Results 1481 - 1500 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1481 | If God causes all, how can He be holy | 2 Sam 12:11 | Morant61 | 16471 | ||
Greetings Bob! I'll try to find more information on this concept! I am operating by memory, but what I was referring to is simply that we never see in Hebrew that God allowed something. The reason is a cultural one. Jews saw God as the ultimate cause of everything, so they saw it as appropriate to say that God caused something when someone else may have actually been the immediate cause. But, I'll try to find more detail! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1482 | So what is God's vs. Adam's image? | Gen 5:3 | Morant61 | 16218 | ||
Greetings Bill! One point of correction before I address the rest of your post. Scripture never says that Adam and Eve were created perfect. It only says that they were created good and innocent. What is the image of God? No one knows for sure. I would agree that it cannot simply refer to outer form. Personally, I view it as a combination of things. That, like God, we have the ability to choose, to think, to love, ect.... Obviously, the fall has impacted our natures, but there isn't anything in Scripture that says we lost the image of God because of the fall. Most theologians would argue that it has been marred, but not lost. So, I would say that all humans still partake in the image of God, though it is marred by sin. This question was originally raised because of the death penalty discussion. However, this question isn't the decisive point. As I have pointed out elsewhere, whatever our view on the death penalty, by definition it cannot be immoral simply because our Holy God commanded it to be done. We can debate whether it should still be done, but we can not debate whether or not it is moral. So, born or created in the image of God is not really the issue. The issue is what does Scripture say. For instance, we know that murder is forbidden. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1483 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 16079 | ||
Greetings Charis! I would concur with your points! As I made mention in an earlier post, the following arguement can be made about the death penalty: 1) It was expressly commanded in the Old Testament. Since God is Holy, this proves that the death penalty is not in and of itself immoral. 2) The New Testement never forbids the death penalty. Thus, any argument based on the New Testament is an arguement from silence or assumption. 3) Therefore, the death penalty can be neither immoral nor forbidden. Rextar made a good observation about Rom. 13:1-5. This passage says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." From this passage, it seems very clear that captial punishment is a God ordained part of human government. Having said all of this, I do believe that we must ensure that the death penalty is administered fairly and justly. There should be a standard that is fairly applied across economic and racial lines. This doesn't mean that there should be a quota on deaths, but simply that one class of peron should not be more likely to die than another for the very same crime. Is the death penalty a deterrent? Of course it is, that person will never committ another crime. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1484 | What resources would you recommend? | Matt 10:33 | Morant61 | 15951 | ||
Greetings Bill! Great question! I agree that a "little knowledge can be dangerous", but only if one thinks more highly of oneself than one should. For the student who doesn't know Greek, I would recommend the following: 1) Good commentaries: By this, I mean series which go into depth about the Greek language. Examples would be the "New International Commentary on the New Testament". These will probably be the most help for someone who isn't familiar with Greek. 2) A good grammar: Dana and Mantey have a good mid-level grammar called, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament". It would introduce you to a lot of things like the meaning of tenses, voices, and moods. 3) A good dictionary: Vine is great. 4) A good word study: Personally, I like A. T. Robertson's "Word Pictures in the New Testament". Not only does it deal with word meanings in a commentary style, but it also explains tenses, voices, and moods as well. 5) A good parsing guide: Baker's "Analytical Greek New Testament" parses and declines every verb and noun in the New Testament. For questions like yours on John 20:22, you simply look up the verse and it would tell you that "receive" is an Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd, Plural verb. Disclaimer: I agree with you that one does not need to know Greek or Hebrew in order to understand and study the Bible. For the casual reader, it would not make a great difference. However, there are times for the student who wants to dig deeper that such a knowledge is invaluable. Even something as simple as doing a word study with Strong's can produce great results. There are several reasons I like studying in Greek: 1) I can! :-) Just joking! 2) As good as our translations are, they are still translations. Sometimes, theological bias can influence a translation. 3) Translations doesn't always bring out the emphasis of the original text. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1485 | Is this an accurate translation? | Matt 10:33 | Morant61 | 15868 | ||
Greetings Bill! While I would never claim to know as much a professor, this is a question that a first year Greek student should be able to answer. Here is the literal reading of John 20:22 along with the parsing for the verbs: "And after saying (Aorist, Active, Participle, Nominative, Masculine, Singular) this, He breathed (Aorist, Active, Indicative, 3rd, Singular) and says (Present, Active, Indicative, 3rd, Singular) to them, 'Receive (Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd, Plural) (the) Holy Spirit.'" "Receive" is an Aorist Active command, indicating a command to do something at a point in time. When that time occurs is not specified. It is the kind of action that is specified, not the time of action. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1486 | the goat a sign for satan? | OT general | Morant61 | 15612 | ||
Greetings Kelkat! I think what you are looking for is the tradition of the scape goat. In Lev. 16:20-28, a live goat is used to symbolically carry the sins of Israel away. I have not researched the history of the goat in popular culture, but I would not be surprised to find that this is the root of the view that the goat is somehow connected to Satan. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1487 | To judge or not to judge? | Luke 6:37 | Morant61 | 15611 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Here are a couple of points concerning your question. 1) Luke 6:37 is a parallel account to Mt. 7:1-6. Both of these passages use the Greek word 'krino'. There are a couple of interesting things about these passages. a) Both use the verb as a negative, present, active, imperative. Thus, it would be better translated as a command to stop doing something which is already being done. Therefore, it would read, "stop judging". b) Mt. 7 makes it very clear that the judging at issue is a hypocritical judging. Trying to remove a speck from someone else's eye while you have a beam in your own eye. This is the kind of judgement that we are commanded to stop. 2) 1 Cor. 2:15: This passage uses a entirely different word. It uses 'anakrino'. This word can be translated as "judge", but it focuses more on the idea of investigation or inquiry. Thus, I would see these two verses as a contrast between hypocritical and proper judgement. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1488 | Where is the answer to these verses? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15608 | ||
Greetings Bill! Thanks for you response my friend! I fully understand where you are coming from! :-) All I ever ask of anyone, including myself, is to at least deal with the text. This doesn't mean that we will always understand every text or that brothers will always agree with each other. But, dealing with the hard texts allows us the opportunity to sharpen our understanding of our theology. I know I learn a lot, even in discussions with those with whom I don't agree. Obviously, I come at this issue from a certain perspective. But, the way that I harmonize the verses that you refer to is this: 1) Our salvation is secure. Nothing or no one can take it from us. It is not earned by us. It is not deserved by us. It is a free gift of God. 2) However, a gift can be rejected and there are many verses which indicate that salvation includes an ongoing "abiding" in Him. 3) Therefore, we can never "lose" our salvation. But, we can willfully trample His blood under our feet and reject the precious gift He has given us. From my perspective, this does justice to both set of verses. I have appreciated our discussion very much. It has been an excellent example of how people can discuss or debate complex issues in a loving and polite way. I look forward to interacting with you more in the future my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1489 | Does a rose always smell as sweet? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15558 | ||
Greetings Bill! Great observation! I really thought someone would bring this up sooner. :-) Most scholars are convinced that in some cases "ei" can mean "since". I am not totally convinced. Even if it can, I think it has been overused. Personally, I have yet to see one verse where "if" would not make perfect sense. Now, before someone blasts me for claiming to know more than the experts, consider one example: In Matt. 12:27, Jesus says, "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." Here, the word "if" cannot possibly mean "since". This not prove that "ei" can never mean "since", but it does demonstrate that it definitely does mean "if" some of the time. When you get right down to it, the main function of "ei" is to introduce a conditional statement. The translation "since" simply comes about because at times (in a hypothetical statement) the condition is assummed to be true. Yet, it is still a conditional statement. Let's consider each passage briefly: 1) 1 Cor. 15:1-2: "Since" would not be the most natural reading, but it would fit. The only problem would be that verse 2 would then indicate that it would be possible to believe in vain. Is that the point that Paul was really trying to make here? 2) Col. 1:21-23: "Since" could fit here, but would make v. 23 almost meaningless. Why stress a given? 3) 1 Pet. 1:10-11: The word "if" is not actually in the Greek text in this passage. Verse 10 literally says, "doing these things, you will never fall...". The verb is a present, active, participle. So the question would be, what if you don't do these things? Is it possible not to do these thing? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1490 | What do you think of 1 Cor 1:18? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15552 | ||
Greetings Bill! I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I did a quick look at how Paul uses the word "save" throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians, but there doesn't seem to be any specific pattern. Sometimes he uses aorist (past tense), sometimes he uses future, and sometimes he uses present. Personally, I view salvation is a similar way to you. It includes regeneration (past), santification (present), and glorification (future). So, Paul may simply use different tenses depending upon how he is looking at salvation. In 1 Cor. 1:18 and 15:2, it may simply be that since we are living, we are being saved. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1491 | Is inter-racial marriage wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15539 | ||
Greetings Nesi! Just a couple of points concerning your question! 1) There is no Scripture that says interracial marriage is morally wrong. Many refer to the commands given to the Israelites about not marrying other nations, but the issue here was religious not moral. 2) Robins and Blue Jays are different species. Human beings are all the same species regardless of color. 3) There are countless examples of interracial marriages in Scripture, and not one of them is ever condemned. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1492 | What is 'being saved' here? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15533 | ||
Greetings Bill Mc! I'm not sure! One point that I might use against my exegesis is that "saved" is in v. 2 is actually a present, passive, verb. So, a better translation would be, "you are being saved". What then is the significance of the the present tense in this verse? I have heard some say that this could be a reference to santification rather than salvation. The only problem is that I don't know of any passages where "saved" is used in that way. Another possible "out" would be to question what "belived in vain" means. Does that mean lost or something else? However, from my point of view, the simplest explanation is what it appears to be saying. This would fit well with John 15, where abiding is the issue. Thanks for the thoughts! (Whooper! Groan) :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1493 | Are Sovereignty and Free Will Exclusive? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15522 | ||
Greetings Bill Mc! Well said! The only point I would add to is that I don't think that God has to set aside His sovereignty in order for us to have free will. Here's why! Nowhere in Scripture is sovereignty defined as "making every choice" or "being responsible for every thing". He is Lord. What He says ultimately goes, but we can also exercise choice in our limited sense. If I freely choose a Big Mac over a cheeseburger, God dosen't suddenly stop being God. But, I am also aware that our "free will" is very limited. There are a lot of things over which we have no choice at all, other than how we respond to them. Overall, I think you are right on! If you want an excellent book that views things the way you do, check out A. W. Tozer's, "The Pursuit of God". It is one of the best explanations of God's sovereignty I have ever read. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1494 | Where does one start who has never reall | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15465 | ||
Greetings Nomad! If you have never even read the Bible, I would recommend staring in one of the Gospels. If you have read some, I would recommend starting a One Year Bible Reading Plan so that you can expose yourself to the entire Bible. You can find one online at http://www.eccnazarene.org. Simply select OUR HELPS on the menu bar at the top of the page and the select ONE YEAR BIBLE READING PLAN. This page will update each day with the new reading for that day and you can even read the verses online. The key is to read and pray. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1495 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15409 | ||
Greetings Sir! Personally, I would hold more to your second option. The author of each book or letter was inspired as he wrote each book or letter. There is one big problem with the third option, though I would prefer it before the first option! :-) How do you explain the mistakes in the copies? How do you explain the differences in the translations? Which translations are inspired and which ones are not? Is the NWT inspired? With option number two, it is easy to answer these questions. The originals were without error. The small mistakes that do exist came about from flawed copies. The translators make mistakes sometimes because of incomplete knowledge or theological bias. Now, if you are strickly talking about the message of the Bible, it is just as authoritative today as it was when it was written, but I would not say that the translations themselves are inspired. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1496 | How do I study the bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15387 | ||
Greetings Mazon51! My church's web site has a One Year Bible Reading plan on it. That is how I would start to study, simply by reading through the Bible itself. If you would like to use it, go to: http://www.eccnazarene.org and simply select the One Year Bible Reading Plan from the Helps Menu at the top of the page. This page will update everyday to give up the current reading, and it also provides you with an interface to the Bible Gateway so that you can look up the passages from the same page. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1497 | When did God's inspiration stop? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15372 | ||
Greetings Sir! I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your overall thrust. I too believe that God has providentially provided oversight to the text of the Bible. However, the devil is in the details because inspiration itself seems to only apply to the original autographs. We know that there are copies which contain mistakes. We know that some translations err. Thus, my point throughout this discussion has simply been that the original autographs in their original language were the inspired Word of God. What we have are translations of them. Granted, God has protected His Word. Granted, the translations are for the most part excellent. But, they are still translations and thus one step removed from the original. Thus, I would not want to apply the same sort of "inspiration" to the translations and copies as I would apply to the originals. By the way, this is a great discussion for Christians. Most people never even consider how we get our Bibles. I can remember when people thought that the KJV was the version which Paul used! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1498 | was God saying Satin was in Tyre | Ezekiel | Morant61 | 15337 | ||
Greetings Mawsjams! You could be right! The ruler of Tyre could have been guilty of the same kind of pride that led to Satan's downfall. Or, the passage could mean that Satan was the ultimate source of Tyre's sin. I'm not sure! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1499 | Mt. 5:39, Striking the 'right' cheek | Matt 5:39 | Morant61 | 15323 | ||
Greetings WheelsTwo! One source I consulted suggested the following: "To strike ont he right check was 'a blow with the back of the hand, which even today in the East expresses the greatest possible contempt and extreme abuse' (Jeremias, NTT, p. 239); as such it was punishable by a very heavy fine (Mishnah BK 8:6). The situation envisaged is thus one of insult rather than of physical violence, and it is possibly to be seen as an aspect of religious persecution (Jeremias, loc. cit.)." Taken from, "Matthew" of the Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series by R. T. France, pg. 126. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1500 | Calling spirits from the dead | 1 Sam 27:1 | Morant61 | 15318 | ||
Greetings Kpoo! I believe that the passage you are looking for is 1 Sam. 27. In that passage, Saul tries to consult the spirit of Samuel. Along with this passage, you might consult Deut. 18. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ] Next > Last [83] >> |