Results 121 - 140 of 219
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Is drinking and smoking pot allowed | 1 Tim 5:23 | biblicalman | 228611 | ||
Jesus certainly drank wine at reasonable levels, and due to adverse water conditions at Ephesus Paul advised Timothy to sometimes drink a little wine instead of water to prevent the illness which he suffered from (1 Tim 5.23). So an occasional glass of wine with the family is not sin against God unles you fear someone might be led atsray by it. Pot is a different matter and should only be taken when prescribed by a doctor. | ||||||
122 | Where there Gen 1:24-31; 2:18-20; 4: 17? | Genesis | biblicalman | 228593 | ||
Man was probably alive during the dinosaur age compare genesis 1.21, 24, 26. Gen 1.26 describes the first creation of man, and that was Adam. so no, there were no true men before him After the resurrection true Christians will have a spiritual body (1 Cor 15.44). |
||||||
123 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228591 | ||
To fall short of the glory of God is sin (Romans 3.23). Not to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength is sin (Deut.6.5). To know to do good and do it not is sin (James 4.17). Not to love the stranger as ourselves is sin (Lev 19.34). To fail to do to others what we would have them do to us is sin (Matthew 7.12). Can anyone really say they observe all of these? I have met people who believed in sinless perfection, but I observed sin in them when they did not observe it themselves. And I have never known anyone who lived by the standards described above. That is why John said, 'if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1.8). Compare James 3.2, 8; Jeremiah 2.35. It is possible in the power of the risen Christ to achieve a state where we live for a while without known sin, in the sense of avoiding what we know to be sin. But that is very different from being sinless. Indeed Isaiah said, 'all our righteousnesses are as defiled rags'. That is why Paul could say, 'I am carnal. Sold under sin.' (Romans 7.14). He was not speaking of what we might call sin. His sins were probably a failure sometimes in prayer or the overlooking of an individual's needs. But it was still sin. To come short of total perfection is sin. If such a man lived his prayers would be so powerful that the world would see and know. But such a man would be aware of the deceitfulness of his own heart. Thus yes our aim should be total sinlessness, total positive perfection, but we will never totslly achieve it in this life. |
||||||
124 | We do what we can and God does what we c | Rom 8:28 | biblicalman | 228548 | ||
Well the nearest I can think of is 'God makes all things work together for good to those who love Him'(Rom 8.28). But the principle is right as long as we are walking in His will. There are many Biblical examples where that is exactly what happened. One example is Jonathan's foray against the Philistines (1 Sam 14.6) |
||||||
125 | Romans 24 | Romans | biblicalman | 228537 | ||
sorry Romans chapter 24 doesn't exist | ||||||
126 | old city names to current city names | Genesis | biblicalman | 228535 | ||
Edom and Idumea were not cities. Edom was the land in which the Edomites lived. Idumea was the region of southern Judah that they settled in when they were driven out of Edom. Jerusalem was sometimes called Zion. |
||||||
127 | can a christian lose their salvation? | John 10:28 | biblicalman | 228532 | ||
This is a question which has been asked many times before and can be researched. However, I will deal with it briefly. Salvation is a privilege and a gift from God (Romans 3.24; Ephesians 2.8-9). It is not thus ours to gain or lose. Our dependence is not on ourselves but on our Saviour. 'My sheep hear My voice and I know them and the follow Me, and I give to them eternal life, and they will never perish and none will pluck them from My hand.' (John 10.27-28). But it must be noted that inherent in being saved is that we follow Him. We cannot receive the LORD Jesus Christ as our Saviour without receiving Him as our LORD. See also 1 Corinthians 1.8-9; Philippians 2.6; 2 Timothy 1.12; Titus 3.4-7; Jude 24. |
||||||
128 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228524 | ||
Jehovah is not God's Name. It is impossible Hebrew. God's Name was YHWH. And we are not sure how it was pronounced. In order that people reading the text might not pronounce the sacred Name the vowels of adonai (Lord) were added to the four consonant. It was pronouncing this in ignorance that produced the corrupt name Jehovah which is impossible in Hebrew. As no one knows how the Name of God should be pronounced, and as Jesus chose not to enlighten us (demonstrating that He did not see it as important) it would clearly not be possible for us to use it today because we would not be sure that what we were pronouncing was His Name. |
||||||
129 | SIN | 1 Cor 5:10 | biblicalman | 228515 | ||
Yes, there are some sins that are worse than others. Murder and adultery are two. But the only sin that is unforgiveable is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This involves resisting the Hoy Spirit as He points to Christ so often that the person becomes hardened and unreachable. We are told to flee from sin and heretics, not from sinners. It is quite reasonable that your friend lives with his family as long as they are not putting pressure on him to turn from Christ (see 1 Corinthians 5.10). Indeed he has a responsibilty to seek to win them for Christ. |
||||||
130 | How far was it from Canaan to Egypt | Exodus | biblicalman | 228510 | ||
By the Via Maris (the way of the Philistines) it was about 150 miles from Gaza to the Egyptian border towns (Aharoni). It depends of course where you start from and where you see the borders. The Israelites took a much longer route in order to avoid the Egyptian army and forts, but they still accomplished it in just over a year (excluding the nine months at Sinai). Best wishes |
||||||
131 | why 5 stones for david's sling? | 1 Samuel | biblicalman | 228508 | ||
Possibly because he counted them on his fingers. Possibly because 5 is the number of covenant. But most likely because that was all that would fit into his pouch. While an expert slinger he was not arrogant and took into account that he might miss. | ||||||
132 | First apostle killed for his faith? | Acts 12:2 | biblicalman | 228506 | ||
Assuming that you mean the twelve Apostles the answer is James, brother of John. (Acts 12.2)and one of the three present at the Transfiguration and the raising of Jairus' daughter. | ||||||
133 | Isiah one of the major or minor profits | Is 5:14 | biblicalman | 228497 | ||
The prophet of God in the days of Hezekiah who assured him that Jerusalem would not fall tothe Assyrians. He wrote the book of Isaiah | ||||||
134 | Bible verses' to suport how we are known | Luke | biblicalman | 228496 | ||
the truth is that we are given no information about recognition in heaven nor of how old we will appear. indeed as we will have spiritual bodies the latter questiion is a non-starter. The rich man in Luke 16 recognised Abraham but that may have been parabolic. Indeed how would he know what Abraham looked like? We must recognise that we will know the Lord and He will know us. That is what will really matter. Best wishes |
||||||
135 | where does it talk bout insest being bad | Lev 18:9 | biblicalman | 228483 | ||
leviticus 18.9 | ||||||
136 | romans ch1 v.7 no Holy Spirit why? | Rom 1:4 | biblicalman | 228471 | ||
The aim was to focus the attention on God the Father and on His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit was to be relied on and experienced but attention was not to be focussed on Him. Such a focus often leads to extremism. God the Father was very much seen as the God of the Old Testament Jesus Christ was the new revelation of God as LORD. Both were seen as acting towards God's people, as Creator, Redeemer. and Shepherd. The people were, however, very much aware of the work of the Holy Spirit among them. But worship was to be directed towards Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit's encouragement and inspiration. He was, however, included in Jesus' baptismal statement (Matthew 28.19) and in Paul's epilogue in 2 Corinthians 13.4. |
||||||
137 | is there anywhere in the bible that says | Mark 7:19 | biblicalman | 228469 | ||
In the Old Testament it was forbidden to eat animals unless they 'parted the hoof and chewed the cud'. Only animals within that description could be guaranteed to both eat wholesome food and graze in healthy areas. Other animals ate food from places were death was common, or went to places where death prevailed. It was an object lesson to Israel about healthy and wholesome living, and the necessity of avoiding places of death. It undoubtdly saved them from many health problems, especially while they were in the wilderness. But once Jesus came, the epitome of holy living, the object lesson became unnecessary, and He declared all foods clean. As with all the other ordinances it was fulfilled in Jesus. |
||||||
138 | who was nicodemus | John 3:1 | biblicalman | 228467 | ||
Nicodemus was a leading Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish body that ruled Judea. He came secretly to Jesus to find an answer to his questions (John 3). He also sought to defend Jesus before the Pharisees (John 7.50) and helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus' body(John 19.39). | ||||||
139 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228450 | ||
While I have great respect for Dr Scofield (as a newborn Christian with no evangelical church known to me I seized on his notes as a Godsend, although I have subsequently discovered their many flaws). But he tends to be inaccurate in his general statements. To say that 'the uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that Gen 6.2 marks the breaking down of the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain' is simply untrue. It is the worst kind of misstatement taking advantage of people's ignorance. The 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo following LXX as known to him translated bene elohim (sons of God) as aggeloi tou theou (angels of God). And he was hugely influential among the Jews. And this translation is found in Eusebius and Ambrose. Josephus states that Gen 6.2 referred to angels. Enoch 6.2 refers it to 'the angels, the children of heaven'. Jubilees 5.1 refers it to 'angels of God'. The Genesis Apocryphon sees it as a union between angels and earthly women. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus all held this view. Delitzsch in his commentary says 'it is most obvious to think here of angels' and cites many sources. Taking bene elohim as 'sons of princes' (many ancient kings were seen as sons of the gods) is the traditional one in orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, and was established in order to counter the prevailing view that the passage referred to angels. But they too did not see it as referring to the line of Seth. Thus Scofield's statement is not only misleading, it is false. But in the Old Testament bene elohim always means angels (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Psalm 29.1 in Hebrew; 89.6 in Hebrew; Daniel 3.25). In contrast Isaiah 43.6 does not use the phrase bene elohim and reference to it is thus misleading. With regard to Daniel 3.25 the ben elohim mentioned there is in verse 28 specifically called 'His angel'. The fact that angels are spoken of as neither marrying nor giving in marriage indicates the norm. But that is the point. These angels had 'left their first estate' (Jude 6). The 'godly line of Seth' did not exist and is an invention of Bible students (I will not say scholars). Seth and his son were godly. Note that in Genesis 4.25 it was men in general who began to call on the Name of YHWH, not just Sethites. There is no indication that Sethites were generally more godly, apart from Enoch. To me the most obvious interpretation explains why the Flood was necessary and why man had become so totally evil (including the line of Seth). I am still waiting to learn why the lines of the other sons of Adam are not mentioned in arguments. Did they not exist? |
||||||
140 | Subsequent process | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228447 | ||
Well of course you may use 2 Thessalonians 2.13 as you like. That is your privilege. But the point is that 'sanctification of the Spirit' comes before 'belief in the truth'. Thus it would appear to be prior. Had Paul meant what you say he would have put sanctification of the Spirit after belief of the truth. Incidentally are you denying that the Spirit works in men to bring them to Christ? How then do they come to Him? They come to Him through the work that He does in their lives by His Spirit. What is that if it is not 'sanctifying', separating out in order to make holy. Would you say that children could be sanctified at birth? Or that an unbelieving man could be sanctified? (Although not by the Spirit). Paul does. (1 Corinthians 7.14). The term has a variety of meanings to be determined in context. I really do not mind how you take 'from the beginning'. But what does happen 'from the beginning'? Certainly not belief of the truth. It is God's choice that is from the beginning and that results in His commencing His sanctifying work on those chosen in order to bring them to belief of the truth. Why should what is in the eternal mind of God be described only as justification? Do you not think that He had in His mind the making of us holy as well as the declaring of us as righteous? I fail to see why the fact that being made holy is distinct from being declared righteous means that it has to be a 'subsequent process' (if we can speak of subsequent when speaking of non-time) as opposed to justification. Clearly both are the result of a subsequent processs by which God brings men to Himself. And I have in fact already previously indicated that Scripture teaches that sanctification is both a status and a process. I notice you do not mention 1 Peter 1.2. There also we have God's election, then sanctification of the Spirit, and this leads to (is 'unto') the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood'. Now whether the obedience of Jesus Christ is His obedience put to our account, or is our subsequent obedience through Jesus Christ, makes no difference to the fact that it is subsequent to sanctification of the Spirit. And more importantly from the point of view of the question, the 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus' which takes place at conversion is also subsequent to sanctification of the Spirit. Thus salvation follows sanctification of the Spirit in this case. Need I say more? Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |