forgive me if this information has been written before, but I haven't been able to read the other posts. Also, I'd try to go into more detail, but I'm a little tired, and I've got a toothache. God bless. In Christ, koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||
7 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15876 | ||
It depends on what you mean by good. Are you looking for a highly accurate version, or a more readable version? What texts do you believe a Bible must be translated from in order to be a good translation (Byzantine, Received, or Nestle Aland/United Bible Societies)? Check out the following pages for some ideas http://www.dtl.org/versions/index.html http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/ In Christ, koinekid |
||||||
8 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15901 | ||
I agree with the statement that a translation does not need to follow Greek word order and sentence structure and translate word for word in order to be an accurate text. However, it must stay accurate to the original text as much as possible. For instance the Greek phrase "kata hemeran" means literally "according to the day." However, we understand it to mean in English "daily." Translating this phrase as "daily" does no harm to the text. However, the NIV has a practice of changing words (like substituting "Jesus and the disciples" for "they", etc.) and removing relative pronouns without indicating it. This may be an accurate explanation of what is happening in a particular passage, but it is not an accurate translation of the Greek text. The result is a very readable text, but one that is not as accurate as it could be. Frequently the NIV sacrifices accuracy for readability. For a highly accurate and highly readable version I would recommend the New King James Version. In addition, the World English Bible is also a very accurate and readable translation. And if you're looking for accuracy, try the NASB, the LITV, or the Analytical-Literal Translation (www.dtl.org) In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
9 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15935 | ||
kalos, Thanks for the response, and God bless you as you continue to post on this forum. I too agree with much of what your post says, however our two statements "sacrificing accuracy for readability", and "sacrificing overly woodenness for readability" are very different. I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. Translating "they" when the Greek text has "they" does not denote woodenness in the translation. It denotes faithfulness to the text. Could an argument be made that since the Greek language makes extensive usage of pronouns and conjunctions, and the English does not, these could be dropped without altering the overall meaning of the passage. Certainly the argument could be made. But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. I am not attempting to start a Bible versions debate on this forum. There are other places on the net for such things. I am simply stating what I perceive the facts to be. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
10 | fallen angels called Nephlims and unicor | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15938 | ||
Nephilim The Bible says that there were nephilim on earth in the days prior to the flood (Gen. 6) Since in the same passage there is a reference to the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men", many have concluded that these nephilim were the offspring of demons mating with humans. However, this need not be the case. There are generally three interpretations to the sons of God marrying the daughters of men: 1) The sons of God (not the nephilim) were fallen angels, that is, demons, who mated with human females to create these monstrous offspring. There are variations on this view, such as, the view that demons possessed the men or women and they mated, then raised their children in an ungodly manner. 2) The sons of God were the Godly descendants of Seth and the daughters of men were the ungodly line of Cain. They marry and raise their chidlren in an ungodly manner (Note: the Scripture does not say clearly that the nephilim were the byproduct of the union of the sons of God and daughters of men, so this view is possible). 3) The sons of God were a dynasty of kings in the line of Cain. The children they had were mighty men, in the sense that they had great accomplishments. Were these nephilim giant offspring of demons cohabiting with women? The problem is that the word is also used in twice in Numbers 13:33 to indicate giants that were in no way (as far as we can tell) related to the nephilim of Genesis 6. However the root of Nephilim means "to fall", so that leaves room, albeit not much, for the Nephilim to be classified as the fallen ones (the demons). Most commentators have included that it is impossible to know which of these views is correct at this time. Personally I go with the second view for a number of reasons that I will share if requested. I recommend the book Paradise to Prison by John Davis. He gives an excellent and brief treatment of the subject. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
11 | Let unite in prayer believers in Christ! | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15943 | ||
Lord God, may these affected by these tragedies seek and find answers, hope, love, and support in You. May Your people be senstive to Your Spirit and make themselves availabe. AT Liberty we're having a special prayer meeting at 2 PM. I urge you all to join with us at this time. PRAY!!! I beg of you. PRAY!!! |
||||||
12 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16091 | ||
bjanko, I assure you that nothing derogatory was meant by my statement. "You write," Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity." That doesn't mean I'm using speaking with impunity. I am not. I'm simply stating facts (the NIV does not tell us when it removes relative pronouns or articles) and rendering opinions based on these facts (this is not faithful to the original Greek text). The NIV does not accurately convey the Greek text itself. You wrote, "Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original." That is exactly my point. In order to make the text more readable the NIV sacrifice accuracy. The NASB is more accurate because it sticks closer to the original. This is all I am saying. I'll be blunt. I prefer many translations over the NIV, but that doesn't mean I hate it. I would encourage the believers to use other translations (when studying Scripture at least), but will not condemn anyone for using it. My favorite Old Testament professor at Liberty reads the NIV, studies from the NASB, and teaches from the KJV. I read from the NKJV and NLT, study from the NKJV, KJV, and original Greek, and teach from the NKJV. He is twice the scholar I am and then some, and he reads from the NIV. I would recommend for someone who desires to read an accurate translation of the originals to use the NKJV Greek - English Interlinear New Testament (It's not the NKJV text itself, but a word for word translation from the Majority Text). I don't possess one, but have heard wonderful things. Another good resource is Interlinear Hebrew - Greek - English Bible edited by Jay Green. The NT is based on the TR and the OT on the Masoretic text. God bless In Christ koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
13 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16105 | ||
Blessings and peace to you as well. koinekid |
||||||
14 | admit | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16183 | ||
Peches You write "We to must open the forum to discussions based on our experiences with the creator so that the generations to follow will understand from a spiritual perspective as to existence of the Creator." That's not the purpose of this forum. There's a reason this forum is not called "Christian Debate" or something like it. It is called "StudyBibleForum.com" because its purpose is for believers to ask questions about and receive answers from the Bible. You write "You and I both are in search of the ultimate question of who God is. Where did God come from?" Peches, we've found that answer. God has revealed Himself through His Word and His Son. And His Spirit helps those He redeems to understand this revelation. Scripture does not reveal the origin of God because He has none. He is the ultimate first cause. (Feel free to ask me about this in the future). :-) Are there other revelations such as nature, conscience, etc.? Yes, God's works are evident in nature. The nature of man, including his conscience, is an indication of the works of God. However, these lower revelations are not a good basis for knowing and learning about God. The "discoveries" you can make about God outside of Scripture must always be examined on the basis of Scripture, and they must never contradict Scripture. If they do, they are false. Peches, I hope as you read and study Scripture, God will reveal himself to you and that you will reach that understanding you are seeking. God bless you. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
15 | how many books in bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 17777 | ||
mah, how many books in bible? There are sixty-six books in the English Bible. what is the bible? Quoting from the Baptist Faith and Message "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." In other words, the Bible is the book in which God our Creator reveals to us, His creations who He is, and what He expects from us. This book reveals how man, who was created perfect, fell into sin. It reveals God's provision to save man from the consequences of His sin--eternity in hell--by sending His Son to die for all their sin. It reveals the sinless life of Jesus, His death for us, His resurrection, and His second coming. It reveals the only way for man to receive salvation. how can such an ancient book as the bible be called a contemporary book? The Bible is the only book that faithfully reveals man's origins. If you don't know where you caome from, you can't know where you are going or how you should live. The Bible is the only book that reveals the true path of salvation. The Bible is the only book that truthfully reveals the future. A book that reveals tomorrow's news is more than current, wouldn't you say? There are a few verses in the Bible that provide insight into this question. The book of Ecclesiastes says that there is nothing new under the sun. This is true. 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that every temptation we face has been faced by many people before us. This is also true. In other words, as long as human nature stays the same, the Bible will stay relevant. The issues it addresses are issues that are important to every human who has ever or will ever live. A book that teaches its readers how to live will never be irrelevant. God bless, In Christ (2. Cor. 5:17), koinekid |
||||||
16 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 4618 | ||
There is an old quote that says, "When the common sense of Scripture makes perfect sense, seek no other sense." That is the sense in which we should take the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The Bible presents these chapters in narrative form. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...And there was evening and there was morning one day." The Bible says that God created the world in six days. In Hebrew, the word day is yom. Except when accompanied with a qualifying word, yom always refers to one literal 24-hour day. For instance, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, not the Age of Atonement. Two verses are often used to suggest that a day equals an age of approximately one thousand years: Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8. However, these verses do not suggest the Day Age theory. They are only used to support. The proper context does not refer to lenght of creation. In Psalms it illustrates the fact that God has never abandoned Israel, and has always been faithful to them. In 2 Peter it illustrates the fact that God works on a different time-table than us. He fulfills his promised at the best possible time,even thought we may not recognize this. Theories which attempt to say that a "day" is equivalent to an "age" are attempting to reconcile so-called scientific evidence with Scriptures. This is a dangerous practice. Scripture must always be held in the highest esteem, far above the esteem we grant to science or history. What it comes down to is, will you believe main-stream science or the Word of God. A sidenote, there is no real evidence for macroevolution (change from one species to another). All the evidence we have interpreted properly and without bias indicates a young earth that was created not evolved. In Christ, Koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||
17 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17110 | ||
If it was unrevealed, how do you know about it? :) koinekid |
||||||
18 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17111 | ||
There is no Scriptural evidence for the Ruin-Restoration Theory. It came about during the time of Darwin and as an attempt to reconcile the Scriptural account of the origin of universe with the popularization of Darwinism. There are many good arguments against such a theory, and if it becomes necessary, I will write them here. Suffice it to say, that if this world were built upon thousands or even millions of years of death and destruction, how could God proclaim it very good (Gen. 1:31) It would be like saying, "This world of lush vegation, wondrous animals, and righteous man founded on the graves of soulless Godless creatures that look like man, millions of dead animals, and decimated flood-destroyed landscapes is VERY good. Highly unlikely. God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability and Relevacny: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
19 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17775 | ||
You write "In this verse, the heavens and the earth refer to the whole universe created by God, out of nothing, in the distant past" However, there is no time distinction between verses one and two of Gen. 1. So any suggestion that there is a great gap of time between these verses is nothing more than speculation, and ungrounded speculation at that. You write "So beyond Gen.1: 1 God is revealing to man only about the earth. " This is simply unscriptural. Genesis 1:14-19 clearly tell of the creation (not the appearing as some claim) of the sun, moon, and stars, events which clearly took place in space. You write "In Gen. 1: 2 the second verse, we see clearly that the earth existing in a ruined condition." No, we do not. We see in Genesis 1:2 a world that was (not became) formless and void, that is, it had just been made, and, therefore, lacked the features such as plants, that existed a week later. You write "1) The EARTH ALONE is mentioned from this verse onwards." As I demonstrated above, this is untrue. You write "2) God did not start His creative activity from such a ruined condition. The word CREATED, in the first verse means creation OUT OF NOTHING. So it is clear that an unrevealed length of time has elapsed between Gen.1: 1 and Gen.1: 2. This period of time may be a number of ages." The Hebrew word in Gen. 1:1 is indeed "bara." And most of the creative events int he rest of the chapter are from the Hebrew "asah." However, there are two more instances of "bara" in chapter 1. The sea creatures are created ("bara") not made. So by your reckoning, God created the universe from nothing in the distant past, then made the earth and everything else from pre-existing material. But for some reason he decided to create the fish out of nothing. Doesn't make much sense. Moreover, Gen. 1:26-27 reports that God both created (bara) and made (asah) man. So by your reckoning God both created man from pre-existing material and out of nothing. Is this the case, or are you just recognizing a distinction between Hebrew synonyms that God Himself does not recognize. Yopu write "3) In this verse we see that the earth was (became) in a ruined condition, without form, void, in darkness and filled with waters (death)." No, we don't. This is nowhere suggested in Genesis. And please, show me one other instance in Scripture where waters symbolize death. You write "4) The Spirit of God moved (fluttered) without rest in relation to the ruined condition of the earth."" "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." How exactly did you discern the Spirit's thoughts and attitudes at this time, seeing they are not mentioned in the passage? In conclusion, I cannot allow for a gap in Scripture where one does not exist. It is not Scripture that suggests a gap. It is the system of faith and pseudo-science known as evolution. True Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I will believe in the Scriptures alone, or I will believe in nothing at all. God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scripural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
20 | I'm sorry, what? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 19013 | ||
Nicholson, I'm sorry, but I don't see what any of this has to do with creation of the age of the earth. I think you are indicating that the sun, moon, and stars appeared on day four, instead of being created on that day. Your reasoning "appears" (appears, get it :-) ) to be based on the rest of the six days having to do with earth-based Creation. However, this is simply reasoning. It is not qualified Biblically. As to what baptism, the flood, 2 Corinthians 3, or the final consummation of all things (which takes place not in the millennial kingdom of Rev. 20, but in the eternal state of Rev. 21-22, BTW) have to do with Creation or the age of the earth, I'm clueless. You might have to fill me in on their connection. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy,. Integrity, Immutability and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |