Results 141 - 160 of 1239
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | job 1-3 | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 170545 | ||
Hello b50115, Welcome to the forum. Complete a profile and tell us a little about yourself. I took the bait and visited the website. For the sake of others, it lists a whole lot of scientific questions. I also looked back at you previous post which list multiple questions in one post. First, try to limit each post to one plain question (sometimes a follow up question in anticipation is appropriate). For others to respond appropriately to so many questions would require them to use multiple posts anyway due to the limited number of characters one can type in any given post. With that, I have a question for you. Are you saved? If you don't know what I mean and want to know more simply respond appropriately. I ask because this question is the most important of all. Knowledge of the others is of no lasting value to the lost and perishing. Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
142 | NASB Macarthur Study Bible? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 171612 | ||
Hello Marathonman, If you are referring to the new one in the NASB translation, it looks like June 20th (amazon.com) I remember seeing it listed somewhere else as being released June 8th. It may have been pushed back or something. Jeff |
||||||
143 | NASB Macarthur Study Bible? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 171613 | ||
Hello again marathonman, I just checked "Christianbook.com" and they say the release date is June 19th. Jeff |
||||||
144 | god shouldn't send people to hell. | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 171964 | ||
Dear brother Ocelot, It is not important that your belief on this issue is "in the vast minority". What matters is that your "belief" is in conflict with God, and His word. Your entire post here is dissapointing. Please refer back to Muzka's post. This person is saying very bluntly that he/she plans to "argue" with God when he/she dies. What an unfortunate event that you would reply with anything supporting to such a statement. Furthermore, you point Muzka to a website to "help explain" why you "believe this". Dear sir, lets let the Scriptures speak on the issue. If you want to point someone to a place where they can learn some "amazing facts" please point them to scripture. And if someone is bold enough to want to "argue with God", better to stay far from such a person and their "feelings" about Hell. I publically call on you to repent of this behavior. With sincerety, Jeff |
||||||
145 | god shouldn't send people to hell. | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172026 | ||
Dear Ocelot, Thanks for responding back. You have helped me to understand the point of your previous post, thanks. I do appreciate that there are some who have a different view of the issue of Hell and eternity. I believe that we both agree that different views, while being respectfully debated, in the end, are irrelevant. The truth is the truth and my belief one way and yours another does nothing to change that. I am confident that you will agree with that statement and will leave it at that. My response, however, was not meant to focus on our obvious differences in what we believe the Bible teaches about the eternal state of unbelievers. My response was meant to be focused on the way you handled Muzka’s apparent outrage. I believe that Muzka clearly needed redirection, not support and encouragement to continue on course. We may disagree here as well. Muzka’s post did not reflect that he/she did not believe the Bible teaches that believers will spend eternity in torment. Just the opposite. It reflected that he/she believes that the unsaved will spend eternity in Hell, being “tortured”. He/she expressed outrage and offered the opinion of “80 percent of the entire pop” that “torture is WRONG” (emphasis added) as the legitimacy for wanting to “argue with God over the issue”. Furthermore, Muzka intends to do so. Muzka went on to say “I just don't feel that sending people to hell for whatever reason gets them there is just too much of a punishment.” I was surprised that you seemed to have missed this or ignore it, which ever was true. For the sake of unnecessary argument, take the issue of eternity and the unsaved out of the picture and consider. Muzka’s entire position and entire approach is so far off the mark that redirection of some sort is unmistakably necessary. Others, particularly Doc, offered that redirection so I did not. Muzka’s reliance on “feelings” (including the majority vote) falls far short of any understanding of the sovereignty of God, the justice of God, and the issue of man and sin. Would you agree that beginning to understand these issues are of greater importance than that of what we believe to be the eternal state of the lost? Perhaps a better question (as Doc pointed out); can one even begin to make sense of the eternal judgment of the unsaved before having some knowledge of the character of God? To his/her credit, Muzka did seem to ask honestly if this was a wrong way to feel. The answer is, absolutely. It is not necessarily wrong to question things from the perspective that one doesn’t understand it. But to apparently understand it, and disagree with it, and want to present his/her argument in opposition to a Holy, Sovereign, Righteous God, is in every way-shape-and form wrong. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to further express my thoughts on this. Your brother, Jeff |
||||||
146 | god shouldn't send people to hell. | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172030 | ||
Dear Ocelot, I can appreciate that there are points that contribute more to division than to profitable study. I agree that those things are not worth the debate. I've still got Friday to go and then I'll be done with my week too. Hope you have a great weekend as well. Jeff |
||||||
147 | can 2nd cousin date | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172032 | ||
Hello cocwih, I will respond with another question. Why do you ask? A certain adage goes something like this. If you have to ask if it's sin, it probably is. Please don't take this as a YES it refers to and a NO they can't date and marry. But I will say, a 2nd cousin is definately a blood relative. To get you started, Jeff |
||||||
148 | can you name the ten commandments | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172752 | ||
Duplicate post | ||||||
149 | can you name the ten commandments | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172758 | ||
Duplicate | ||||||
150 | what are the ten commandments? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172760 | ||
duplicate |
||||||
151 | can you name the ten commandments? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 172762 | ||
duplicate |
||||||
152 | Does child die for fathers sin? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 174410 | ||
Hello Truthfisher, Welcome to the forum. I just completed a rather lengthy response to your post, but after clicking "Preview Answer" and then the back button every word was gone. Very frustrating. Anyway, I don't have time now to go through it all but I want to offer some feedback. The gist of what I had to say was that I don't believe that the child's death in 2 Samuel was a direct result of David's sin, but rather a consequence. In other words, it doesn't appear to have been a "wage" of David's sin, but a necessary consequence. notice that Nathan said "...by this deed you HAVE GIVEN OCCASION TO THE ENEMIES OF THE LORD TO BLASPHEME...(emphasis added). I elaborated on this in my prior post, but let me just say this here. Could it be that God was protecting the lineage; the throne? If the child would have been allowed to live, would he have succeeded the throne of David? I see the child's death as a "consequence" rather than a "wage". Regarding Deut. 24:16 we have a completely different context. Here, the parameters of man's justice are set. God determined what would be legitimate concerning man taking the life of man. But man has no authority to hold God to those same standards. Again, I elaborated on this and will again if necessary. Finally, Ezekiel 18:20 needs to be considered in the context of the whole chapter. A significant amount of space was used to make a point here. It's important here to recognize that the passage always refers to accountability. In other words, each person referred to (son and father) is referred to in regard to their own accountable behavior. That is, faithfulness or wickedness. The message appears to be that one is not condemned by his father's sin. We surely can not conclude that a father's sin will not result in the death of his child. A drunk driver with his child in the car would be a good example. The father crashes because he is too impared to drive and the child dies. Hope this adds to your consideration on the topic. Sorry I lost the more in-depth post. Jeff |
||||||
153 | Does child die for fathers sin? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 174419 | ||
We know that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and we are talking about lineage at this point as well as the throne of David. To me, as I am understanding it, this is a good example of God’s sovereignty. What He has ordained will come to pass. What He plans regarding men He works out in spite of men and their choices or behaviors. Consider Absalom, the eldest living son of David at the time of Bathsheba’s child’s death. As the eldest living son, Absalom would be in line for the throne. We know that Absalom was the fruit of polygamy and we know that it worked out that he did not succeed the throne. Very specifically, I believe that Solomon was chosen to succeed his father and God worked through the details to accomplish His purpose. I haven’t studied the issue enough to really support this in depth. I will try to respond to the other passages you mentioned in your last post but don’t have the time now. I’m busy getting ready for a 4th cook out and my grandson is demanding attention. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
154 | role of man and women in the church? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175617 | ||
To serve God and other Christians. Jeff |
||||||
155 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175823 | ||
This line of reasoning is best described as self-serving; no offense. Your asking the wrong question. The right question is; on what grounds does God allow for divorce. Even if that line has been crossed, do you serve God by divorcing? Do you "reflect" the character of Christ by divorcing, or by forgiving? To argue that both husband and wife "wanting" divorce equates to abandonment by both is not supported by Scripture. It would equate to abandonment of your vows and commitment to God; otherwise referred to as sin. As for the issue of anger, that too is sin if unrighteousness is practiced as a result. Anger is a God given emotion and subject to both your will and His. What do you do with that? Why would God "force you to remain in a relationship that doesn't reflect Christ and the church?" He wouldn't. He didn't force you to get married either. But now that you are, you are called by God's word to force yourself to remain in the relationship. That's your first step back in the direction of honoring God and your life-long vows to your spouse. As for the relationship not reflecting Christ and the church; change it. Trust God and allow Him to work in your marriage so that it does reflect His will and character. If you search the Scripture endlessly, you will not find where divorce is acceptable because your and your spouses behavior do not reflect Christ and the church. What you will find is the command to obedience to Him and His word. When you both focus on that, the marriage will begin to reflect God's intentions for one of His most sacred institutions. I hope you are not offended. My intention was to be blunt and to the point. Why? Because often these kinds of questions are asked in hopes of getting the answer we want. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
156 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175848 | ||
Your welcome! I was hoping my answer didn't come across as self-righteous. I have struggled with this topic personally. There was a time I wanted out of my marriage; I was already a Christian and searched the Scriptures for a way out. I praise God that He provided such a clear and understandable answer to this problem in His word. When I look at my wife, my marriage, and my life today, I thank God that I did not find a "way out". At the same time, I hate to see another struggling in their marriage and realize that it's about as tough a position to be in as any other. Jeff |
||||||
157 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175849 | ||
Hey Face, I'm standing up. I am definately, really willing to love my wife like Christ loved the church. With that said, I fail daily in that task. He knows it and she knows it. I am thankful for the example that He gave me though. It makes my failure and sin that much more clear. My sin, when it's revealed, turns me to Him. |
||||||
158 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175850 | ||
Good points Justme, but I would point out that love isn't something we "learn" to do. It's never taught that way in Scripture. Love isn't something we learn to do, but getting along is. Love is a choice. We choose to love someone like Christ chose to die for us. I personally believe that the lack of understanding in this area is a primary reason we have so many divorces in the world today, not to mention within Christianity. Thanks for the good points, Jeff |
||||||
159 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175884 | ||
Hello Justme, Your statement about prarranged marriages is subjective. I do agree that genuine Christ-like love comes when we make Christ Lord. Jeff |
||||||
160 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 175885 | ||
Hey face, absolutely. It's really a simple concept to understand when we take time to truly consider it. Maybe not so obvious when we are simply considering man's love for man. But when we attempt to describe love as "Christ-like", it really starts to make sense. Based on my understanding of Scripture, I don't find it taught that Christ went through a process of "learning to love" us. Furthermore, I don't see the concept of love as being one of feelings and emotions; rather one of behavior and actions. While the imperfect nature of the flesh often behaves impulsively and reactionary, the Bible's command for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church is unmistakably referring to intentional acts of the husband's will. In other words, deciding or choosing to behave in a certain way. I may be corrected by one of the several true theologian members; but to my understanding, if one is commanded, one must have the ability to choose to obey. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [62] >> |