Results 141 - 160 of 213
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: itiswritten Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Did blacks exist in biblical times? | Bible general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 76014 | ||
Dear Short: Of course blacks existed in Biblical times. You might say they were in the genes of Adam from the beginning though we do not know which genes came forward and gave Adam or Eve their color. According to the Bible the blacks were one of the branches of descendents which came out of the family of Ham.[Genesis 10: 6]Itiswritten. |
||||||
142 | are we saved by grace alone? | Bible general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 76008 | ||
Dear Full: Yes, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. The Bible also tells us that our faith may be tested [I Peter 1:7]. So, will we pass the test. Do we really believe? Faith is not hope. Faith is stronger than that. When it is tested, we find out what we really do believe and it makes us stronger...if we falter under testing, it may not be faith at all...but maybe it is hope. Hope is not bad, but it is not faith. Sometimes superficial things have to be stripped away before we really get down to the essentials and God who is the author and finisher of our faith [Heb. 12:2]will bring us through it all. The Bible never said it would be easy. It does repeatedly speak about enduring to the end. It even continues that teaching in the Book of Revelation where Christ sends letters to the seven churches [Rev. 2:7; 2:11; 2:17; 2:26; 3:5; 3:12; 3:21]. We need to know the full counsel of God. The Bible tells us to "count the cost." [Luke 14:28]And it also says [2 Tim. 2:15] "Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Grace and faith are just the beginnings for a Christian. If the Lord takes a person home at the moment he is saved, nothing more is required of that person and they have their salvation. However, if we remain on this earth for a period of time, it is our responsibility to look to the Lord and His word if it is available to us and put on the "new man" and follow Him. It does not get us saved, rather it is the natural result of a saved life for if one realizes what Christ has done for us, it is natural to want to please the One who has done such great things for us even before we were aware of His love for us. Itiswritten. |
||||||
143 | Book of Enoch? | Bible general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 76007 | ||
Dear Short, The Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible because it was lost to us.Itiswritten. |
||||||
144 | Jesus's mother last name and his brother | Bible general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 76006 | ||
Dear Thedeak, As far as I know, at this time in history people did not have surnames as we know them today. You would be called "son of" - "bar" or, you might carry the name of your town or profession to distinguish you from others with the same first name. For instance, Mary Magdalene was really Mary from Magdala or something like that. This distinguished her from the many Marys in Christ's group: His mother, etc. Jesus earthly family is mentioned in several places: Mathew 27:56; 13:55; Mark 6:3; 15:40 and 47; 16:1; Galatians 1:19. I hope this is of some help to you. Itiswritten. |
||||||
145 | Where did the word Christian come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 75998 | ||
Dear Gomar, The term "Christian" was first used in Antioch according to Acts 11: 26 and 11:27, to describe the followers of Christ. This was during the first century church - the apostolic age, when Paul and Barnabas were preaching and building the foundations for churches. Itiswritten. |
||||||
146 | Is old testament of KJV same as Jewish | OT general | itiswritten | 75916 | ||
Dear Madhu: As far as I can tell the scriptures are the same. They are not in exactly the same order that is all. The reason I know this is that someone recently came to my Bible-study and her husband is Jewish. She brought in his Bible for us to see. They have all the same Old Testament Books but they list them in a different order than we do - that is all. Of course in the time of Christ, they were not all together. They were on scrolls One scroll had the Psalms, another one or another of the Prophets, another had the Torah which is the Law or first five books of the Bible which traditionally is believed to have been written down by Moses [Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers Leviticus]. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found it was very encouraging as these dated to the time of Christ and they had parts of many of the books of the Bible and they have the whole book of Isaiah and it is the same as what we have today. So, it would seem that it is the same. Itiswritten |
||||||
147 | who are Abraham's parents? | OT general | itiswritten | 75913 | ||
Dear grammie2: Terah was Abraham's father [Genesis 11:27-29]. I do not know the name of his mother as I have not found it in the Bible. itiswritten. |
||||||
148 | Why is the NT translated from greek? | NT general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 30442 | ||
Dear Minco, I believe the New Testament was written mostly, if not all in Greek. Alexander the Great first conquered the area of the world which was all around the Mediterranean Sea. He enforced his language and his culture in all the areas he conquered and died at a young age. Shortly thereafter, the Romans took over pretty much the same area. They kept the Greek language as the legal language of the land. Their policy was that each nation they conquered was allowed to continue in their language and many of their customs, but any legal transactions must be done in Greek. So, everyone knew this language. The Romans also were fantastic road builders which also united the empire. Because of these two things, it paved the way to easily speak to people everywhere in the empire. Since everyone [mostly]understood the Greek language, it made sense to write it down in a language almost everyone could understand. Since the Word of God is not the theology of churches, it is purely the untarnished Word, it is not tainted by pagan beliefs...it was given precisely as the Holy Spirit led the writers to write it...and He knows all languages. As far as Roman Catholics are concerned. The Roman Catholic Church is not a cult. It is a true Christian Church. It has many traditions which were passed down from the very early times of the church before the time when it went astray and added doctrines which most of the rest of Christianity cannot and will not abide. However, though I no longer attend that Church, I got saved while I was a Roman Catholic, in my livingroom, in the middle of the night, not knowing that there was any such thing, not knowing what born-again meant [if someone had said that to me at the time, I would have thought it was a Christian denomination], knowing nothing...but I was reading and studying MY ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE which is a good translation believe it or not... Jesus showed me the way because He is the way. I have walked with the Lord for 24 years now. Never stopped believing in Him. Growing in the Lord through good times and bad, and He has been true, and wonderful to me all these years. Up until about 70 years ago, Catholics were not allowed to read the Scriptures. When they finally were allowed to, they were given the impression that they should not read it without the church to tell them what it all meant. This is because the church was afraid that they would find that many of the church doctrines are not valid [such as what they teach about Mary] and because the Protestant Reformation came about when Catholics had disagreements with them. That is what I believe anyway. In any case, many, many Roman Catholic people are very sincere about their faith and God is calling them out...many many of them. The Lord gave me a ministry to teach women the Word of God. Most of the people that come to these studies are from the Roman Catholic Church. Most of them eventually leave but I do not bring up the problems. I only teach the Word, straight. I answer questions straight out and He calls them out...most of them, eventually. Those who remain, he often uses to teach others within the Roman Catholic Church. Another thing, there are some small pockets of Catholics within the Church who really do know the Lord and have good Leadership within the Church...the problem is that they are too few and far between. Meanwhile, pray for them. They do not need correction, they need revelation from the Lord and they will come out [John 6:44]. I hope this was helpful to you. Itiswritten |
||||||
149 | Rebaptism Okay? | NT general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 30436 | ||
DearJMR, I believe we should do as the Holy Spirit leads us to do. I was born, baptized as an infant and raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I got saved at about the age of 28 while reading my Bible one night. As I began learning and walking with the Lord and grew in faith, I began to believe that a person should be baptized as an adult, or at least when one is old enough to believe and acknowledge one's own faith...I felt that is what Holy Spirit wanted me to do for many personal reasons. I also no longer attended a church which baptized infants...not that they in any way had pressured me to re-do my baptism. It was a purely personal decision as I felt led by the Holy Spirit. I would not say that infant baptism is not valid, but I think it is really not the best way as it implies that it is a ritual which saves us, and only the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ crucified and our belief in Him, his death and resurrection, saves us; also, as an infant one cannot give one's consent. In that case, it is a more perfect baptism and so I did it again. That does not mean that everyone has to do this...only if you feel convicted by the Holy Spirit to do so. In Acts 19: 3-5, some persons that had received the baptism of repentence under the ministry of John the Baptist, were baptized again because the first time they didn't even know about Jesus, that He had come, nor did they know Who or anything about the Holy Spirit. They were baptized again in the name of the Lord Jesus. I felt it was sort of in line with this passage. Itiswritten |
||||||
150 | Angel of the Lord - where in NT? | NT general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 30332 | ||
Dear Kalos, I find the "Angel of the Lord" in Matthew 1:20; 2:13; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9-10; Acts 5:19; 7:30; 8:26 and 12:7. Itiswritten |
||||||
151 | Can Christians be too heavenly minded? | NT general Archive 1 | itiswritten | 30331 | ||
Dear Kalos, I believe it is possible to be too heavenly minded. However, I also believe it is better to be too heavenly minded than to be too earthly minded. Let me explain. Many years ago I lost my little boy in a sudden, tragic accident. I threw myself into the Lord and He held me up and my whole family [at the time I also had three other small children] and, of course, my husband. At the funeral service, the pastor cited the fact of the resurrection and that I would one day be able to embrace my son, once again. I had not dealt with that pain in my loss and I am ever grateful for his pointing that out. It made a very great difference in my own personal healing and, for me, I had not dealt with that part of my loss at all. Since we are still in the flesh, we cannot totally discount it as we must function in the flesh while we are on this earth. I cite 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, where some had stopped working in order to do, what they believed was the Lord's will, believing that He was coming very soon. However, they were not in the Lord's will and Paul told them that if they refused to work, they should not eat. Of course it is better to be too spiritual minded than to be too carnally minded. But while we are still in the body, we must not disregard the needs of the flesh altogether. |
||||||
152 | speaking in tongues why is this so impor | OT general | itiswritten | 30185 | ||
Dear Searcher, I don't understand why you say that I am contradicting Scripture. You may note many circumstances but you forget 1 Corinthians 14, for example :From this and from what I see today, tongues is usually not known to those speaking [unless interpretation is given] or to those within the hearing of them in the church setting...though it can be in a known tongue. You are entitled to your opinion and I just happen to disagree with you and I do not believe I am contradicting the Scripture. |
||||||
153 | speaking in tongues why is this so impor | OT general | itiswritten | 30140 | ||
Dear Searcher, It just seems to me that many of those who were initially baptized in the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues but that is my opinion. That was not the point I was trying to make. We can seek better gifts and that is just fine but I don't believe we get to pick and choose what gifts we will receive. The Lord will give us what He believes we need for whatever task He would have us operate in and of course, I would welcome better gifts, but I certainly would not resist a gift of the Holy Spirit, even if it were deemed a lesser one. To me ANY gift of God is a marvelous thing, and I, for one, need all the help I can get. Itiswritten. |
||||||
154 | speaking in tongues why is this so impor | OT general | itiswritten | 30083 | ||
Dear lovely, Speaking in tongues seemed to be very common among the early believers who were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does it say they all spoke in tongues. I, for one, would like all the help I could get so if it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, I welcome it. Other than that, it does not make someone better than someone else or more spiritual. What it does say is this: 1 Corinthians 14:2-4a "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophecieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;..." From this we understand that it is the Least of the gifts, because it is the only one that is for oneself and not the church at large...but I could use this edification, myself, so I certainly would not be against it. However, it should not be a criteria by which we decide if someone is baptized in the Spirit or not. Hope this is helpful to you. Itiswritten. |
||||||
155 | Record of the Amalekites? | OT general | itiswritten | 30081 | ||
Dear prayon, In 2 Samuel 8:11-12 we have "Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued; of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek [which is the Amalekites], and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zeboh." Also in 1 Chronicles 18:11; Psalm 83. This is all I found concerning them after Saul had died. Hope this is of some help. Itiswritten. |
||||||
156 | OT types of Christ | OT general | itiswritten | 30079 | ||
Dear srbaegon, As a "type" for Christ we find the "scapegoat" in Leviticus 16:6-10...Hope this is helpful. Itiswritten |
||||||
157 | is Lillith and Adam mentioned in bible | OT general | itiswritten | 30022 | ||
Dear Foreverfriends, Lillith is never mentioned in the Bible. It is a myth. As far as I can tell, whatever happened or did not happen before the creation of man, does not pertain to us and I don't think God wants us to speculate on such things. The reason I say this is that He tells us not to play with imaginary things which become more important than the words and teachings He gives us. Eve, in the garden went beyond what God had said, and look at all the trouble it caused [example: Genesis 3: 3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, lest ye die." God did not say that which I have in caps and we also have Romans 1:21-22; 2 Corinthians 10: 5. Hope this is helpful to you. Itiswritten |
||||||
158 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | itiswritten | 30019 | ||
Dear MIILAZ, This was a controversy in the early church. It was decided that one did NOT have to become a Jew to become saved. A proselyte, when he was finished with his learning, would become a Jew officially when he was circumcised. Acts 11:2-18 "And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and EXPOUNDED IT BY ORDER TO THEM, saying, I was in the city of Joppa..." for the sake of brevity I will say, Peter went on to tell them about a vision the Lord gave him and why the uncircumcised were to be allowed to be considered among the saved without having to become "circumcised" in order to do so. See also Romans 2:25-29; Romans 4:9-13; 1 Cor. 7:19; Galatians 5:6; Gal. 6:15...and there are more, but that should be enough, if that is what you mean by your question. I hope this is helpful. Itiswritten |
||||||
159 | who are Abraham's parents? | OT general | itiswritten | 30014 | ||
Dear Grammie2, Abraham's father was Terah. His mother, to my knowledge, is never mentioned. Genesis 11:24,25,26,27,28,31,32, Joshua 24:2 and 1 Chronicles 1:26 and in Luke 3:34. These are all the times Terah was mentioned in the Bible that I could find...but there is no mention of Abraham's mother. I hope this is helpful. Itiswritten. |
||||||
160 | How long were years of Noah's life? | OT general | itiswritten | 30011 | ||
Dear Jackcap98, In "Halley's Bible Handbook" it says that Noah lived 600 years before the Flood and 950 all together. This is on page 85, where it lists the ages of all the Patriarchs. In the Scripture [Genesis 5:32] it says: "And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth." (I never noticed this before, were these three triplets?- interesting) Later it says, in Genesis 9:28-29 - "And Noah lived after the Flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died." Itiswritten |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [11] >> |