Results 101 - 120 of 165
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | holding the light with dirty hands? | Matt 5:20 | Radioman | 15138 | ||
se·man·tics "1 : the study of meanings" Yes, it is. If/since semantics is defined as the study of meanings, then the entire Bible is about semantics, isn't it? That's what we do when we study the Bible -- we study meanings. |
||||||
102 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 15119 | ||
I understand how to take medicine literally. But, would someone please explain to me: How does one take medicine figuratively? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ||||||
103 | Is the Jesus the Lord and God of Satan? | Matt 4:7 | Radioman | 15118 | ||
He isn't. Jesus is merely quoting Scripture. |
||||||
104 | Why is it translated "if", not "since"? | Matt 4:6 | Radioman | 15116 | ||
Question: "Is there a translation thst says "since", not "if" ... becuase that is the literal translation. "-Why don't translators do a better job on this word?" Answer: In the English language in a hypothetical statement, "if" and "since" are often used interchangeably. In such a case they are used to mean THE SAME THING. As someone else recently asked, "Steve, apparently the misunderstanding on this thread arose from your lack of understanding . . . In short, you didn't understand the question. Why, then, did you answer it? "And how can you presume to teach this forum in the nuances of meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek tongues when you yourself rarely post on this forum a single sentence in English that is free from either grammatical or orthograhic errors?" Finally, my question for you is: Why don't you do a better job of bashing the translators? Surely you've had enough practice. |
||||||
105 | holding the light with dirty hands? | Matt 5:20 | Radioman | 15114 | ||
"Matthew 22:37-40 is where haMashiach reduces Law and the Prophets." Jesus in no way "reduces" the law and the prophets. In standard English we would say He "summarizes" the law and the prophets. Summarizes, not reduces. Jesus never reduces, trivializes, does away with or undoes the law. Take your own advice and don't read into the passage something that is not there. |
||||||
106 | If the shoe fits... | 2 Tim 2:15 | Radioman | 15112 | ||
If the shoe fits,... Many of you have reminded us every other 10 minutes that the preachers, scholars and authors who write commentary are mere men and that what they write is only their opinion. Guess what? EdB, Steve B, Radioman and everyone else on this forum are only humans. Everything we/they write is merely our/their own opinion. So when you bash the 'experts' as being mere humans who write their own opinion, don't forget to bash yourselves and the rest of us along with those who have actually made a serious study of the Bible. Or, put another way, if you don't trust the recognized teachers that Christ has given to the church, then why should we trust you? Do you have some direct line to God that no one else has? |
||||||
107 | Once Save; Always Saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15070 | ||
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29 Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" You may or may not choose to respond to the point(s) I have made here. But, consider the following. In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes. I will interact with anyone who has a specific comment or question about the passage(s) in question. I will not respond to questions or posts that stray away from the specific passage(s) being discussed. |
||||||
108 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14775 | ||
Tim: I appreciate and respect you and I read your postings with pleasure. Thank you for your reply and your explanation of this passage. As I mentioned in a previous post, this passage does have four major interpretations. I have been familiar with all four of them for about 30 years now. The one I am most familiar with is the one I was repeatedly taught as a child growing up in an Arminian church, i.e.: The warning is to those who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and are in danger of falling away, through unbelief or sin, and losing their salvation. I only wish that everyone who posts here would present their views with the courtesy, sensible references to Scripture, reason and clarity that you have used regarding Heb. 6:4. Sincerely, Radioman |
||||||
109 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14706 | ||
ibelieve: As I said in my previous post, I am not saying that I am "right" and you are "wrong." I sincerely mean that. I thank you for sharing with us your interpretation/understanding of Hebrews 6:1 and following. Since there are at least four major interpretations of this passage, it would be inappropriate for me to declare that I have "the one correct" intepretation. Nor do I make that assertion. As I also said, I have no quarrel, no problem with you. I'm glad to see you here, participating in the forum. It is in a spirit of humility and respect for you that I ask you and the readers to consider the following regarding Hebrews 6:4-6. "By far, the most serious interpretive challenge [in Hebrews] is found in 6:4-6. The phrase 'once enlightened' is often taken to refer to Christians, and the accompanying warning taken to indicate the danger of losing their salvation if 'they fall away' and 'crucify again for themselves the Son of God.' But there is no mention of their being saved and they are not described with any terms that apply only to believers (such as holy, born again, righteous, or saints). This problem arises from inaccurately identifying the spiritual condition of the ones being addressed. In this case, they were unbelievers who had been exposed to God's redemptive truth, and perhaps made a profession of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. In 10:26 the reference once again is to apostate Christians, not to genuine believers who are often incorrectly thought to lose their salvation because of their sins" (p. 1896, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word Publishing). Thank you for your consideration. Radioman |
||||||
110 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14672 | ||
Hebrews 6:4 and following. ibelieve, you write: "This passage is to a person who has reached a maturity in his CHRISTIAN walk that only a few people have reached. This person has tasted all that GOD has for us on this earth and is walking not as himself but as CHRIST. For a person to reach this point in this life and to turn back to the world would truly be putting Jesus on the cross again." First, it is not possible to put Jesus back on the cross. When He died, he died ONCE. Once! "It is finished." ibelieve: I respectfully disagree with you. The person in this passage is the exact opposite of one who has "reached a maturity in his CHRISTIAN walk that only a few people have reached." Actually, the person in this passage never was a believer; he is one who has stopped short of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Please consider the following: The warning in Heb 6:6-8 "is issued to those who have been instructed and even moved by the Holy Spirit but have never committed themselves to Christ. [In this passage] the experiences outlined may precede and even accompany salvation, but they do not always result in salvation. Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security; therefore this passage must not be interpreted as teaching that believers in Christ can lose their salvation. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" (note at Heb 6:4, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). ***** 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, "impossible "Hebrews 6:4-8 presents the case of Jewish professed believers who halt short of faith in Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, even "going along with" the Holy Spirit in His work of enlightenment and conviction (John 16:8-10). It is not said that they had faith. This supposed person is like the spies at Kadesh-barnea (Deuteronomy 1:19-26) who saw the land and had the very fruit of it in their hands, and yet turned back. "partakers (Greek - iJlavskomai ," going along with)." Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Hebrews 6". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ 1917. ***** " . . . logically [Heb 6:4] implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991) ***** No offense intended, but please spare me the observation that Dr. Scofield was a poor scholar who didn't know what he was talking about. I've already heard that on the forum approx. 40 or 50 times. It didn't work the first time I heard it and it won't work now. I am not at all implying that you would do such a thing. I merely point out that many on the forum have read an answer, which may include a quote by Dr. Scofield, MacArthur, Ryrie, etc. Then when they realize they have no answer to the points made, they try to change the subject by casting doubt upon the scholarship or character of the author that was quoted. Not to you, but to those who have employed this deceptive practice, I would say: It's a nice try and a cheap trick. But it will NOT WORK with everyone. (Disclaimer: No man, forum member, author, scholar, preacher, etc. is infallible. Only the Bible is infallible and only in the original manuscripts.) Again, I bear you no ill-will or personal criticism. I am merely expressing an alternative viewpoint. Radioman |
||||||
111 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14667 | ||
Norrie: Yes, that was my intention -- to quit shuckin' and jivin' and dancin' all around this "foolish and ignorant" speculation and to come quickly to the point. Thank you. Your perception and comments are both welcome and refreshing. Radioman |
||||||
112 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14661 | ||
Brian.g: I intend no sarcasm at all in this reply. In all sincerity, I thank you for your wise and gracious suggestions. In all honesty, I couldn't disagree with anything you said in your previous posting to me. I have read all of your posts since you started on the forum. I want you to know that I respect and appreciate you and all the good information you have shared with us over the past weeks. Thank you again for your well-intentioned and well-received previous post to me. Bless you, Radioman |
||||||
113 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14659 | ||
Interesting use of sarcasm. Sandman: Thank you for expressing your judgment of my character and, in other posts, the motives and intentions of other post-ers. I have expressed my opinion of the caliber and quality of the posts of others. In turn you question the caliber and quality of mine. That's an interesting use of criticism. Sandman, you write: "Interesting use of sarcasm. Instead of edifying brothers of Christ, you have revealed the true substance of your own character. Sarcasm does not have a place on this forum." "Sarcasm does not have a place on this forum." Maybe, maybe not. But neither do rebellion, division, apostasy, heresy, wild speculation, arrogance and ignorance posing as wisdom have a place on this forum. And I honestly do not apply any of these characteristics to you, Sandman, or to sincere newcomers. My problem is not with you. Nor is it with newcomers, but with oldtimers or anyone else who base their opinions on speculation instead of Scripture. Agreeing or disagreeing with me is not the issue and it never was. The issue is not one's answer, but the supporting Scripture, if any, reasoning, and attitude with which the answer is written -- the process by which the opinion is arrived at. When I use the words wild speculation, arrogance, ignorance, etc., I'm speaking in terms of the entire history of this forum and its various crackpots and misfits who, at one time or another, have sought to dominate the forum or attract attention to themselves. Try to understand. I am not implying that to disagree with me makes one a crackpot or misfit. That is not the issue at all. What is the issue is, if anyone comes to this forum expecting answers based on Scripture and reason (common sense), then they most likely will be sadly disappointed with the vast majority of postings here. Re my Note, "Inquiring minds want to know," I would like to ask you, as a forum veteran of 40 days and 16 postings, what do you find sarcastic about my answers, numbers 1-5 and 7-10? Granted, they are blunt and to the point, but flippant? Sarcastic? Also, 7 of my 13 answers were direct answers to direct questions. Therefore, what is flippant about a "yes" or "no" answer? Just thought I'd ask. I'm not against you. I'm not saying that I am "right" and you are "wrong." Radioman |
||||||
114 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14538 | ||
Inquiring minds want to know. Your Questions and My Answers 1. Q: Are we to pray to Jesus? A: Had you been in combat in Vietnam, you wouldn't need (or have time) to ask that question. 2. Q: Could Jesus sin? A: No. 3. Q: Is sex before marriage wrong? A: Yes. Also note: Usually the Bible doesn't speak of right and wrong. It speaks of good and evil. 4. Q: When did God change lifespan of man? A: DID God change lifespan of man? In what verse of the Bible does it SAY he did? 5. Q: What law(s) did Christ fulfill? A: He fulfilled the law. Not "laws" (plural), but "the law" (singular). 6. Q: Why? A: Because. 7. Q: Does God have multiple motivations? A: Is the clay questioning the motives of the Potter -- AGAIN? 8. Q: Satan take the place of God in Genesis? A: No. 9. Q: Good News Bible? A: Yes. 10. Q: Does it state anywhere in the old testament about jesus' crucifixion? A: Yes, it does. Otherwise what was the source of the prophecies fulfilled when Christ was crucified? (FYI: We usually spell Jesus with a capital J.) 11. Q: Can all churches worship together as one? A: No. Can all Christians worship together as one? One day we will. This is not that day. 12. Q: Can someone give me a CLEAR answere to the question..Does salvation require baptism? A: Yes, someone can. 13. Q: Where is paradise? A: Anywhere where foolish and ignorant questionings (speculations) have ceased. |
||||||
115 | so in other words it's not wrong | Rom 8:38 | Radioman | 14487 | ||
Hank: If I didn't know your voice, I'd have thought I said that. I'm sure your questions will be answered with more sentences containing either grammatical and/or orthographic errors. By the way, does anyone know what a "blnak" (sic) mind is? Does anyone know what spell check is or how to use it? Or why to use it? My suggestion is that His Honor, the Judge, could save himself and the Forum a lot of embarrassment if he would just SHUT UP until he has something worth saying. |
||||||
116 | Are those He called always chosen? - II | Rom 8:30 | Radioman | 14319 | ||
Get rid of a conceited person, and then there will be no more arguments, quarreling, or name-calling. Proverbs 22:10 GOD'S WORD Translation Who is the conceited person, Steve? "Thou art the man." By the way, lad, you yourself have neither proved nor answered anything. P.S. Could you post one complete Note or Answer without a misspelling? Would it kill you to use spell checker or a dictionary? It isn't the English language that is poor and horrible; it's your use of English. |
||||||
117 | Lifting up of hands? | Ps 63:4 | Radioman | 14318 | ||
Nicodemus: I see that in your ongoing debate with the other guy you keep appealing to Scripture to support your point. There is a problem with this where the other guy is concerned. The Bible was penned down by humans, preserved by human copyists, translated by humans, and published by humans. Since Mr. Right cares for no human opinion but his own, he will surely reject the Bible, since it has passed through so many human hands. Moreover, since he himself is the only authority he will listen to, then your only chance to persuade him is to quote him. The only problem with that is that when Mr. Right blows his own trumpet, it makes an unclear sound. When he plays the flute or harp, he doesn't make a distinction in the notes. How, then, will what is played be recognized? |
||||||
118 | Answer the Question | OT general | Radioman | 14191 | ||
Question: He asked about one single group Why is it so difficult to answer the question Brian Answer: He asked about "one single group?" DIM, in separate postings, asked the following questions: "What does the Church of Christ believe it takes for salvation?" "What do Presbyterians believe it takes for salvation?" "What do Catholics believe it takes for salvation?" "What do Lutherans believe it takes for salvation?" "I want to know what each denomination believes." |
||||||
119 | God protected Cain from whom | OT general | Radioman | 14179 | ||
From whom is God protecting Cain? Well, unless some men were descended from Adam and some from monkeys, apparently God is protecting Cain from the descendants of Adam, who are CAIN'S OWN RELATIVES. Perhaps not his immediate family, but relatives nonetheless. Any other answer would have to be founded on unbiblical speculation. |
||||||
120 | I think, I feel, I believe. Hogwash! | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14169 | ||
Why, oh why, are you people so FASCINATED with speculation about what the Bible does NOT say? Shouldn't you be watching "Unsolved Mysteries" or one of those TV shows? Does anyone here have any respect for the silence of the Bible? When you speculate on what the Bible does not say, who is edified, who is encouraged, who is comforted? You people need to study and learn what the Bible DOES say. Then you might have less questions about and interest in what it doesn't say. I assure you, the Bible is complete. God has not, as some of you have suggested, left anything out that should be there or made any mistakes in the Bible. To go on and on and on about what the Bible does not say is to cast doubt upon the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture surely is not sufficient if you people have to make up 1,001 questions about what it does not include. You may get some kind of kick out of questioning the reliability or sufficiency of Scripture, but all you do is add doubt and confusion to seekers and babes in Christ. And by a strange twist of logic some of you declare that this is somehow helpful in furthering the gospel and the kingdom of God. That somehow speculating on trivial matters on which the Bible is silent is going to strengthen someone's faith in God or in the essentials of the Christian faith. Read your Bible with an open mind and heart. Be willing to obey what you find there. Accept it for what it actually is, the very words of God Himself. "Therefore, the person who rejects [the Bible] does not reject man, but God, who also gives you His Holy Spirit." One more time: according to the Lockman Foundation, this is neither a discussion group, a survey, or an opinion poll. Take a hint from the Apostle Paul and do not go beyond what is written. If you find the Bible insufficient to satisfy all your curiosity, maybe you ought to discard it and turn to the Apochrypha, the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower Society, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, or some of the more colorful and imaginative postings here at the forum. All of the above are equally spurious, fanciful and uninspired. Here at the Forum you will find all the bricks without straw, clouds without water, and idle speculation without Scripture that you'll ever need. Selah. (Pause and think about that.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |