Results 101 - 120 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102009 | ||
This is not rocket science. Go to the website to read the Scriptures and the entire article. Just because someone told you that baptism is necessary for salvation does not make it so. I think you were bluffing when you attempted to answer my previous question about principles of interpretation. I doubt if you have any idea of what is meant by "principles of interpretation." --Radioman2 |
||||||
102 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 101929 | ||
Reason this: "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
103 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 101921 | ||
You write: "Reason, not emotion, is always the best principle." I ask: Could you be a little more specific? --Radioman2 |
||||||
104 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 101914 | ||
Norrie: I understand how you feel about not carrying your Bible to church, having had similar feelings in a recent situation. All my life I had carried my Bible to church. Recently my church started providing pew Bibles. For a time, I quit carrying my Bible. Like you, I thought, Why bother bringing it? Then it hit me. More than a dozen nieces and nephews of mine attend the same church I attend. The thought occured to me that I ought to carry my Bible to church to set an example for the children and young adults in my family. They may reason that if their uncle doesn't bring his Bible to church, then it must not be all that important. I want them to know it is important. I believe that carrying the Bible to church honors the Word of God and shows that one has a high view of Scripture. However, I am not saying that it is wrong not to carry one's Bible to church. In no way am I criticizing you or implying that this is what you should do. I am merely saying how I felt and what I decided for myself. Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
105 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 101912 | ||
It always amazes me, and sometimes amuses me, when people strongly disagree with an interpretation, yet offer no alternate interpretation. Likewise, when you reject the Lowest Common Denominator principle of interpretation, I wonder what you have to offer as an alternative. What, if any, principles of translation do you apply? --Radioman2 |
||||||
106 | What are we to say? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101679 | ||
Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone; it's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever the reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. John Reformed, I appreciate your clear and relevant answer. However, if other answers are muddled and not clear, then you all will have answered the question by default. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
107 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101676 | ||
Apologetics Defined The reply that begins "Oh Lord! anyone who knows anything about..." is an interesting example of a non-answer to the original question. The question was and is, "Should one try to be clear or muddled?" It is a subtopic under the original question, which is: Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? Apologetics Defined. 'The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7,17; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. ( . . . ) 'Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. The latter case is by far the most common and you don’t have to read a ton of books to do that. ( . . . ) 'Basically, apologetics is equivalent to theology in sneakers. It means getting the hay down off the loft and down to where the cows can eat it. Anyone can ‘do’ apologetics. All it takes is a willingness, a little work, and the Spirit of God in you' (http://www.carm.org/apologetics/intro.htm). --Radioman2 |
||||||
108 | Where is Kurdistan | Matthew | Radioman2 | 101446 | ||
God is not an "ethnic group with its own language and culture," now is He? | ||||||
109 | Any literature? | Luke 14:26 | Radioman2 | 101427 | ||
I have found the following websites to be very useful in answering apparent Bible contradictions. http://worthynews.com/apologetics/apol101part1.htm http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm --Radioman2 |
||||||
110 | Should one try to be clear or muddled? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101171 | ||
Should one try to be clear or muddled? 'There's another problem, and it's a practical one. I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, apparently. Then what am I to do? If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? What do I say then when communicating my faith? If I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, then what am I to do? Should I work at being clear when I communicate? Or should I try to be muddled lest I depend on clarity and not the Spirit to make the difference? Should I give reasons for what I believe or only gently make assertions with a smile on my face being careful not to respond to challenges someone might raise lest it sound like I'm trying to argue for the Gospel and not depend on the Holy Spirit?' ____________________ Quoted from the transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. |
||||||
111 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101166 | ||
John: Good point, John, and I agree with you. I was in the United States Marine Corps. My M.O.S. was Field Radio Operator. (My brother, Sonarman, was in the Navy. He was a sonar technician.) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
112 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101160 | ||
A Logical Defense But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
113 | Why 4 Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 101156 | ||
"consider the canon. But it is of man." If we are going to say that the canon of the Bible "is of man", then perhaps we should also say the Bible "is of man." After all, it was human beings who actually held the pen and wrote down the words. Just a thought. --Radioman2 |
||||||
114 | Will we have physical or spiritual bodie | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 101113 | ||
The Bible does not say that our memories will be erased in heaven. 'Will we recognize and be reunited with our loved ones in heaven? 'Yes! In the Old Testament, when a person died, the biblical writers said he was "gathered to his people" (cf. Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 20:24; Judg. 2:10). In 2 Samuel 12, when David's infant child died, David confidently said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (v. 23). David evidently expected to see the child again-not just a nameless, faceless soul without an identity, but that very child. 'The New Testament indicates even more clearly that our identities will remain unchanged. While sharing the Passover meal with His disciples, Christ said, "Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:17-18). Christ was promising that He and His disciples would drink the fruit of the vine together again-in heaven. Elsewhere Jesus makes a similar, but even more definite, promise: "Many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11). 'Furthermore, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Even though they died centuries before, they still maintained a clear identity (Matt. 17:3) -- Peter, James, and John evidently recognized them (v. 4), which implies that we will somehow be able to recognize people we've never even seen before. All the redeemed will maintain their identity forever, but in a perfected form.' To read the rest of this article, go to: (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven8.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
115 | But if you bite and devour...take care | Gal 5:15 | Radioman2 | 100701 | ||
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. (NASB Galatians 5:15) | ||||||
116 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100673 | ||
Hank: I know what you mean. Also, Watchtower publications often use the phrase "some scholars", "some authorities", etc. But they don't always identify these mystery scholars and authorities. It's amazing how they created the NWT without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew scholars whatsoever. --Radioman2 |
||||||
117 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100666 | ||
'However, some informed scholars prefer to use the secular designations "B.C.E." (before our Common Era) and "C.E." (of our Common Era.)' -- Jehonadab It is also true that the Watchtower organization prefers to use the secular designations "B.C.E." (before our Common Era) and "C.E." (of our Common Era.) --Radioman2 |
||||||
118 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100492 | ||
Colin: I read the Chambers quote and I agree with it. (I am a huge fan of Chambers and his book, MUHH. No one can read this book daily for a year without having their life changed.) I would say we ought to witness with wisdom, speaking the truth in love. But, when it comes to boldly proclaiming (preaching) the gospel of Jesus Christ, we ought to "cry aloud and spare not." You have to get a man lost before he can be saved. Meaning that you have to show him he is a sinner before you can get to him to acknowledge his need of a Savior. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
119 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100482 | ||
In this thread (i.e., in the replies to your question) people seem to be confusing witnessing with preaching. Preaching is not witnessing. Witnessing is not preaching. They are two different things. (As far as witnessing is concerned, Jesus did not tell His disciples to DO witnessing. He told them, You shall BE witnesses (Acts 1:8). BE not Do.) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
120 | Who is "they" in 2 Tim 4:3-4 ? | 2 Thess 2:11 | Radioman2 | 100367 | ||
EdB: Thank you. You got it right. I put the Illuminati into the same category as unicorns, leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [66] >> |