Results 141 - 160 of 802
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | How old is the earth? | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 158522 | ||
You stated: "Science has proven that evolution is a fact" ??? The last I had heard, evolution was still only a theory. Has that changed? There are many inconsistencies and assumptions which plague current scientific theory. If these things are "fact" as we are often led to believe, then why are the "facts" continually changing? Evolution promotes transmutation, that we mutate from one species to a higher more intelligent one. God created man as man, in God’s own image. The Bible teaches lateral growth. That species created by God multiply and create species of their own kind, they don’t mutate into something else. God instructed the species that he created to be fruitful and multiply in kind. That is the only way we have become what we are today. We were human in the beginning and we are human now. Sheep were sheep in the beginning, they are sheep now. Wolves were wolves in the beginning, they are wolves now. The Bible remains consistent while the scientific theories continue to change. God created the world and everything in it. That is for sure. In most cases, science itself can prove that. Darwinism and Darwin’s theory will not endure like the Bible has. It is being broken down day after day and proven wrong on too many accounts. It will eventually be dismissed as the other creation theories have been. With Science the facts continue to change. The facts of the Bible have remained the same for thousands of years. WOS |
||||||
142 | Did God create Life? | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161313 | ||
abccan, Sound like you're speaking of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation and trying to mix it with our all powerful, universe creating God. Guess what, they don't mix. For those that don't know abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the earliest forms of life on earth from primordial chemicals. Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. Life is created abccan. It is created by God. It did not exist until He creatd it. There is no mixing of ideas here. WOS |
||||||
143 | Did God create Life? | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 162877 | ||
Just some Scripture to ponder in considering what God has created. It is ALL things. Isaiah 57:16(NIV) I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me— the breath of man that I have created. Ephesians 3:9(NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. Colossians 1:16 (NIV) For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Revelation 4:11(NIV) "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." Revelation 10:6(NIV) And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay! WOS |
||||||
144 | How Can be a satan in heaven? | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 172138 | ||
E.G. White writings and “inspired word of God”… To even put those two phrases that close together teeters on ridiculous or delusional. Please dear friend, dive into God’s true inspired Word and stay away from preposterous claims like those of White, who by the way, has been linked to plagiarism herself. Sad really, how she claimed her visions where inspired by God yet copied from another’s work. And they still contradicted God’s Word. Seems to me she was no more than a delusional bootlegger of another’s uninspired, contradictory to the Word of God, work. Just my opinion. Please, let God inspire you through His true Word. WOS |
||||||
145 | What is the history behind the Holy Trin | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 172633 | ||
Seems like you don’t quite live up to your user name. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id(equals)215 Replace (equals) with its proper symbol. Please pay this site a visit. WOS |
||||||
146 | "Happiness is what it's all about."? | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 180944 | ||
"The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,"—Matthew 4:15-16. "In the text, those persons who were more deplorably circumstanced than others are described first as being in darkness—"The people that sat in darkness;" by which is meant, first, ignorance. The Galileans were notoriously ignorant: few teachers of the law had been among them; they did not know even the letter of the law. So are there many, to whom the gospel, even in the theory of it, is a thing scarcely known. They may have gone to places of worship in this country from their youth up, and have never heard the gospel, for the gospel is a rare thing in some synagogues; you shall hear philosophy, you shall hear ceremonialism and sacramentarianism cried up, but the blessed truth, "Believe, and live," is kept in the background, so that men may come to full age, ay, and even to old age, in Christian England, and yet the plan of salvation by the righteousness of Jesus Christ may be an unknown thing to them. They sit in the darkness of ignorance. The consequence is, that another darkness follows, the darkness of error. Men who know not the truth, since they must have some faith, seek out many inventions; for, if they are not taught of God, they soon become taught of Satan, and apt scholars are they in his school. Galilee was noted for the heresies which abounded there. But what a mercy it is that God can save heretics. Those who have received false doctrine, and added darkness to darkness in so doing, can yet be brought into the glorious light of truth. Though they may have denied the Deity of Christ, though they may have doubted the inspiration of Scripture, though they may have fallen into many traps and pitfalls of false doctrine, yet the Divine Shepherd, when he seeks his lost sheep, can find them out and bring them home again. In consequence of being in the darkness of ignorance and error, these people were wrapt in the gloom of discomfort and sorrow. Darkness is an expressive type of sorrow. The mind that knows not God, knows not the heart's best rest. There is no solace for our griefs like the gospel of Jesus Christ, and those who are ignorant of it are tossed about upon a stormy sea, without an anchorage. Glory be to God; when sorrow has brought on a midnight, grace can transform it into noon." - C.H. Spurgeon I don't know how "happy" Einstein may have been, but Scripture tells us Christ was in no way joyous with the task he was about to undertake and be it for sinners, those who rejected Him. Would Albert have died to save another eternally? I doubt it since this could not have made him happy. There is such a great love that has been shown to us, the Love of a Savior who suffered and died for us and showed us the great light of truth. Yet so often, we forego that light and attempt to muddle around in the darkness and find our “happiness”. It won’t happen. You may believe it has, but the darkness or even the self-imagined light you think you have found without Christ, is nothing compared to His grace and the love He has for us. Cry out to Christ. He can shine that light upon you and once you see its splendor and feel a touch of its warmth, you’ll run from the darkness and He’ll be there to welcome you. Stand in His Grace, WOS |
||||||
147 | ... | Gen 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 210927 | ||
DL, Better off to take your debate elsewhere. For it will not accomplish anything. Now if you would like to learn about the true, loving, merciful God, then by all means, stick around. Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" “Who art thou, thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so short-sighted, so incompetent a judge of the divine counsels? Art thou able to fathom such a depth, dispute such a case, to trace that way of God which is in the sea, his path in the great waters?” That repliest against God. It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him; to lie down under his hand, not to fly in his face, nor to charge him with folly. Ho antapokrinomenos - That answerest again. God is our master, and we are his servants; and it does not become servants to answer again,” – Matthew Henry 2Timothy 2:23-26: 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. God is not subject to His creation. You can scream “immoral” all day long and hurl all the accusations you can muster, but that doesn’t make you correct and to debate it is futile. Isaiah 55:8,9: 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Do you know what God’s love has done? What His grace has accomplished in this fallen world? Stand in His Grace, WOS |
||||||
148 | who was the first black and why? | Gen 1:26 | Wild Olive Shoot | 201577 | ||
Dear Homer, Who did God give the task to in Gen 9:1? Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
149 | who was the first black and why? | Gen 1:26 | Wild Olive Shoot | 201585 | ||
Just wanted to bring this to your attention: This is an Islamic tradition that Noah converted 70 idolaters and they entered the ark with him and his family. There is no biblical basis for this and it is not true. It is of the utmost importance that we know the truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
150 | Is there proof God has a sense of humor? | Gen 1:27 | Wild Olive Shoot | 201378 | ||
Dear chusarcik, Welcome. Hear is a link to an interesting article at gotquestions.org. I hope you find it informative. http://www.gotquestions.org/God-humor.html Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
151 | Where was the spirit of man before conce | Gen 2:7 | Wild Olive Shoot | 200389 | ||
Hello omimotoni, Can you elaborate a bit more as to your understanding of a tripartite being? How do you come to that conclusion? You can enter 150928 in the search box and it will bring up a recent discussion regarding the second part of your post. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
152 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184528 | ||
Maybe a rephrase of the question... A credible source. Many a man has written his own theories. That doesn't mean they are correct or credible and surely doesn't mean we should by into them. Following the thread, I’d like to see some credible reference and ask you stick to that. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
153 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184575 | ||
So you find no credible evidence to support a teaching, but make the strong assertion that we should base doctrinal standards from silence or lack of evidence? You stated in a previous post: “And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable.” Such an important doctrine, your words not mine, but it is acceptable that your opinion be correct from such a lack of discussion. On one hand you claim there was teaching, however erroneous it may be, that was discredited by the early church and should be abstained from. On the other, you lay a foundation based on the silence of the subject or the lack of it being mentioned in Scripture. Your stance, to me anyhow, seems to be just as dangerous. The fact of the matter is although many hold a particular position concerning eschatology many others will and do hold a different position. As I see it, there is more than one way of considering the end times and they have equally valid strong arguments supported by Scripture and to further disagree, although it is a valuable doctrine, it may not be as important as you claim. You also make reference to some as Luther and Calvin to have not bought into the teaching you claim was discredited or any other eschatological view point for that matter. You will find that both held strong opinions concerning this topic if one would care to look, however, neither of them focused on it. It just doesn’t seem to be a necessity to hold one view over the other. Reading back over your posts a bit, it seems to me that your own personal end times position is somewhat ambiguous, at least to me anyhow, but I’ve been called thick in the past, no need to assume that has changed. You seem to be a “semi” partial preterist with a futurist impression. You take historical accounts in the gospels as literal but only partially fulfilled, but future events are not taken literally as many futurist hold and you seem prone to only take literally that which supports your position. I have a hard time understanding just where it is you are coming from, and with that assume others may as well. That may be part of our problem in communicating. You also made the statement “But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position.” In fact brother, isn’t that what you have done time and time again. You stated: “And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming.” Your post # 183691, you make this claim based on your position while others take it literally to support theirs. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black my friend. In some instances your argument is sound, but in most, its just rather confusing and confusion tends to frustrate people, at least it does me. So I apologize if I came across rash and will look discerningly before becoming involved with topics as this with someone without a real clear position. By the way, the info I can find on 2 Baruch indicates its origin to be late first century maybe early second century. Can you still consider it an intertestamental teaching, or perhaps maybe just one of the early church before they had a chance to clear it out? Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
154 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184593 | ||
It almost seems to me that there are possibly three types of Christians in this world. Ones who are sound in biblical doctrine and build on the foundation of rock. There are those not so biblically sound whose foundation is laid on sand. And then there are the eclectic, those whom take bits and pieces of sound and unsound doctrine and build half on rock and half on sand. For the eclectic, I pray that when the storm comes, they’re standing on the part built on rock so as not to be swept away with that built on the sand. My criticisms were not meant to be so unless they accurately apply to the faltering position one takes while piece milling that which one finds to support a position that is contradictory in and of itself, and not in complete harmony with Scripture. I’ve learned that if you critique another concerning their approach to supporting a particular doctrine or position, you better be well prepared to defend your own using those same critiques. By your own admission jonp, you fail to do that and therefore make it difficult for someone such as myself, to give your opinions full consideration. As I stated in the previous post, your position seems as dangerous as someone who would “purposely” submit to scattering falsehoods. You take some biblical truth and apply it to your thinking, but then disregard other “truths” that do not corroborate your thoughts. You must include all of the truths put forth in the Word in order to finally stand on a sound base. I actually can and do agree with some of what you posted on the topic, as well as others, but cannot identify with much of it and at this point am not truly concerned with trying to understand your position. Maybe that is here nor there but personally, I don’t want to continue to on a path that further displays our differences or lack of understanding one another. Just a quick response to my use of “symbolism” and it being a loaded word. Re-read my post. The only reference I made was a quote from you inserting symbolism, it wasn’t mine, although, I really have no problems using the term. I appreciate the invite to respond via e-mail, but I’ll keep correspondence with you publicly my friend. It benefits us both I think to have others who can help us to identify if a topic is still remaining fruitful or not. I’ll agree with you that this one has gone on long enough and far enough off track, as far as my participation is concerned. I’ll leave the last words to you should you chose. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
155 | What is or is not a Biblical marriage? | Gen 2:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 171138 | ||
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV, Of Marriage and Divorce: I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time. (GEN 2:24, MAT 19:5, 6, PRO 2:17) II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness. (GEN 2:18, MAL 2:15, 1CO 7:2, 9) III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies. (HEB 13:4, 1TI 4, 1CO 7:36 – 38, GEN 24:57, 1CO 7:39, GEN 34:14, EXO 34:16, DEU 7:3,4, 1KI 11:4, NEH 13:25-27, MAL 2:11,12, 2CO 6:14) IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own. (LEV 18) 1CO 5:1, AMO 2:7, MAR 6:18, LEV 18:24-28, LEV 20:19-21) V.Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (MAT 1:18-20, MAT 5:31, 32, MAT 19:9, ROM 7:2, 3) VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case. (MAT 19:8,9, 1CO 7:15, MAT 19:6, DEU 24:1-4) |
||||||
156 | What is or is not a Biblical marriage? | Gen 2:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 171143 | ||
Brother Doc, I noticed the lack of "consummation" as well. It makes one wonder if God intended marriage to be more than simply a joining of the flesh, such as a joining of the spirit. I see a direct parallel with Christ and His bride. Am I off base on this? WOS |
||||||
157 | What is or is not a Biblical marriage? | Gen 2:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 171169 | ||
I thought the following was interesting as well. "Catholic doctrine is based upon both Scripture and Church tradition. Based upon Jesus' words, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9) and upon the Church tradition that receiving a sacrament creates an undeletable mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage CANNOT end. The Church does not ignore Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that allow divorce in the case of adultery of the other party. In fact, ignoring it would have been better. No, the way this is handled is much more disturbing. According to the New American Bible (NAB), the Catholic Bible translation, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 read thus: "whoever divorces his wife (UNLESS THE MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery [emphasis added]." The concept of an "unlawful marriage" in the NAB is translated as either "(marital) unfaithfulness," "adultery," or "fornication" in the Bible in Basic English, the Contemporary English Version, the Douray-Rheims Bible, the English Standard Version, God's Word, the Good News Bible, the International Standard Version, the King James Version, the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, The Message paraphrase, the New International Version, and the New King James Version. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB's choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church's own doctrine." The entire article can be found: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html My copy of the NAB inserts "lewd conduct is a separate case" into Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. I wonder why that is? WOS |
||||||
158 | Would Adam and Eve have fallen? | Gen 3:13 | Wild Olive Shoot | 186975 | ||
Dear Brian, we have the abililty to choose God? Really??? What man, without God's acting upon him would even consider choosing God? Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. Titus 3:3-5: 3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
159 | Would Adam and Eve have fallen? | Gen 3:13 | Wild Olive Shoot | 186995 | ||
Dear Brian, If God calls, there is not a man who can resist, or resist for long. Kind of puts us in charge of things rather than the sovereign Lord if we could now doesn’t it? God’s calling is an effectual calling. Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: "If God should choose this morning to call the hardest-hearted wretch within hearing of the gospel, he must obey. Let God call—a man may resist, but he cannot resist effectually. Down thou shalt come, sinner, if God cries down; there is no standing when he would have thee fall. And mark, every man that is saved, is always saved by an overcoming call which he cannot withstand; he may resist it for a time, but he cannot resist so as to overcome it, he must give way, he must yield when God speaks. If he says, "Let there be light," the impenetrable darkness gives way to light; if he says, "Let there be grace," unutterable sin gives way, and the hardest-hearted sinner melts before the fire of effectual calling." C. H. Spurgeon Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
160 | who was the first tailor in the bible | Gen 3:21 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154292 | ||
According to Genesis 3:21, God. WOS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [41] >> |