Results 101 - 120 of 3591
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Man's understanding is not always God's | Prov 21:2 | BradK | 233617 | ||
Hello DP Martin, Perhaps you'd desire to clarify and expand upon a couple points you've made in this discussion? You said, "theology is for the theist or deist that believes there is a God but doesn’t know the Lord God, or believes God can not be known." I'm simply curious as to what leads you to say this? Go back to my prior definition, "defining Theology itself is relatively simple. It can basically be termed as, “The study or science of God.” Augustine said it is, “Rational discussion respecting the diety”. Theopedia.com provides this more formal definition: “Theology (from the Greek theos - God - and logos - word or reason) is reasoned discourse concerning God. More specifically, Christian theology is the rational study and understanding of the nature of God and doctrines of the Christian faith based on the God's revelation of Himself, chiefly found in the Bible." Is there anything lacking in this basic definition- as far as you understand it? I define theology as the study of God rooted in biblical theology You also said, "Christianity has become like a grocery store, where there is a selection of theologies to chose from on the shelf, hence a God of their approval as they see God ought to be." Would you care to expand upon this? What do you mean by "a selection of theologies"? Could you be more specific? I think we need to make a disctinction between theology and doctrine. Again, theology being simply the study of God. Doctrine being composed of the topics within scripture that make up it's teachings. I pose the question: Is theology important? I would propose that we examine three points in an attempt to provide an answer and a basis to explore further. First, how do we define Theology? Second, why(or) does it matter? Third what are the essentials and how do we define them? (Is there a core element within Christianity (Orthodoxy) that we can all agree on? Lastly, If we ask the question of “who is a theologian” there is an immediate broader application. Most of us would agree that, a person who pursues the study of theology would properly be called a ”theologian”. The strict sense of the word has obvious meaning. Many of us would leave it at that. I think much of the prevailing attitude by laity in the church says, “Don’t give me theology, just give me Jesus.” But, is this really an answer? Is it even biblical? James White says it like this: “If you are a Christian, you are a theologian. You have no choice. Theology is simply knowing about God. In fact, since Christians are called to grow in their knowledge of God, part of the very goal of the Christian life is theology. Theology is a normal part of the Christian life- a part that gives rise to everything else.” Some talking points to consider for furher discussion if you desire. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
102 | Man's understanding is not always God's | Prov 21:2 | BradK | 233612 | ||
Hello Ed, I agree with Tim. Ingersoll's motives are suspect and he's much to broad in attempting to castigate theology. His statement reminds me of the often repeated, "don't give me theology, just give me Jesus" First, defining Theology itself is relatively simple. It can basically be termed as, “The study or science of God.” Augustine said it is, “Rational discussion respecting the diety”. Theopedia.com provides this more formal definition: “Theology (from the Greek theos - God - and logos - word or reason) is reasoned discourse concerning God. More specifically, Christian theology is the rational study and understanding of the nature of God and doctrines of the Christian faith based on the God's revelation of Himself, chiefly found in the Bible.” This is an easy, straight-forward answer to the question. In fairness, we should also address the negative- why doesn’t theology matter. Or, at least, not so much anymore. Perhaps I could term it why theology appears irrelevant in our churches. It’s important to consider and thereby understand some of the causes behind this apathy toward theology. Based on my experience, I can see at least two contributing causes for this declining interest: One, The problem of Biblical Illiteracy and two; the declining ability to think critically. William Evans noted this in his 1922 book, “What Every Christian Should Believe”, by saying “The ignorance among Christians regarding the fundamental doctrines of their faith is surprisingly great, widespread, and alarming. Definite knowledge and instruction in others and far less important spheres of life are being insisted upon; why not, then, in the highest realm- that of a man’s religion." A pastor who downplays theology is either ignorant of what theology is, or he is deceived in thinking that the wisdom of our world (e.g., pragmatism of some sort or other, in all probability) is the key to our people’s betterment. But A. W. Tozer is right: What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us!” Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
103 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232929 | ||
Hello G. Preston, Let me state- with no animosity toward you- that I find the claims of the KJV-only crowd spurious at best and of dubious value. We're not talking a core issue regarding salvation nor even Orthodoxy. At best I see it as majoring on minors and chasing rabbit-trails. To what end? How much closer can we get to the original Word? What do we do with the Wycliff Bible? The Tyndale Bible- first printed NT in English based on the Greek? The Coverdale Bible or the Geneva Bible? The Bishops Bible published in 1568 was a revision of the Great Bible (1539) translated by a commitee of Anglican scholars. These are all translations, and all preceded the 1611 KJV! Did we not have the real Word of God prior to that? That would be patent nonsense to assert such a thing. As EdB stated, there are no original NT manuscripts in existance. None. There are nearly six thousand ancient manuscripts or protions of manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest extant fragment of the NT comes from about A.D. 130- the John Rylands fragment of John 18:31ff) the KJV was based on the best manuscripts- available at that time! You ask, "why is another/new one necessary...for what purpose?" Well, I'll let Dr. Robert Plummer answer that one. He states in "40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible" [Question 7] regarding the KJV. "The best Bible translations are based on the most reliable ancient manuscripts of the OT and NT. The King James Version is not highly recommended because it is not based on the best manuscripts and because the 17th-Century English is hard for most modern people to understand. While it was an excellent work for it's day, the KJV has been supassed by many modren translations in both readability and faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Some people wrongly and often passionately claim the KJV is a superior translation of the Bible. The historical and linguistic facts do not support this claim." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
104 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232833 | ||
Hello Ed, I honestly think you've set up a false dilemma. I'm not following either your thought process or reasoning on this one:-) Progressive revelation is the short answer! Speaking the Truth in Love, Brad |
||||||
105 | Why not having a WEEKLY communion? | Acts 20:7 | BradK | 232807 | ||
Hello 00123, We fellowship at a Christian Church here in the Northwest. Our church observes weekly communion - for much the same reason as Doc stated- we see it as a means of grace. This can differ depending upon denomination and tradition. By comparison, in the church where I was saved- Southern Baptist -it was done monthly. Though there is the possibility of a weekly observance becoming rote and merely tradition (as it was when I was brought up Lutheran), I see it as a regular opportunity to express thankfulness to my Lord for the provision of His forgiveness in Christ Jesus! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
106 | Is it O.K.. to marry twice? | Matt 5:32 | BradK | 232756 | ||
Hello elder..., No offense intended, but the fact that you clarified with the answer you did, leads toward another conclusion beyond the original question:-) Is that not leading...? When you say, "...those whose are not aware God will judge" are you referring to believers or non-believers? Judge in what way? If believers, how do we reconcile with Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13, 3:13? For the record, while I've been married 25-plus years to the same wife, divorce is not the un-pardonable sin. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
107 | Is it O.K.. to marry twice? | Matt 5:32 | BradK | 232735 | ||
Hello elder..., There is nowhere in the NT that Christ specifically says it's OK to marry twice. Is this set up as a leading question? What point are you seeking to make? Would you please clarify? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
108 | Did God create Satin? | Gen 1:1 | BradK | 232684 | ||
Hello mantale, You've responded to a post that is over 1 year old and the poster hasn't been active for about that time. You may not receive a reply:-) As an observation I noticed you said, "That is why We are not to change the word as it was written. Rev. 22:18-19 King James v..." Am I correct to assume this means you hold to the KJV as being the only inerrant, inspired Word of God? Perhaps you could clarify? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
109 | INCEST IN THE NEW TESTIMENT | Lev 18:10 | BradK | 232669 | ||
Hello Lindasue, There's nothing specifically speaking against "sexual relations with family" in the NT. However,there are some general directives given. Among them are: 1 Thess 4:3, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;" (NASB) This would certainly include incest. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
110 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | BradK | 232648 | ||
Hello elder... Here's my prayerful response to your original question. In your profile you admit to keeping the Sabbath, so I would assume it's a very important part of your relationship to Christ. I won't argue that. On the other hand, I do not hold that distinction. I'm complete in Christ and being He is preeminent, I don't view the Sabbath as necessary. I believe Paul provides us the ultimate ansewer in Rom. 14:5-10 Rom 14:5 "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. Rom 14:6 "He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. Rom 14:7 "For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; Rom 14:8, "for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. Rom 14:9, "For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Rom 14:10, "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
111 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | BradK | 232636 | ||
Hello elder... You've asked a good question. Unfortunately, time doesn't allow me to respond in full at this time. Perhaps a bit later. My answer was very brief! At any rate, what does the chapter not having to do with the Sabbath negate the statement? It's either true or not. In referencing Mark 2:27-28 as you noted, the focus is not tht the 'Sabbath was made for man', but rather that Jesus Christ is 'the Lord of the Sabbath'! The Son of Man (the Lord Jesus Christ) is Lord of the Sabbath or He's not. If He is Lord of it (and these verses say so), the He is supreme over it! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
112 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | BradK | 232623 | ||
Hello elder... Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5) I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
113 | Where was Enoch "translated"? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232589 | ||
Hi Dan, Here's the previous related posts in my discussion with EdB (#232479, 232514, 232527). Wuest notes, "(11:5) Enoch was translated. The word is ['metatithemi']. The verb 'tithemi' means “to place,” the prefixed preposition 'meta' signifying a change, the compound word meaning “to transpose” (two things, one of which is put in place of the other). This word is used in Acts 7:16 of the transporting of the remains of Jacob and his sons to Shechem, in Gal. 1:6 of the sudden change of the doctrinal position of the Galatian Christians, and in Heb. 7:12, of the change of the law of the priesthood, a new regulation being instituted in place of the old. In the case of Enoch, the word speaks of his sudden transference from earth to heaven. It refers to a change of position. It was one thing put in the place of another, heaven for Enoch rather than earth. Now, in the transference of believers from earth to heaven, that operation is effected usually by death. But in the case of Enoch, it was apart from death. He departed this earthly scene without dying." [Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament] Rather than repost entirely, I'll hope this is helpful in answering your question. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
114 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232578 | ||
Hi Ed, Yes, I did read the article you referenced- in fact twice before I posted. This is what lead me to respond initially. I’ve now gone back and carefully re-read it for a third time. Here’s my assessment of it: Their entire argument seems to hinge upon a rather rigid view of John 3:13. There are also many (incorrect) assumptions made. I’ve already replied to much of this in my previous posts (232479, 232514, 232527) My first issue is with their attempted comparison of the Hebrew phrase “he was not” as given in Gen. 5:24. They refer to Ps. 37:36 and Ps 39:13, etc in support. They quote, “the phrase means the person “passed away” or “would eventually die”. I beg to differ. Nowhere in the definition of ‘ayin’ do I find this meaning. It ranges from ‘neither’, ‘never’, nowhere’, ‘to nought’, etc. In fact the TWOT says , “it’s basically a negative substantive. The word therefore has no single meaning and the exact translation must be determined in each context.” Next, what of Heb. 11:5? Do we now deny it’s plain meaning? I really see Hebrews 11 as a Divinely inspired commentary on Genesis 5:24 here in this instance particularly. The grammar ‘me ho eidon thanatos’ (did not see death), expands upon “he was not” from the Genesis passage. It tells us what happened to him. The fact that the verb here is not in the present tense has no bearing upon the meaning at hand! Rather (as it should be), it’s a verb, aorist, active and this takes us back to what happen to Enoch. They say, “we must conclude Enoch died the first death”? OK, but why? Because that’s your conclusion? They’re begging the question here. Further to say most people “carelessly assume without proof” seems overly dismissive to other valid views. That may be their opinion, but it’s not an established fact. I don’t think it’s careless to take Heb. 11:5 for what it says. (This is what they’re doing with John 3:13) I think there’s unnecessary confusion being created over “translate”. Of course it doesn’t mean to make ‘immortal’, but in the context of 11:5 it tells us he was “transported to another place”, where he did not see death! Death is negated here. My initial detraction is one of lack of credibility. Who are they and what makes them authoritative? I also think their lack of understanding the original languages shows and it poorly reflects upon the argument. The argument is certainly interesting, but it doesn’t persuade me to change my view- particularly in light of historical interpretation of this passage. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
115 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232527 | ||
Hello Ed, Let me try again to explain. In doing so, I will honestly say I've never encountered the apparent contradictions you see with reconciling Enoch, Elijah, John 3:13, Hebrews 9:27 and 11:13. You said, "if accept that understanding we must then handle the apparent contradiction now created with John 3." I honestly see no contradiction if we take a closer look at the grammar of the text. I previously posted a reply to you in which I noted, "The word "translated" [metathemi] in Heb 11:5, differs in both meaning and sense from that of "ascended", [anabaino] in John 3:13. Again, effect(ing) a change of location in space, with the implication that the two locations are significantly different does no violation to what is stated in John 3:13. Metathemi simply describes the action that, "By faith he was taken up so that he would not see death". Significantly, the verb here is also in the passive mood, which shows (indicates) the action was performed on him (Enoch) by an outside force. He didn't do this himself! However, "ascended" [anabaino] in John 3:13 is a completely different action. Here it conveys the meaning 'to move up—‘to come up, to go up, to ascend.’ The upward movement may be of almost any gradient, for example, in going up a road to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17) or in going up into a tree (Lk 19:4) or in ascending into heaven (Acts 2:34).' The verb is in the active sense, denoting action performed by the individual himself. So, Enoch, though definitely "translated", did not "ascend" to heaven. A significant, but important distinction I believe." Now Heb. 9:27. Here are 2 things I will note that IMO, clear up any alledged contradiction. 1. The Book of Hebrews was written in the 1st Century to contemporary (Jewish) Christians. Enoch and Elijah had already been 'translated' some 1500 years before! They are not in view of the intent and focus of this passage! 2. The author's use of the verb 'appointed' [apokemai] is in the present tense, so I would understand this to mean that he is speaking to those presently facing ultimate death, not referencing (including) OT saints such as Enoch or Elijah. So, I would still respectfully maintain that scripture teaches that only Enoch and Elijah did not see death but were glorified and transcended this mortal life to be with God. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
116 | Did Enoch die? | Heb 11:13 | BradK | 232514 | ||
Hi EdB, You asked, "What does all mean? All used here is understood to mean all the previously mentioned people." Not necesarily... I believe the apparent contradiction can be cleared up by noting the sentence structure and grammar of the original:-) In the passage speaking of Enoch, the sentence starts in verse 4 and ends in verse 7. The next portion- to which you refer and contains vs 13- starts in verse 8 and end in verse 16. As Robertson notes in his Word Pictures, These all [houtoi pantes]. Those in verses 9–12 (Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob). I would argue that the grammar gives answer your objection! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
117 | Enoch and Elijah didn't see God yet? | John 3:13 | BradK | 232495 | ||
Hi Lana, We're not getting anywhere here! I did read your post carefully which is why I responded with 3 very specific questions regarding statements YOU made! May I suggest you go back and read what I posted and respond accordingly. You've purposefully side-stepped any response by attempting to make this my problem. It's not! You are the one who made the statements, so it's incumbant upon YOU to support and defend them! To date you've made all of 12 posts. Have you read the Terms of Use and About Postings from our host, the Lockman Foundation? If you haven't, I strongly encourage you to please familiarize yourself with them. It will go a long way toward saving both of us from wasting time and space:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
118 | Enoch and Elijah didn't see God yet? | John 3:13 | BradK | 232479 | ||
Hi EdB, Good to hear from you my friend. Here's some observations from my own studies of this passage. (limited for time's sake). Notwithstanding what ecclesia.org/truth/enoch says about this passage I'd have to take issue on a few points. 1. Why would it be careless to assume without proof he (Enoch) didn't die? The text itself says he didn't- Heb 11:5, By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God." (NASB) Would we not understand this to mean exactly what it says? Granted the passage here in Hebrews doesn't say he went to heaven, but it does certainly say "he should not see death"! I believe when he explains that "God took him", and "he was not found", it clearly means that Enoch did "NOT SEE DEATH" at all, but that he was taken bodily from the earth. As Bullinger notes in his tremendous exposition, "Great Cloud of Witnesses", "Of each of the six patriarchs before him, it is recorded "and he died" (Gen. 5:5; 8; 11; 14; 17; 20). but of Enoch it is written, that he did "not see death" and the reason given is that "God, took him," and "he was not found". This implies that men looked everywhere for him but the search parties could not find him dead or alive." [Pg 96] Regarding his translation. Gen. 5:24 simply notes, "...and he was not, for God took him." We're not provided any further detail. However, Hebrews 11:5, does note "God took him up", the verb 'metathemi' meaning "to effect a change of location in space, with the implication that the two locations are significantly different—‘to move from one place to another, to change one’s location, to depart, departure." [Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament] Agreed, there's no sense of making any one immortal from 'metathemi', but that misses the point. The context of the passage clearly says he did not see death! 2. The word "translated" [metathemi] in Heb 11:5, differs in both meaning and sense from that of "ascended", [anabaino] in John 3:13. Again, effect(ing) a change of location in space, with the implication that the two locations are significantly different does no violation to what is stated in John 3:13. Metathemi simply describes the action that, "By faith he was taken up so that he would not see death". Significantly, the verb here is also in the passive mood, which shows (indicates) the action was performed on him (Enoch) by an outside force. He didn't do this himself! However, "ascended" [anabaino] in John 3:13 is a completely different action. Here it conveys the meaning 'to move up—‘to come up, to go up, to ascend.’ The upward movement may be of almost any gradient, for example, in going up a road to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17) or in going up into a tree (Lk 19:4) or in ascending into heaven (Acts 2:34).' The verb is in the active sense, denoting action performed by the individual himself. So, Enoch, though definitely "translated", did not "ascend" to heaven. A significant, but important distinction I believe. 3. I don't find any biblical (or textual) support for stating "God took Enoch and buried him somewhere so as not to be found,". Translation does not entail he was in any way, shape or sense of the term, buried. Simply because Jacob was translated (and the term fits well in Acts 7:16 as he was moved from one place to another) does not imply that such was the case for Enoch! Speaking the aTruth in Love, BradK |
||||||
119 | Enoch and Elijah didn't see God yet? | John 3:13 | BradK | 232478 | ||
Hello lana, You said regarding Enoch, "which could mean that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated his life while he was in the trance...". I'm curious as to what leads you to make this conclusion, since it's only speculation?. We don't know exactly where Enoch was taken but may safely assume into the presence of God from Heb 11:5, "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God." Genesis 5:24 simply says, "Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him."(NASB) Next, it's pure speculation to state, "it appears that, as in the case of Moses' body God disposed of Enoch's body..." How do you know this? Deut. 34:5-6 is clearly speaking of the death of Moses, not Enoch! I'm not sure how you make this leap?! Lastly, it's highly assumptive to infer that Elijah "is transferred to another prophetic assignment."??? John 3:13 says or infers no such thing! Do you have any further scriptural basis for this claim? May I kindly suggest that you speak more carefully when ascertainly things from scripture and that you also avoid making broad, unsupported, speculations or assumptions! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
120 | Does Is.66:23 mean sabbath still stands? | Is 66:23 | BradK | 232439 | ||
Hello Elder, There would be those- myself as one- who would respectfully disagree. I think the question to ask is what is the overall purpose of Hebrews. It is to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ as superior over angels, the law and even the Sabbath! Is Heb. 4:9 just describing the believers rest as like the Sabbath or is it prescribing it's continuation? I think the former. Interestingly, I note what Mark says: Mark 2:27-28, "Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." The Lord Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. He is preeminent, not the Sabbath. It is Him we exalt and worship, not the day. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [180] >> |