Results 121 - 140 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 68515 | ||
You scrambling to try to keep up with this post is kinda like trying to keep up with more than one wife isn't it? | ||||||
122 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 68552 | ||
I stand on my previous statement that Saul's only wife that scripture reveals is Ahinoam. Show me the other 4 you know about and I will concede this point. Also, show me any scripture that David took Saul's only wife (Ahinoam) as his own, or any of the other 4 that you know about, and I will concede that point as well. In the mean time we anxiously await your long overdue response to Joe. retxar |
||||||
123 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 68971 | ||
Speaking of words being twisted and taken out of context, are you going to deal with the Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary "quote" you posted the other day? Was this an honest mistake on your part, or did you get a little too zealous trying give your agenda some credibility? Did you really think we would buy that without checking out your source? Forgive me, but you seem to avoid all the hard questions, and keep repeating the same answers over and ever. Also, do you also take the stand that a women can have more than one husband. If not, why not? retxar |
||||||
124 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 68998 | ||
When my wife turned 40 I told her she was so grand that I thought I could probably trade her in on 2 twenty year olds! But she told me I wasn't wired for 2-20, so I scrapped the idea! :-) retxar |
||||||
125 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 69030 | ||
You said: “Perhaps you have a corrupt copy of that commentary, or you did not read what those men had to say that I DID include in the quote.” No, I do not have a corrupt copy, I DID read ALL they had to say, without leaving parts out! I checked the post you referred me to concerning your address of the commentary mis-quotation I questioned. One thing you said was: “There are MANY more portions of that commentary that I could have quoted, but we are all limited to only 5000 characters in this forum.” I am re-posting exactly what you posted the 1st time, PLUS I added the part you conveniently left out. For the sake of putting to rest the debate over Titus and 2 Timothy's "husband of one wife" argument, I offer a commentary from three well respected scholars of the Hebrew and Greek languages. The threads of this question have begun to run far too deep to keep up with it all, so I will begin by addressing the "husband of one wife" issue in Titus. (The "all caps" is my emphasis rather than that of the authors.) This quote comes from a well respected commentary, Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary: "husband of one wife -- confuting the celibacy of Rome's priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church, (this is the part you conveniently left out) THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT. It must, therefore, mean that, though LAYMEN MIGHT LAWFULLY MARRY AGAIN, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in 1Ti 5:9, "wife of one man," IMPLIES A WOMAN MARRIED BUT ONCE; so "husband of one wife" here MUST MEAN THE SAME. The feeling which prevailed among the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Lu 2:36,37), against a second marriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation in matters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle, account for Paul's prohibition here in the case of one in so prominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the STRESS THAT IS LAID IN THE CONTEXT on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Tit 1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canons discountenanced second marriages, especially in the case of candidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful, the undesirableness of it holds good only under special circumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be PREFERRED TO A BACHELOR; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, is likely to be MORE ATTRACTIVE to those who have similar ties, for he teaches them not only by precept, but also BY EXAMPLE (1Ti 3:4,5). The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [BENGEL]. So in the synagogue, "no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married" [in Colbo, ch. 65; VITRINGA, Synagogue and Temple]." [Emphasis mine] Guess what? Even with adding the part you left out and all I have said here, we are STILL under the 5000 word limit! Imagine that! retxar |
||||||
126 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 69115 | ||
Don First off, let me say I did not say or imply you were a “snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others”. I spoke of what you did (deceptively mis-quoted JFB), not your character. I presented the reason for my accusation, not generalities or name calling. If you can refute that what you did was not dishonest with the intent to deceive and mislead, and that what you left out was not intentional because it was detrimental to the agenda you are attempting to push, we would all like to hear about it. If you chose to ignore what you did and consider deception OK, fine, but don’t expect anyone around here to really take what you have to say seriously, regardless of how many big name professors you have shut down with your vast array of knowledge. Forgive me if I have a major problem with this, but I’m not used to fellow Christians trying to deceive me and then have them brush it off as if nothing happened. Please deal with this in a responsible manner. You’re kidding no one but yourself. You said ‘The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." And why did the commentary say that the “one wife” thing Paul was talking about was not talking about polygamy?? Because of the part you left out!! It is the statement just before the one you like to quote here. Let’s read it again: “and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church”. The commentary said that Polygamy was not what Paul was talking about here because POLYGAMY WAS PROHIBITED FOR ALL, NOT JUST BISHOPS! If you won’t listen to anyone else, just listen to yourself, and take a serious look at how weak and dishonest your attempts are at trying to prove you point. What is your motivation for this? retxar |
||||||
127 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | retxar | 11982 | ||
Please know the difference between “KJV only” and those that believe the UNDERLINING TEXT of the KJV (also NKJV, MKJV, and LITV) is closer to the original than some other modern translations. God only wrote one Bible and there are places that are different where we must chose which text is correct (examples: John 7:8, John 8:1-11, Romans 8:1, Acts 8:37, etc.). I would certainly take offense at being called “KJV only” if I chose to go with the KJV on these verses instead of the NASB or NIV. I went to the biblestudy.org web site. I was only there a few minutes and admit I don’t know a lot about them. However, it does not take long for one to know they are far, far, far from being KJV only. They even spoke of those that have the usual KJV only attitude as having a “bigoted fundamentalist” character. The link Nolan supplied is even called “KJV errors”. This would never meet AV1611 standards as “KJV only” by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not saying what you said is wrong, I am only saying it paints a picture of biblestudy.org that is simply not true. Nolan originally asked about biblestudy.org’s statement about one using the KJV as their 'primary' Bible and the use of other translations as a good follow up. I personally believe that biblestudy.org is not giving bad advice here (tho I prefer the NKJV). I have given reasons elsewhere of why I would say this. Almost everyone here would have an answer if someone asked them to recommend a Bible version as their ‘primary’ Bible. Many would say “NASB” because they believe it to be an accurate translation that sticks close to the original underling text, with the emphasis on accurate translation, not interpretation. They might also recommend the use of other translations as a good follow up to the NASB. Would that make them “NASB only”? No way! If someone makes the same recommendation for the KJV, based on the same reasoning, that should not make them “KJV only” either, should it? I have spoke out against KJV only-ism many, many times. I have had KJV only folks slam their Bibles shut in disgust, as a sign of protest against me when they realized I was not reading from the KJV. In response to a KJV question, I once said, “We are to worship the King, I’m glad my King’s name is Jesus, not James!” I understand the difference between what I believe and what the KJV only folks teach. I don’t like it when people confuse the two. I have read the book “The King James Only Controversy” by James White several times, so I also understand and respect that side of the coin. I, as others (maybe even biblestudy.org?), do not like being caught in the cross fire, as we are so many times. Please believe me, I have no problem with anyone speaking out against KJV only-ism. Just make sure the toes being stepped on are the ones that need to be stomped. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
128 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | retxar | 12120 | ||
No offense taken at all. I was just concerned that your original Bible preference question, somehow, got turned into an attack on KJV only-ism, with biblestudy.org being the offender. I just hated to see them being thrown into the KJV-only pile when, from what I saw anyway, was not true. Thanks bro, retxar |
||||||
129 | Lifting up of hands? | Ps 63:4 | retxar | 14342 | ||
Is the position of the body what God looks at when we worship Him? Does God dis-qualify our prayers if we don't close our eyes? Does God turn away if we pray and are not in a kneeling position? If we only lift one hand and not holy hands is our praise rejected? If one is physically handicapped are they just out of luck and can neither praise or worship? Will those who worship the anti-christ be able to get off the hook on a technicality? I don't think so. | ||||||
130 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67252 | ||
You need to look down at verse 26 "It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup," A handbreath is about 3 inches and the brim of a cup is flared out, I would say at least an inch. The measurement from outside to outside of the brim was 10 cubits (about 180 inches). The circumference of the bowl would almost have to be taken from the inside, because it would need to be measured before it was cast, which would equal the circumference of the core, which would be the inside of the bowl. So lets do the math. Brim to brim is 180". Subtract the thickness twice (6 inches) we now have 174 inches. Subtract the flare twice (2 inches) we now have 172 inches. 3.14 (pi) x 172" is 540.08 inches. 30 cubits is about 540 inches!!! This is just over 1/16 of an inch (the size of a flea!) of being right on!! I know of no building contractor anywhere that can measure something 45 feet long this close, let alone build it!! This is a powerful text to prove The Bible's accuracy, not it's error. retxar |
||||||
131 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67351 | ||
You are only looking at the finish product and you are not even thinking about the process of getting there. There were many measurements that needed to be known and taken before this swimming pool size bowl was even started! From a design standpoint, which is really what would have been Solomon’s concern and reason to know, and what would be reasonable to think God would have revealed to him, the circumference measurement would have been AROUND the core, which would be the inside of the bowl, not the outside. I know you know your arithmetic, but do you really have any idea how something like this large bowl would have been cast? Would you know where to start? If you did, you would know that the circumference of the core would be something handy to know and that the diameter from brim to brim would be something handy to know and you would have indeed been blessed if God had given you both! The bowl was probably constructed upside down. Straw or some other filler would first have been heaped up to a size somewhat smaller than the inside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the straw would have been covered with clay to a size somewhat larger than the inside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the clay would have been trimmed, honed, and sanded down to the exact size as God specified. This is where the 540 inch core circumference would have came into play. Next, the clay would have been hardened and cured with heat. Next, wax, paraffin, or some another material that would melt would have been put on the outside of the clay core to a size somewhat larger than the outside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the wax would have then been trimmed, honed, and sanded down to the exact size as God specified. This is where the 172 inch brim to brim measurement would have came into play. Next, the wax would have been covered with clay. Next, this layer of clay would have hardened and cured. Next, holes at the top would have been added thru the outer clay and into the wax cavity for molten brass to be poured into. Next, holes would have then been added at the bottom for the wax to escape. Next, molten brass would have then poured into the wax cavity which would cause the wax to melt and be replaced with brass as the melting wax escaped thru the relief holes. After the brass had set up and cooled down, the outer clay shell would be chipped away. The bowl would have then been turned right side up and the clay and straw on the inside would be removed. A few finishing touches and we now have a bowl large enough to be called a sea and it is exactly as God wanted and as He precisely specified for His Temple! The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers my friend! Keep on hammering away if you like, but I would suggest you just put down your hammer and realize that Jesus has already been hammered to a cross for you! Just give it up and believe His WORD! John 20:27b ....do not be unbelieving, but believing. retxar |
||||||
132 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67540 | ||
It's OK if you don't see it that way, but if you had even built anything like this (on a smaller scale of coarse), it would make sense to you. You have to admit that it is very probable and you cannot rule out what I have said. Even if I am not correct the Bible is, and you are really grabbing at straws here to try to say this scripture is in error! When you are measuring stuff with strings and sticks, 15 digit precision is not really an issue anyway! Apparently Solomon got every thing built OK, so I guess he had no problem with the numbers God gave him or he would not have wrote them down! How do I pronounce "Retxar"? Well, I don't really know. It has a rhyme and reason but I guess it is not really a word. Here’s another arithmetic question for you and you don’t even have to use pi! What if the bowl was made from 6 brass plates joined together to form the walls. This would not be a true circle, but THE WORD says “circular in form”, and this would indeed be “circular in form” in the same way as a geometric dome house is “circular in form” or the old wooden barrels made from slats were “circular in form”. They are constructed in the same fashion and everyone calls them “round” houses and “round” barrels. If the bowl was 10 cubits outside to outside, what would be the outside length of each of the 6 plates that make up to wall have to be? What would this number multiplied by six be? This number would be the length around the outside walls. retxar P.S. A true math whiz kid ought to be able to do this in his head, but you can use your calculator if you like! |
||||||
133 | Why was Jesus named “Jesus”? | Is 7:14 | retxar | 25943 | ||
Or you can skip reading the italics in both and John 8:24 would read that Jesus simply said He was "I AM", which is what I think He meant and said. Jesus is the great I AM! retxar |
||||||
134 | Luke 10:18 before or after Gen 1:1 ? | Is 14:12 | retxar | 58786 | ||
I don't know Ron. Do you not think Jesus was simple saying that the disciples report did not surprise Him as He had saw satan lose his glory and for them to not think it strange to have power over demons? retxar |
||||||
135 | Replace being religious for obedience? | Jer 7:21 | retxar | 27644 | ||
Hi mattiep, I enjoyed reading your post. God truly is our source! I was curious tho, what did you mean by "the Mother of the church". God is our source! retxar |
||||||
136 | Who was Darius the Mede? | Dan 6:28 | retxar | 57147 | ||
I have heard the theory before of Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian being the same person. I guess that could be correct, but it seems to be something someone came up with to justify secular history, which does not mention Darius the Mede, but only Cyrus the Persian. In light of scripture tho, that theory does seam to fit to me. Dan 9:1 list Darius’s father, so if that also checks out to be Cyrus’s father, I guess that would give the theory more weight. retxar |
||||||
137 | Latter times | Joel 2:28 | retxar | 61034 | ||
Before Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to only selected individuals in a pick and choose fashion as God saw fit to accomplish His plan and purpose. Now the Holy Spirit would be available to be poured out on "all flesh" that believed. retxar |
||||||
138 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Matthew | retxar | 13889 | ||
For God so loved the world, He GAVE. For we so love God, we give. God gives because He loves, not to get. We must also give because we love, not to get. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
139 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Matthew | retxar | 14544 | ||
I’m sorry, when I give a Christmas present, I don't you expect to receive something in return. I have given Christmas presents before and later the person got me something because they felt obligated or something. I hated that! The Word says greater is he who blesses than he who is blessed. Guess what? The Word is true! I felt a whole lot better being a blessing than being blessed! Let God be true and every man a liar. If God rewards me it will be out of His love for me, not by me doing the “right” thing and somehow He being obligated to me. The Word says God desire obedience, not sacrifice. I work each and every day. I get paid once a week. If my employer came up to me and said, “I’m sorry, we can’t pay you anymore”. I would say, “I’m sorry, I can’t work here anymore”. If my dad called me up and asked for my help, I would be there in a flash. Because I love him, I would go without expecting anything in return. However, he might reward me greatly, because he loves me , but it does not matter to me either way. If I started expecting something each time I helped him out, he would start calling someone else, not me. He will continue to let me help him, if I continue doing it out of love. If he rewards me, it will be out of love, not obligation. My employer rewards me out of obligation not love. If we treat God like our employer, we will only serve Him if He continues to “pay” us what we think we are worth. If we serve God like a Father, we serve Him out of love not obligation. We are living according to the Spirit and we don’t have our minds set on the things of the flesh (Romans 8:5). If we start treating God like our employer instead of our Father, don’t think He will continue to use us to our fullest potential. God does bless His children in ways above and beyond what we could ever expect or imagine (Eph. 3:20), but it will be according to His will and love, not our formulas. In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
140 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Matthew | retxar | 14671 | ||
Stay focused on Jesus!! Good word Norrie! Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Jesus Lives! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [17] >> |