Results 141 - 160 of 420
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Accept Jesus? | Acts 24:3 | Radioman2 | 88575 | ||
Should we not, as Bible-believing Christians, be using Biblical terminology to discuss and describe Biblical truth, even in everyday conversation? Note also that the term "accept Christ" is used not only in everyday conversation among laymen, but also from the pulpit, where qualified preachers are supposed to be rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It is important to impart Biblical truth using Biblical words. Since Christ Himself, as well as the men writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the words "believe" and "receive", who are we to substitute the word "accept"? Surely believe and receive are not obscure, obsolete, archaic Middle English words that are no longer used or understood today, are they? A search in the King James Version of the Bible will show only ONE occurence of the word "accept" in the entire N.T. Ac 24:3 (KJV) We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. |
||||||
142 | Accept Jesus? | Acts 24:3 | Radioman2 | 88284 | ||
A search in the King James Version of the Bible showed only ONE occurence of the word "accept" in the entire N.T. Ac 24:3 (KJV) We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. |
||||||
143 | re-marriage after divorce | 1 Cor 7:15 | Radioman2 | 88048 | ||
"If the marriage is dissolved because of adultery, the innocent party may remarry without jeopardy." NASB Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." AMPLIFIED Matthew 19:9 I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 'Jesus was confronted one day by the Pharisees about the question of divorce and remarriage. Please get that! The context of the passage, Matthew 19:3-9, the reason they continued to question Him, was not to learn whether or not a married couple could divorce. They already knew from God's declaration in Deuteronomy 24, the passage to which Jesus appealed, that they could. The Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus on the question of whether or not divorced couples could, according to Scripture, remarry. 'Jesus said, "God's original plan never included divorce, but because your hearts are hard, he permitted it on the grounds of adultery. If the marriage is dissolved because of adultery, the innocent party may remarry without jeopardy."' ____________________ DIVORCE AND THE PASTOR by David Sisler (http://davidsisler.com/9-2.htm) See also ID# 87604. |
||||||
144 | What people, aside from God's elect, rec | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 88001 | ||
Even as [in His love] He chose us [actually picked us out for Himself as His own] in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (consecrated and set apart for Him) and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love. (AMPLIFIED Ephesians 1:4 ) But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:13 b) |
||||||
145 | A.D. and B.C. | Is 61:2 | Radioman2 | 87898 | ||
A.D. or ad (adverb) indicating date: used to indicate a date that is a specified number of years after the birth of Jesus Christ. Full form anno Domini B.C. or bc (adverb) before the birth of Jesus Christ: used to indicate a date that is a specified number of years before the birth of Jesus Christ. Full form before Christ ( used after a date) (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx) |
||||||
146 | firstfruit vs. tithe | Is 1:13 | Radioman2 | 87893 | ||
"Firstfruits", Definition It is advisable to define a word before launching into a discussion of it. 'Firstfruits '(Heb. resit [tyivaer]; Gk. aparche [ajparchv]). The concept of firstfruits derives from God's creation work. Because God created everything that exists, all of creation belongs to him (Psalm 24:1). Consequently, that which is first and best belongs to him and is to be given to him. 'Because of God's creative power and ownership of all, the Bible instructs believers to give God the best of the animal sacrifices (see Lev. 1-5). The land is also viewed as a gift from God and the best of it, its "firstfruits, " is to be given to him—crops (Exod 23:16,19), the wheat harvest (Exod 34:22; Lev 2:14; 23:20), olive oil (Num 18:12; Deut 18:4), the finest new wine (Num 18:12; Deut 18:4), honey (2 Chron 31:5), sheep wool (Deut 18:4), and fruit (Neh 10:35). The Old Testament makes it clear that everything that God's people have is to be viewed as from God and gained through his providence (Psalm 50:10). 'Believers are the "firstfruits" of God—"a kind of firstfruits of all he created" (Jas 1:18). Spiritual "firstfruits" may be the first converts in an area (Rom 16:5). As "firstfruits" believers are a testimony to God's power in salvation. They are his first born, redeemed by Christ's blood. In their holy standing, believers are God's firstfruits—"holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest" (Jer 2:3). God's people are therefore to present themselves as holy firstfruits to God, as "living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God" (Rom 12:1). In having the "firstfruits of the Spirit, " the work of the Spirit in effecting the present redemption of their souls, believers are given the guarantee that they will have the future redemption of their bodies at the second coming of Christ (Rom 8:23). 'In 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23, Paul teaches that Christ in his bodily resurrection is the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." As such, he is the guarantee that all those who belong to him will be raised from the dead at his second coming. In the natural world, the first sheaf of the crop was to be brought to God (Lev 23:10,11,17) as a guarantee that the rest of the harvest was coming. So it is in God's redemption harvest. First, Christ the "firstfruits" has triumphed in his resurrection; then, the rest of his "crop, " the redeemed, will be raised triumphantly at his second coming (1 Cor 15:23). 'In light of this, God's people, as his "firstfruits, " are to have a sanctifying effect on others (1 Cor 5:6-7), just as Abraham and the patriarchs had a sanctifying effect on disobedient Israel (Rom 11:14-16). Believers are to be true followers of the Lamb, just as the saints in the second coming, who are described as holy in life, "purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb" (Rev 14:4). 'W. Harold Mare 'Bibliography. P. Levertoff, ISBE, 2:307-8; J. P. Lewis, ZPED, 2:541.' ____________________ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell Published by Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi) |
||||||
147 | Why the destruction of 2000 farm pigs ?? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87830 | ||
Jesus was not responsible for the destruction of the swine. The demons were. | ||||||
148 | how to start reading the bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87730 | ||
Rejecting the Trinity The Good News Minister recommends you visit www.biblestudents.net/ According to the website, in their own words, this is what the "Bible Students" believe: 'The Trinity We reject the doctrine of a 'Trinity'. This doctrine developed 300 years after Jesus and His Apostles died as a result of disputes within the orthodox church. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the Son of God, nowhere does it speak of him being 'God the Son'. 'The Soul We also reject the idea of an "immortal soul" that goes to heaven at death. The Bible teaches that the only hope for eternal life is through a resurrection when Jesus returns. 'The Lord's Return We believe that the Lord's promised return is not physical to the eye, but spiritual, an invisible presence.' Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Compare beliefs of another group at (http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm). How about the following? Ever hear of Charles Taze Russell? [See (http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/watch_12_1_16_p357.htm) and (http://www.carm.org/jw/docs/1000years_p346.htm)]. According to (www.biblestudents.net/): 'The Bible Students had their humble beginning in the late 1860s. In 1868, a young businessman named Charles Taze Russell, who feared the Lord, began studying with a small band of Christians independent of the creeds of the Churches, they soon discovered that many of the doctrines that were popularly taught and believed were inconsistent with the Bible. Dissatisfied, Mr. Russell devoted himself to a careful independent study of the Scriptures. He made no claim to any vision or personal revelation.' To read more about the "Bible Students", go to: (http://www.biblestudents.net/faq/believe.htm) |
||||||
149 | Are Jesus and God the same? | John 10:30 | Radioman2 | 87618 | ||
Please search for your question before asking. | ||||||
150 | Needing help explaining Rev. Chapter 1 | Revelation | Radioman2 | 87431 | ||
For an online verse by verse commentary of Revelation (no "s"), check out this website: (www.revelationcommentary.org/) I find it very helpful and informative and I use it often. God bless you as you study and teach. |
||||||
151 | Stanley reliance. Burning building quest | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87321 | ||
1.25 percent quote Stanley Ecargneb: "I am fascinated by your apparent reliance on Charles Stanley." Actually, I have made a total of 720 posts as of today, 6-20-2003. Of those 720, nine (9) quote the writings of Charles Stanley. Therefore, slightly more than 1 percent (1.25 percent to be exact) of my posts quote Charles Stanley. "Have you read the analogy he provides of a person jumping from a burning building?" No, I do not remember having ever read the analogy you refer to. Grace and Peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
152 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Radioman2 | 87174 | ||
"Is our name removed from the Book of Life, or added when we make Jesus our Lord?" Neither. "...our assumption would be that when men or women put their trust in Christ, their names were added at that moment. But that is not the case at all. The book of life has been complete since the foundation of the world." Rev. 3:4-5 Does God Have an Eraser? How can I be certain God won't erase my name from the book of life? (All of the following text consists of direct quotations from the work cited at the end.) We will begin . . . by looking first at what the New Testament has to say concerning the book of life. (...) First Printing The apostle John refers to the "book of life" five other times in Revelation. From two of these passages it becomes evident that he certainly did not believe names could be erased: And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Revelation 13:8, emphasis added. And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. Revelation 17:8, emphasis added. In these passages John informs us about the time when the book of life was filled out. This information comes as a surprise. Without it, our assumption would be that when men or women put their trust in Christ, their names were added at that moment. But that is not the case at all. The book of life has been complete since the foundation of the world. By "world," John does not mean "earth." In both passages "earth" and "world" appear. These are from two different Greek words. The one translated "earth" means just that--this ball of dirt upon which we live. The Greek word translated "world" is kosmos from which we get our English word cosmos. John is using "world" here to refer to the entire universe (see John 1:3; Acts 17:24). In light of the scientific limitations of John's day, it could very well be a reference to all created things. Either way, his point is the same: THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE THE FIRST ENTRY WAS EVER BORN. If that is the case, God's foreknowledge had a great deal to do with who was written in and who was not. In anticipation of Christ's death on man's behalf, God wrote the names of those He knew from eternity past would accept His gracious offer. The apostle Paul had this same idea in mind when he wrote, Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. (Ephesians 1:4) God wrote before we did anything. He filled out the book of life in anticipation of what He knew we would do. Therefore, He did not write in response to what we ACTUALLY did; rather, He wrote in response to what He KNEW we would actually do. This distinction is very important. For if God put names in the book as history unfolded--as we actually believed ---it could be argued that He erases them as history unfolds as well. But if God entered names according to His foreknowledge, it follows that He would erase them according to His foreknowledge, which makes no sense at all. If God wrote and erased according to foreknowledge, both His writing and His erasing would be complete before the world began. In that case, no one needs to live with the fear that his or her name will be erased from the book of life sometime in the future. But if that is the case, Revelation 3:5 is no longer a problem. Missing Persons There is a second reason these passages eliminate the possibility of names being erased. Both passages indicate that the lost people in these verses had never had their names written in the book of life. John does not say these names were simply not in the book at that time. He says, "Everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world." Who is he talking about here? "All who dwell on the earth." In other words, no lost persons alive at that time had ever had their names in the book of life. Of course, they had never had their names erased from the book, either. The only way around this problem for those who hold to the ERASABLE NAME VIEW is to maintain that all the unsaved people who had their names erased were already dead by this time in history. That is certainly possible, but it is highly unlikely. It is especially unlikely in light of the intense persecution those who name the name of Christ will be facing during this time (see Revelation 13:7). ---------- This material has been adapted from: Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? by Dr. Charles Stanley (http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html) |
||||||
153 | Attitudes or Beattitudes?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87120 | ||
TheCurtMan: I agree with you that we ought to be kind to one another, loving one another. Also, consider this: the woman at the well did not respond to each thing Jesus said by telling him: "No, you're wrong." "It doesn't mean that." "You're taking it out of context." "I will not engage in your games." Although the woman at the well didn't get it at first, she apparently had a teachable spirit (see John 4:28-30). Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
154 | WHAT DOES ROMANS 8:36 MEAN? | Rom 8:36 | Radioman2 | 87041 | ||
I "face death every day." CEV 1 Corinthians 15 30 And why do we always risk our lives 31 and face death every day? The pride that I have in you because of Christ Jesus our Lord is what makes me say this. 32 What do you think I gained by fighting wild animals in Ephesus?... v. 30 AMPLIFIED [For that matter], why do I live [dangerously as I do, running such risks that I am] in peril every hour? v. 31 "I die daily." I "face death every day." Paul continually risked his literal, physical life in self-sacrificing ministry. |
||||||
155 | Active Homosexuals: Truly Christian? | Rom 1:21 | Radioman2 | 86990 | ||
"If an individual will neither see nor admit that homosexual practice is sin, then God's Word is not in that individual." ____________________ Hank: Although I do not advocate judging others as to their salvation, I think it highly unlikely, if not impossible, that someone who a) is a practicing homosexual and b) rejects what the Word of God plainly teaches -- that homosexual practice is sin -- can be a Christian. Let's not kid ourselves: If someone claims to be a Christian but never even ADMITS that homosexual practice is sin, then I have a problem with their claim. AMPLIFIED 1 John 1:10 If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts]. Truly, if an individual will neither see nor admit that homosexual practice is sin, then God's Word is not in that individual [the divine message of the Gospel is not in his heart]. ____________________ NASB 1 Thessalonians 4:8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. ____________________ AMPLIFIED 1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God has not called us to impurity but to consecration [to dedicate ourselves to the most thorough purity]. AMPLIFIED 1 Thessalonians 4:8 Therefore whoever disregards (sets aside and rejects this) disregards not man but God, Whose [very] Spirit [Whom] He gives to you is holy (chaste, pure). AMPLIFIED 1 John 3:9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life...remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God. AMPLIFIED 1 John 3:10 By this it is made clear who take their nature from God and are His children and who take their nature from the devil and are his children: no one who does not practice righteousness [who does not conform to God's will in purpose, thought, and action] is of God;... I say again: my intention is not to set forth guidelines for judging others as to their salvation, but to help another to examine HIMSELF, whether he be in the faith. |
||||||
156 | Active Homosexuals: Truly Christian? | Rom 1:21 | Radioman2 | 86987 | ||
Do you not know that the unrighteous[1] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY,[2] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV) (Emphasis added.) Footnotes 1. Or wrongdoers 2. The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN HOMOSEXUALITY...will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. (Emphasis added.) |
||||||
157 | once saved always saved | John 10:28 | Radioman2 | 86949 | ||
Whether we can lose our salvation is not that important? "'Salvation' and 'Eternal Security' -- what you believe and know about these two terms is vital to your hope and confidence as a Christian, as well as to your witness for Christ. Confusion about how you were saved leads to confusion about how a person might remain saved." -- Charles Stanley |
||||||
158 | What's up with the italics in vs. 23? | Rom 9:23 | Radioman2 | 86853 | ||
Much ado about nothing Nothing is up with the italics bit. "Italics are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew or Greek BUT IMPLIED BY IT" (Explanation of General Format of the New American Standard Bible, emphasis added). "Words or phrases in italics indicate expressions in the original language which require clarification by additional English words, as also done throughout the histoy of the King James Bible" (Preface to the New King James Version). Since in the NASB, as well as the KJV and NKJV, words which are not found in the original Hebrew or Greek are indicated by the use of italics, I do not see what the problem is. When italics are used the translators are telling us: These words are not found in the original text. They are added for clarification. There is no dishonesty here. The translators are not trying to put one over on us. They are plainly telling us that these words are not part of the original text. I see no essential difference between adding words in italics within the text and adding alternate or literal renderings in marginal notes. The translators' intent is to clarify the meaning, not to change it. It seems to me that to infer otherwise is not unlike grasping at conspiracy theories. To infer otherwise is to strain out a gnat (italicized words) and swallow a camel (the liberal and modernist interpretation of Scripture). |
||||||
159 | How be born of water and of the Spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86842 | ||
What does it mean to be "born of water and the Spirit "? NASB John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. AMPLIFIED John 3:5 Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. [Ezek. 36:25-27.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you . . . And I will put my Spirit within you" AMPLIFIED Ezekiel 36:25-27 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness; and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall heed My ordinances and do them. "by the washing of water with the Word" AMPLIFIED Ephesians 5:26 So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, |
||||||
160 | Gender?? | Deut 6:4 | Radioman2 | 86759 | ||
Is God a 'spirit-being with a body'? ERROR: Kenneth "Copeland makes God out to be a 'spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet'." ____________________ TRUTH: "INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit;... "a. God is spirit (John 4:24) "b. God is not a man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) "c. Implied by doctrines of self-existence, transcendence, omnipresence, and creation." ____________________ 'A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS 'Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his understanding of faith. He describes God as someone "very much like you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches across." 'Copeland's statement is based on his hyperliteral reading of Isaiah 40:12 ("Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, marked off the heavens with a [nine inch] span,..." [AV]). Yet following the same line of interpretation, one would also have to conclude that God literally held a basket full of dust and weighed mountains on a gigantic set of scales (v. 12b) — an absurd proposition ruled out by the context of the passage. The fact is that Isaiah 40 makes extensive use of figurative language to underscore the vast difference between the Creator and His creation. 'Giving a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms, Copeland makes God out to be a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet." However, the Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical features like His human creation. Anthropomorphic descriptions were simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus declared, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deut. 4:12). The Creator is, after all, "God, and not man" (Hos. 11:9). '. . . a God who has a body with definite, measurable dimensions cannot truly be omnipresent, unlike the God of Scripture who is present everywhere in all His fullness (Jer. 23:23-24). (It is true that in His human nature Christ has a body and is localized in space and time. But in His divine nature He remains nonphysical and omnipresent, sharing this immutable nature with the Father and Holy Spirit.) Copeland's deflation of God is best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the Bible...is God." In stark contrast, the biblical God is an all-powerful being (Dan. 4:35) whose plans cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2) and who considers nothing too difficult (Jer. 32:17; Luke 1:37).' (WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FAITH MOVEMENT? (Part Two): The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland) (www.equip.org) ************* INCORPOREAL: God has no body or parts, and is immaterial, being a simple and infinite being of spirit; excluding the Mormon doctrine of God as an exalted man. a. God is spirit (John 4:24) b. God is not a man (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) c. Implied by doctrines of self-existence, transcendence, omnipresence, and creation. (CRI Statement DA275, THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD) (www.equip.org) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [21] >> |