Results 101 - 120 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233125 | ||
By the way, the question wasn't just for you. It was an open question. Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
102 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233124 | ||
Sorry, I was using the KJV simply because I wasn't sure how some of the modern versions translated the phrase. Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
103 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233120 | ||
Greetings! For the purposes of this thread, here are the verses that actually mention the 'book of life', with a couple that 'may be' the book of life: Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Php 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. _________________ Now, based on these verses, what can we say about the Book of Life? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
104 | Why does God respect Satan's opinion | Job 1:8 | Morant61 | 233093 | ||
Greetings Preston! I don't disagree with what you said, but it is worth noting that in Job God never explains His actions. :-) In fact, every attempt to 'explain' them, even Job's, was rejected by God. So, I agree with you that God's actions are always righteous, but I am always hesitant to 'explain' His actions. ;-) We simply have to trust Him, no matter what the circumstances in our life. For the most part, this is exactly what Job did. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
105 | GRACE Preacher | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233091 | ||
Greeting Rbarman! I not sure of the context of your question. I know that there is often a difference between what Scripture says about grace and what man says about grace. So, I would recommend that you use the search box to the right of your screen and do a search on 'grace'. Find out what Scripture has to say about grace and then compare it to the definition you came across. In the process, if you have specific question, post them on the forum. Good luck! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
106 | Is salvation a choice? Deut 30:19 | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233089 | ||
Greetings AJV! There are two main theological perspectives (Calvinism and Arminianism) and each one would answer your question a little differently. But, the points that both would agree on are: 1) Salvation is entirely of God. It is not based upon any personal works or merit. (Eph. 2:8-10 and Rom. 4:1-25) It is solely based upon the saving work of Christ upon the cross. (Col. 1:20, 2:14-15) 2) Salvation is a gift that must be received. On this point, the two sides begin to diverge quite a bit. Who can receive the gift? Why can they receive the gift? I don't want to delve into those differences, but I will simply encourage enter the terms 'choose', 'accept', and 'receive' in their various forms into the search box to the right of your screen and you will find many verses. Good luck in your study! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
107 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 233009 | ||
Probably a good policy. ;-) Your brother in Christ Tim Moran |
||||||
108 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 233000 | ||
Greetings! We may never know for sure my friend! We do know that drunkenness is a sin, so Jesus certainly never did that! :) But, in the passage you cited, a Nazarite was not even allowed to eat grapes. So, are we going to say that Jesus never ate grapes? Personally, I don't think that Jesus did drink alcohol, but we just don't have enough evidence either way to be dogmatic about it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
109 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232999 | ||
Greetings Beja! You may very well be right, but there is another possibility. John was a Nazarite, so he was not allowed to have anything that was a product of the vine. So, he would not even be able to drink grape juice. So, the contrast could have been that Jesus drank grape juice and John didn't. We may never know. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
110 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232998 | ||
Greetings Doc! Well, it would have to be unleavened bread! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
111 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232995 | ||
Greetings You won't get any argument from me. :-) Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
112 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232986 | ||
Good info Ed! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
113 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Morant61 | 232984 | ||
Greetings! The usual tradition for the Jewish Passover was to use wine for the cups. Based upon this, most assume that both Jesus and the early Church used wine for communion. However, let me provide two points of caution for this view. 1) The language used does not necessarily mean that alcohol was used. The words alone don't give us much support either way. Fruit of the vine could mean anything from fresh grapes to fermented wine. (Mt. 26.29) 2) Even if alcohol was used, it was common in the time of Jesus to mix wine with any where from 3 to 20 times it's amount of water. So, the 'wine' would have been very watered down and very weak. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
114 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232960 | ||
Greetings Preston! I agree with you that God has many names. I looked up the link you provided, and I did not see the reference you mentioned concerning changing 'God' to 'Gods'. Do you have that reference? What do I mean by textual reason? Simply this, how we get the Bible is a complicated process. There are many thousands of copies, but to the best of our knowledge, we do not have any of the original texts. In the copies, are many variant readings. Almost all of them are minor issues of spelling, or word order. None of them affect any major doctrine. However, there are some instances where copyists either intentionally or unintentionally changed the original text. According the the link you provided, the modern translations either change or omit things, but this is only true if KJV accurately reflects what the original text actually said. If the KJV doesn't accurately reflect the original text, then it is the one that added or changed the text, and the modern translation are correcting it's mistakes. One famous example is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), where the entire passage is pretty much added to the KJV without any textual support. Here is what the NET Bible says about the lack of textual support for this reading. "This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest MS with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century (629), and that MS deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the Textus Receptus (TR) was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (Codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading... Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings — even in places where the Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (TR) equals the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history." I apologize for the long quote, but it is necessary to understand the textual issues before us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
115 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232949 | ||
Greetings Preston! Could you give me the reference for the change from 'God' to 'Gods'? Without knowing the reference, all I can say in general is that 'elohim' (the Hebrew word for God) is a plural noun in form. When it is used with singular verbs, it is usually translated as 'God', but when used with plural verbs, it is usually translated as 'gods'. When you provide the specific reference, we will probably find a textual reason for the change. I agree with you that some translations are motivated for the wrong reasons, but there are many that are done for the right reasons as well. Whatever the reason, God's word is still powerful and will not return void. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
116 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232940 | ||
Greetings Preston! You said in your post: I am sure you are aware but, for reminders to all of us the origional KJV was brought about by the king of england who assembled the greatest scholars known at the time, who used the only known to man... manuscripts. I don't know how much closer we will ever be able to come to the origional Word. Please answer a question for me...we have one from the origional manuscripts...why is another/new one necessary...for what purpose?"" The KJV New Testament text was actually based upon the greek text of Erasmus. His first edition was put together in only 5 months, and he only had a handful of greek manuscripts available to him, the oldest of which dated to the 10th century. So, as much good as has been accomplish by and through the KJV, it certainly is not the closest we have to the original manuscripts. We now have thousands of manuscripts from which to work, some of which date back to the 1st century. So, modern translation have a tremendous advantage when it comes to source material. Now, now all modern translations are good. :-) I would not use the TNIV as a door stop. ;-) But, almost all of them are much closer to the originals than the KJV. p.s. - Here is a link that details the manuscripts used for the KJV: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
117 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232897 | ||
Greetings! Here is an article that might aid your research into this topic: http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/ Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
118 | Is there more needed than Rom 1:18-32 | Jonah | Morant61 | 232878 | ||
Greetings Ed! I wanted to throw a little more information out there for everyone's consideration. Rom. 1:21 clearly states that the pagan world 'knew' God, but refused to worship Him as God. Yet, DocTrinsograce sent me an e-mail with some references that clearly state that the world does not know God. I quote: "Given all the passages that specifically deny that some do not know Him (John 1:10; 14:5; 1 John 3:1; Jeremiah 2:8; 22:16; etc.) we have to look at this word the way we use it in English. There are all kinds of knowing, but the particulars ride in the context. I would have distinguished between knowing and loving. There is Psalm 9:10... but I think John as a whole connects knowing Him and loving Him." Doc makes an excellent point. 'Knowing' God definitely has different meaning in different contexts. In the verses Doc points out, 'not knowing' refers to a lack of a loving relationship. Or, one could say, 'not knowing' refers to a lack of a saving knowledge of God. In Rom. 1:21, they knew enough about God to be held culpable for their rejection of Him, but not enough to be saved. It is also interesting that each author differs in their use of the term. John seems to be quite fond of using 'to know' in terms of a loving relationship, while Paul doesn't seem to make that connection as much. This is a great reminder why we need to always look at the context in which a word is used, to look at who is using the word, and to examine the various ways in which a word is used. Keep up the great study! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
119 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Morant61 | 232877 | ||
Greetings Seth! Well said! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
120 | Know God but not Jesus | Jonah | Morant61 | 232865 | ||
Greetings Ed! Yes and no! :-) Yes, in the sense that general revelation is not enough to save, but no in the sense that it doesn't tell the whole story. If all we had was general revelation, no one would be saved. But, we have a God who loves us and doesn't want anyone to perish. So, like with the case of Nineveh, God will make Himself known in a more complete way those who need Him. There is no salvation apart from Christ. So, those who have never heard of Jesus, will have no hope of salvation unless God reveals Himself to them. He could do this directly like He did with Abram. Or, He could do this indirectly by sending someone to proclaim the gospel to them like He did with Jonah and Nineveh. But, one way or another, the lost must hear about Jesus to be saved. So, Romans 1:18-32 describes what normally happens in the case of general revelation alone, but it does not describe what God can and will do because of His great love and mercy. I hope this answers your question my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [339] >> |