Results 101 - 120 of 558
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67106 | ||
Edb, Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you (does "you" here mean Peter or the disciples?) like wheat; [32] but I have prayed for you (Peter or the disciples?), that your faith (Peter's faith or the disciple's faith?) may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." NASB-U Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (you is plural so Jesus means the disciples), that he may sift you (the disciples) as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee (thee is singular so Jesus means Peter), that thy faith (thy is singular so Jesus means Peter's faith) fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. KJV I hope you now see what I am saying. But unless we are aware that there is a difference between you/your and thee/thou it does not make this passage or any other more clear. retxar |
||||||
102 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67050 | ||
Ed, I guess what I said had nothing to do with the differences between the NASB and NASB-u. Sorry for the confusion. All I was trying to say, and show, was how thee's and thou's were originally used in Renaissance English. Thee's and thou's were not used as a reverent way to address the Lord, as in the '77 NASB. “Thee” and “thou” are singular forms of the pronouns “you” and “your”. In present day English “you” and “your” can be either singular or plural. In Renaissance English “you” and “your” were always plural and “thee and “thou” were always singular. I only gave the passage of Luke 22:31-32 as an example of how this can be a determining factor in knowing what a particular passage is saying. If we only have “you” and “your”, which can be either singular or plural, we have to guess where Jesus means Peter and where Jesus means all the disciples. If we have “thee” and “thou” as well as “you” and “your”, we can know when Jesus means Peter and when Jesus means disciples. I hope this clears things up a bit, and explains what I was trying to say! retxar |
||||||
103 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67000 | ||
The Thompson Chain-Reference by Kirkbride, as John has said is available in '77 NASB. AMG Publishers' Key Word study bible is also available in '77 NASB. I am not familiar with the Key Word bible but I have a Thompson's in NKJV and if I only had one bible, that would be it! The only NASB study bible I have is a 77 Ryrie. I like it and have saw no reason to upgrade to the 95 version. The Thee's and Thou's in the 77NASB are there to show reverence to the Lord when scripture addresses Deity. This is commendable, but the original purpose in Renaissance English (KJV) was to differentiate between 2nd person singular (thee/thou/thy) and second person plural (ye/you/your). Sometimes this can shed light on scripture that we would not otherwise know unless we were a Greek/Hebrew scholar. Example: Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (all the disciples, not just Peter alone), that he may sift you (the disciples) as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (Peter in particular), that thy faith (Peter's faith) fail not: and when thou (Peter) art converted, strengthen thy brethren (Peter's brethren). See what I mean! Hey, I know this is more than you asked for, but it's all free here at www.studybibleforum.com! WELCOME ABOARD! retxar |
||||||
104 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66891 | ||
Thanks Charis, No ploblem here, I just wanted to be sure I didn't say something I did not mean. You be right, I be a bro also! I'll try to do that profile thing soon! I was wondering how long before that came up! later bro! retxar |
||||||
105 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66883 | ||
Thanks Tim! I examined your posts and studied your comments on Romans 5 and Romans 7 and I thank you for teaching me! later bro! retxar |
||||||
106 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66882 | ||
Charis, I know this is where this exchange was supposed to end, but I have 2 small issues with your last post that I fell I must address and then I will cease. 1. You wrote: “Please do not accuse me of following tradition, that would not 'stick' on me! :-)” What brought this on? I re-read my posts, and am at a loss as to what you are talking about? Are you sure I was the one that said what you thought I said to prompt this response from you? Anyway, I apologize to you, sir, if you thought I implied this in anyway. I promise, the thought (of you following tradition) never crossed my mind! 2. Your comments that I was assuming too much to determine the children were NOT the disciple’s: If you would examine the text carefully, you are sure to agree with me too! The ones who were rebuked were not the children, as you have assumed, rather the ones rebuked were the ones who brought them! “Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.” (Mar 10:13 NKJV). So unless Jesus was rebuking the disciples for rebuking themselves, I think it is safe to say the children were not their own. retxar |
||||||
107 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66837 | ||
Sorry if I came across as negative. Here’s another shot! Mar 10:14 such is the kingdom of heaven Mar 10:15 receive kingdom as a little child Luk 18:16 such is the kingdom of heaven Luk 18:17 receive kingdom as a little child Mat 18:3 become as little children Mat 19:14 such is the kingdom of heaven And they were bringing children (children of many) to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them (definitely not the disciples children). But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children (any of the children) to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (no regard to who their parents were). "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child (as a child, not any particular child) will not enter it at all." And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them. (Mar 10:13-16) These children here in Mark were NOT the disciples children. Jesus did not care who’s children they were. Jesus declared that they possessed heaven with no regard of who their mom and dad were. Jesus gave no hint that any of the children’s heavenly status was questionable. You state that you have a hard time understanding God's rationale for 'un-saving' children and that seems to be a problem for you to believe that ALL young children are secure, even tho you feel that should be right. Then you go on to say that there was a time when you KNOW you were lost. I assume that when you were born you also KNOW (now anyway) your were saved (secure). Hey, I believe the same thing for my own life! I believe I was secure/lost/saved! I know I am probably misunderstanding what you meant and please, please don’t think I am trying to twist your words, but it seems you have said the same thing (secure/lost/saved). Could this mean that what you KNOW is not necessarily what you understand? I do not pretend to understand either! retxar |
||||||
108 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66734 | ||
Charis, I do have other scripture I could present, but from what I have already stated as what Mat 18 is saying to me, I can't really say it would be anything that would sway your thinking. Mat 18 is my best shoot (for now anyway!). I admit that the WORD is pretty silent (not totally tho) on the fate of young children of both believers and non-believers. 1Cor 7:14 has been presented as "proof text" that children of believers are secure in Jesus. But to me, it is less convincing than Mat 18 that all young children are secure in the Lord. I believe in salvation of all young children, but if I based a belief of salvation for the children of believers only based on 1 Cor 7:14, I would also have to believe it as proof of salvation for their un-believing spouse. I, like you, am confident that God is just with young children (even aborted children), and that to me has to mean that he will not send them to Hell. If only the children of the saved were secure in the Lord, and the children were kept secure until they had the knowledge to accept Jesus (no saved-now/lost-later scenarios), would not everyone that has been born since Noah be saved, because all would have had to have salvation passed down from their parents? How could the chain have ever been broken? Thanks for your pleasent exchange, tho we disagree. retxar |
||||||
109 | Submit . . . unless it hurts? | Eph 5:33 | retxar | 66615 | ||
I re-read your post and am very sorry if I misread it, but must admit I am no wiser on what you are asking me now than before. If you are not indeed questioning women who do not endure abuse, pain, torment, and even death, in an abusive relationship, I really don't know what you are saying? I don't see how any of the "models" as you have called them, have anything to do with any women “taking a beating” from an abusive man, and how that could possible be honorable unto the Lord? The submissiveness of a wife in marriage simply means she trust her husband to hear from the Lord on her behalf. If he is obviously not hearing from the Lord, any word God would have otherwise spoken thru the husband on his wives behalf, will be spoken directly to the wife. Please consider what Charis and Joe have said to you. Out of curiosity, how many women have you counseled in life threatening relationships? Was your advise for them to “hang in there baby”, because that's what God requires of them because of the "model" of Job? How did that turn out? Did they understand what you were talking about and how that applied to their situation? Would you give the same advice to your daughter or sister? I have advised women in threatening situations to seek the protection necessary for themselves and their children. How was I, according to the WORD, giving the wrong advice? What would you have advised instead? retxar |
||||||
110 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66605 | ||
Greetings charis, I gave the Mat 18:2 reference to show the context, framework, and circumstance in which Jesus was speaking in Mat 18:10 and Mat 18:14 (the verses Cyclist brought up). I gave the reference to show that when Jesus said what He said in Mat 18:10 and Mat 18:14 that the child He had called their attention to in Mat 18:2 was still “in the midst of them”. If not, where did the child go? If not, when did Jesus send him away? His words applied all who had representation in heaven, and this child was the perfect example. Jesus did not say this child was any different from any other child, so I have to conclude that His words apply to all since God is no respecter of persons (Mat 22:16, Act 10:34, Rom 2:11 Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9). We are taught to be the same way (no respecter of persons) in James 2. Please consider, In Jesus name, retxar |
||||||
111 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66571 | ||
Mat 18:2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them Jesus is using the little child He still has "in the midst of them" as an exapmple of those who who have representatives right in the throne of God! This would defiantly includes believers, and of coarse this child, and also children in general, as part of this group. retxar |
||||||
112 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66570 | ||
Mat 18:2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them Jesus is using the little child He still has "in the midst of them" as an exapmple of those who who have representatives right in the throne of God! This would defiantly includes believers, and of coarse this child, and also children in general, as part of this group. retxar |
||||||
113 | does the bible teach 2 baptisms? | Acts 1:5 | retxar | 66568 | ||
Welcome to the forum, Agree3! I will address a few of the points and scriptures you brought up. You asked “does the bible teach 2 baptisms?” Well, actually the bible teaches 3 baptisms that are still valid today. 1. The baptism of the believer into the body of Christ (1Cor 12:13) in the since that all Christians drink into one Spirit, which is the Holy Spirit (John 4:10, John 4:14, John 6:63). 2. Believers baptism in water (Acts 8:12, Acts 8:36, Acts 10:48, Acts 16:15, Acts 19:5, 1Cor 1:14). 3. Baptism with (filled with) the Holy Spirit to receive the power necessary (Acts 1:8) to be a witness (Acts 2:4, Act 10:44, Act 11:15-16, Act 19:6). When Peter was speaking of his remembrance of Jesus's words 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit' in Acts 11:16, he was not saying that those were words he had forgotten, only that what he had saw was the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had told them about, and that the Gentiles were enabled with the same gift (tongues) as they had been when they were baptized with (filled with) the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 11:17). retxar |
||||||
114 | Submit . . . unless it hurts? | Eph 5:33 | retxar | 66543 | ||
To insist that a wife submitting to a physically abusive husband in a life treating relationship is God’s intent and meaning, is a real twist and abuse of His WORD. The scripture you give (Eph 5:22) to justify your position, no where suggest or implies in the least that abuse is the “tough pill women are required to swallow”, as you put it, in order to comply withe THE WORD. What an insult! Eph 5:22 says for wives to submit to their own husbands, as unto the Lord. Enduring abuse, pain, injury, and death, is not “as unto the Lord”, but rather, is as unto the devil. Rightly divide the Word of truth, retxar |
||||||
115 | Worthy of Honor but not of Respect | Eph 5:33 | retxar | 65754 | ||
Your original post was plenty clear to me and I don't understand why there was any misunderstanding on what you were saying. I guess I have been guilty of shooting 1st and reading latter myself at times, so I would just brush the criticism you received as that, if I were you. As far as your question of whether submissiveness requires a woman to accept physical abuse and live in an atmosphere of fear of life and health; absolutely not! retxar |
||||||
116 | Worthy of Honor but not of Respect | Eph 5:33 | retxar | 65700 | ||
The scripture you gave as reference (Eph 5:33) speaks of a great need that women have; her need to know that someone loves her and her need for the security that someone is hearing from God on her behalf. It also speaks of a great need that men have; for him to know that someone respects him and has the convidence in him to make the right decisions and for him to know he is trusted to hear from God on situations concerning his family. Eph 5:22 says “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” This is a high calling! But the previous verse says believers are to also submit to one another. This is an even higher calling! A believing husband and wife are brothers and sister in Christ first. Being husband and wife is a relationship that will exist “until death do they part”, but being brothers and sisters in Christ is a relationship that will exist for eternity! Mutual submissiveness has to happen in different situations in order for a marriage to work. Based on Eph 5:22, wives are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord”. This simply means she trust God to speak to her husband on her behalf. I know of no Godly women who’s husband is following the Lord and also loves her enough to die for her, having any problem at all with this! Man’s role as being the scriptural authority in the home is a role of strength and service, not dictatorship and dominance. The only way for a man to meet this God-given role and to have the right attitude of doing what God requires, is to consider it a duty, not a right. If the husband is not hearing from the Lord, it is obvious that God never intended for the wife to go against His Word to fulfil her role as submissive wife, but she should never question God’s perfect family model and the God-given office that God has given the husband in the home, whether he is fulfilling that role or not. God bless you! retxar |
||||||
117 | Should I resign from the Forum? | 2 Thess 1:3 | retxar | 65690 | ||
I reviewed the thread and it seems to me you asked a reasonable biblically based question that deserved a biblically based answer, not an opinion based attack. You did not say, mean, or imply anything you were accused of. You were not out of line, so don't give it another thought. Move on and keep up the good work! retxar |
||||||
118 | "...these necessary things: ..."??? | Rev 17:5 | retxar | 64561 | ||
I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you asked, but here are some words I have wrote in the past concerning Acts 15. The letter sent to the Gentiles said they would “do well” (commanded?) if they abstained from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from sexual immorality (Act_15:29). Three of these were addressing the eating habits of Gentile Christians. The Gentiles were not bound to the ceremonial Levitical Law (1Co_8:8), but they were not to use their liberty to be a stumbling block to there Jewish neighbors either (1Co_8:9). If they abused their liberty they would be sinning against their brethren, and thus, would be sinning against Jesus (1Co_8:12). I think the instruction for the Gentile Christians to abstain from sexual immorality here does not mean the common acts of fornication, as this was recognized as wrong by all Christians. This was instructions for the Gentiles to observe certain marriage regulations spelled out in the Levitical Law which prohibited marriages between relatives. This was something most Gentiles of that time thought little of. The Gentile believers here were simply asked to give up some of their "rights" as a display of their love for their Jewish brethren. Read 1Co_8:1-13, that will help put this in perspective. My conclusion would be that this scripture (Acts 15) has nothing to do with some special ceremonial laws that God wanted NT believers to keep, but rather instructions for the Gentile Christians that received the letter to get along with their Jewish brethren better. The application for us today would be that any “right” we think we might have as a believer is never gonna be “right” if we exercise it with no regard for our brothers. retxar |
||||||
119 | Joe, | Luke 23:43 | retxar | 64372 | ||
I thought you might have misunderstood what I said. I guess I was just looking down to vs20 which seems to describe the disobedient ones that missed the boat, not the eight who made it. I am in total agreement with what you said about no second chance after death, as the bible no where suggest this is possible. If Jesus did preach a message there (pre-hell), I don’t think it was one of salvation, but rather one to declare His victory and Lordship to those “under the earth” (Phi_2:10). retxar |
||||||
120 | Joe, | Luke 23:43 | retxar | 64312 | ||
Thanks Ed, One claification tho. I asked "Also, did Jesus not also preach to the wicked over on the "hot side" of Hades (1Pe 3:19)?" I quess that may have been worded funny, but what I meant to say was that 1Pe 3:19 seems to say to me that Jesus did indeed preach to those in the hot dry side of Hades. Maybe you thought I meant something different because your response was "Your exactly right Jesus did not preach to those on the hot dry side of Hades." Was that what you meant to say (which is actually disagreeing with what I meant to say), or did you indeed agree with what I said? retxar |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [28] >> |