Results 161 - 180 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Do Eliphaz' words constitute truth? | Gen 1:1 | Truthfinder | 81381 | ||
Hi Estabon, Job’s critic Eliphaz said: “For man himself is born for trouble.” (Job 5:7) However, to his faithful followers, notice what Jesus said: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me.” (John 14:1) So a wise person will say to God: “You are my refuge and my stronghold.” He will seek protection from danger by exercising “faith in God.” Self-righteousness may also promote the view that if a Christian is undergoing many personal difficulties, he must be spiritually deficient. That is precisely what self-righteous Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar thought about faithful Job. They did not have a complete picture of the situation, so it was presumptuous for them to accuse Job of wrongdoing. So my answer would be NO to your question. Truthfinder |
||||||
162 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81339 | ||
(Part 2) Yes, believing in Jesus is crucial to our salvation, but certainly more is needed. For instance, Jesus spoke of some who professed faith in him and even did “powerful works” in his name. But he did not recognize them. Why? Because they were “workers of lawlessness” and did not do the will of his Father. (Matthew 7:15-23) The disciple James reminds us of the need to “become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.” He also said: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. . . . Faith without works is dead.”—James 1:22; 2:19, 26. Some, though, argue that those who are genuinely saved do all these things anyway. But is that really the case in practice? The ‘saved’ people I have known feel no great need to examine the Scriptures because they think they already have all they need for salvation.” And when I observe the hypocrisy and unchristian acts of many who claim to be saved, this brings the whole subject of salvation into disrepute. But still, many insist that the Scriptures say: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36, King James Version) Therefore, they conclude that once you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, you can never again be lost. “Once saved, always saved” is their watchword. But is that what the Scriptures really say? To answer this, we need to consider everything the Bible says on the subject and not hang on just one or two verses. No we would not want to ‘deceive ourselves with false reasoning’ by reading only selected parts of God’s Word. Just my two cents worth. Truthfinder |
||||||
163 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81338 | ||
Hi Tim, I have noticed an on-going exchange of thoughts on this matter and thought I might add an additional thought. :)(3 thoughts) Eph 2:8,9 says, “this undeserved kindness (grace), indeed, YOU have been saved through faith; and this not owing to YOU, it is God’s gift. 9 No, it is not owing to works, in order that no man should have ground for boasting. The Bible also says at Romans 3:28, “A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.” It also says: “A man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.” Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? And notice James 2:24, “YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. To be in harmony with the Bible I would say that both Paul and James are correct. It might be noted that for centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements. But then such “works of law,” or simply “works,” were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice according to Romans 10:4. But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus’ superlative sacrifice did not mean that we can ignore the Bible’s instructions. It says: “How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?”--Hebrews 9:14. So then how do we “render sacred service to the living God”? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world’s immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: “Fight the fine fight of the faith,” put off “the sin that easily entangles us,” and “run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus.” And the Bible urges us not to ‘get tired and give out in our souls.’ As 1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21 all show us. But notice this fact. We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this magnificent gift, though, if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, because again of what James clearly states: “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.”--James 2:17 So, what is required for salvation? Well, the prime requirement is the one that the apostle Paul stated to the Philippian jailer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved.” (Acts 16:31) Heartfelt acceptance of the shed blood of Jesus is essential if we are going to be saved. And what will salvation mean for us? Jesus indicated the answer when he said: “I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed.” (John 10:28) For most, I believe that Bible teaches, salvation will mean everlasting life on an earth restored to paradisaic perfection. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Revelation 21:3, 4) In the case of a “little flock,” however, it will mean ruling with Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom, as Luke 12:32 and Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:4 shows me. Yes, some suggest that belief in Jesus is the end of the matter. “There is just one thing that any one needs to do to get to heaven,” says one religious tract I read a long time ago, “That is, to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour, surrender to Him as Lord and Master, and openly confess Him as such before the world.” Thus, many believe that a sudden, emotional conversion experience is all we need in order to guarantee everlasting life. However, to concentrate on only one essential requirement for salvation to the exclusion of the others is like reading one crucial clause in a contract and ignoring the rest. (continued) |
||||||
164 | Wescott and Hort? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 81099 | ||
Hi Justme, For the longer version: Actually I started out short but as you can see it got longer and longer. Sorry. By a comparative study of hundreds of existing Bible manuscripts Joe, scholars have prepared what is called master texts. These printed editions of original-language texts suggest the best readings available while drawing attention to variations that may exist in certain manuscripts. Included among the master texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are those published by Westcott and Hort as well as by Nestle and Aland. The Christian Greek Scriptures for the NASV, NWT, and NIV is based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, whereas the King James Version was based on what is referred to as a Textus Receptus or "Received Text." These Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, date to 1881. This text is also the foundation for the following translations into English: The Emphasised Bible, the American Standard Version, An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), and the Revised Standard Version. This last translation also used Nestle's text as did the NWT. Nestle's Greek text (the 18th edition, 1948) was also used by the New World Bible Translation Committee for the purpose of comparison. The committee also referred to those by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies text of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the footnotes of the 1984 Reference Edition. It’s interesting too that in addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are also available for study today many manuscripts of translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into other languages. There are about 30 fragments of Old Latin versions and thousands of manuscripts of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The New World Bible Translation Committee referred to these when their translation was made as well as to the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac versions. From at least the 14th century onward, translations of the Greek Scriptures into the Hebrew language have been produced. These are of interest to me because they as does the NWT restore God’s name to where it was originally. The site found at http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/ provides some interesting information concerning restoring the Divine name in the New Testament. From the site: The Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) of the New Testament is now in Distribution. Unlike previous Messianic translations the HRV is translated from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament manuscripts rather than the Greek. Not that you would find it interesting but it supports some of the reasons why the NWT and over a hundred and fifty other translations have resotred the Divine Name in the New Testament. Truthfinder |
||||||
165 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80956 | ||
Hi Justme, More about me. Fact is, I "enjoy reading", I enjoy "studying". I have no real hobbies other than reading. My work is that of building fine cabinetry for both the public and home builders. I have three sons that work with me. Basically, a JW is not a JW if he cannot believe and accept "all" the organizational understanding of congregational proceedure. Most JWs I know, do not study non JW publications, manuscript studies, Hebrew and Greek language, etc, as this is very time consuming. I am sometimes dogmatic in my comments but wished I wasn't. One can believe something for years and preach it as gospel, then suddenly come to a totally different understanding and prospective. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest Biblical concepts we humans are faced with according to my understanding. And by the way, I don't want to go there right now, thank you. I just think there are some things our finite minds just aren't capable of grasping. Most anything else suits me though. Gotta go, later. Truthfinder |
||||||
166 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80929 | ||
Hi Justme, Both gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus' mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant through the operation of God's holy spirit.-Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35. So, I believe just that. "Fully divine and fully human." you ask? Certainly, as the words "fully divine" mean to me. Jesus is as John 1:1 states in some translations "divine", "god-like", "a god", "God". The last translation though intends to make the Logos the same person as his father and as the self-same verse already tells us that he was "with" God, so the "theos" must be understood "mighty one", as "theos" and "elohim" means in several other places in scripture. This is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures as I see them. Jesus likewise had to have been fully human to fulfull the role as an equal for Adam, a perfect human. What a loving, unselfish "sacrifice" this was on the Father's part to give his "Son", allow his "Son" to suffer on our behalf, for redemption. This to me would not have been the case if it were Almighy God himself who came to the earth and "proved" obedience to "himself". ??? I wonder Justme why you say that I do not meet your expected answers? Please comment. In regards to the NWT having its flaws, one might notice Mat 27:40 and then study the Greek word "stauros". If one were to study lexicons (such as the Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p256, Latin dictionaries, history books, (such as that of Livy on Roman punishishment), a better translation than the NWT might be merely "stake" as opposed to the NWT "torture stake". I believe it was more of an executional stake eventhough torture was endured, it was death that resulted. Sorry, but "cross" does not even come close to being an accurate translation. John 1:1 might even be better translated "divine" instead of "a god", except for the fact that there is a Greek word for divine, even if it is take from "theos". So, more than likely the Greek writer would have used "theios" if we were to understand it as his nature. Both mean the same to me and both translations are as far as I am concerned, acceptable. Have you Justme ever done an in-depth study of the Greek word "stauros"? Just wondering. Truthfinder |
||||||
167 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80869 | ||
Hi again Phil, In further support of what I already noted and in reply to Radioman2 I write: Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
168 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80867 | ||
Hi Radioman2, Only after carefull study have I come to understand that angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion, even eating and drinking with men. (Ge 18:1-22; 19:1-3) Jesus' statement concerning resurrected men and women not marrying or being given in marriage but being like the "angels in heaven", as you argue, actually shows that marriages between such heavenly creatures do not exist, no male and female distinction being indicated among them. (Mt 22:30) But this does not say that such angelic creatures could not materialize human forms and enter marriage relations with human women. It should be noted that Jude's reference to angels as not keeping their original position and to them as forsaking their "proper dwelling place" (certainly here referring to an abandoning of the spirit realm) is immediately followed by the statement: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example." (Jude 6, 7) Thus, the combined weight of the Scriptural evidence points to angelic deviation, the performance of acts contrary to their spirit nature, occurring in the days of Noah. There seems to me to be no valid reason, then, for doubting that the 'sons of God' of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons. Truthfinder |
||||||
169 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80595 | ||
Tim, Actually, I feel the reasons for your argument irrelevant. Please don’t take that as ugly as it might sound, I know you know your Greek. On the other hand, I feel Jesus was speaking Hebrew and merely spoke a common Hebrew idiom such as at Zech. 9:12; Deut. 4:26, 39, and 40. Additionally, I have compiled pages of research on this verse which proves to me that the comma should be placed after “shmeron”. Just one more example since I have the room here is that one of the best Greek texts, namely Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, which is one of the few Greek texts that actually contains punctuation, has the comma following the Greek “shmeron”. I wonder who was behind this textual difference in translation? Truthfinder |
||||||
170 | April 16, 2003 | Not Specified | Truthfinder | 80588 | ||
Hi all, Easter, Christmas, or Memorial of Jesus’ death? Most Christians I know and most here on this forum doubtless celebrate the Memorial of Jesus’ death (Lord’s Supper) but perhaps not Easter nor Christmas. The reason being, they feel the early first century Christians did not observe the latter two, yet realize Jesus plainly told his followers to observe a memorial of his death. Jesus’ command is found in two different places in the Bible. At 1 Cor. 11:24-26, “and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.” And secondly at Luke 22:1920, “Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. One of the finest ways we can show appreciation for the ransom is by attending the Memorial of Christ’s death and of course this year it falls on April 16 after sundown. Unquestionably, Jesus Christ’s death, over 1,900 years ago was the most important event in human history. Truthfinder |
||||||
171 | April 16, 2003 | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80617 | ||
Hi all, Easter, Christmas, or Memorial of Jesus’ death? Most Christians I know and most here on this forum doubtless celebrate the Memorial of Jesus’ death (Lord’s Supper) but perhaps not Easter nor Christmas. The reason being, they feel the early first century Christians did not observe the latter two, yet realize Jesus plainly told his followers to observe a memorial of his death. Jesus’ command is found in two different places in the Bible. At 1 Cor. 11:24-26, “and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.” And secondly at Luke 22:1920, “Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. One of the finest ways we can show appreciation for the ransom is by attending the Memorial of Christ’s death and of course this year it falls on April 16 after sundown. Unquestionably, Jesus Christ’s death, over 1,900 years ago was the most important event in human history. Truthfinder |
||||||
172 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80562 | ||
Hi Tim, That's interesting. It is also interesting that Syc (fifth cent. C.E.)the Syriac Peshitta (Sy), S. Lee, 1826 edition, reprinted by United Bible Societies, 1979 renders this text: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden."-F. C. Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904. Also note how Professor Wilhelm Michaelis renders the verse: "Truly, already today I give you the assurance: (one day) you will be together with me in paradise." Food for thought. Truthfinder |
||||||
173 | queen of heaven | Jer 7:18 | Truthfinder | 80514 | ||
HI, The Scriptures do not specifically identify the "queen of the heavens." It has been suggested that this goddess is to be identified with the Sumerian fertility goddess Inanna, Babylonian Ishtar. The name Inanna literally means "Queen of Heaven." The corresponding Babylonian goddess Ishtar was qualified in the Akkadian texts by the epithets "queen of the heavens" and "queen of the heavens and of the stars." Mary is much spoken of in Catholic groups as the "Queen of Heaven" and the "Queen of Peace." This is not a new thought, for early apocryphal writings ascribed great honor to her as the "Mother of God." But let us go back much before that, into ancient Babylon with its pagan religion, to find its beginning. "Under the name of the 'Mother of the gods,' the goddess queen of Babylon became an object of almost universal worship. 'The Mother of the gods,' says Clericus, 'was worshipped by the Persians, the Syrians, and all the kings of Europe and Asia, with the most profound religious veneration." How did the practice creep into the "Christian" world? "The worship of the goddess-mother with the child in her arms continued to be observed in Egypt till Christianity entered. . . . With the generality it came only in name. Instead, therefore, of the Babylonian goddess being cast out, in too many cases her name only was changed. She was called the Virgin Mary, and, with her child, was worshipped with the same idolatrous feeling by professing Christians, as formerly by open and avowed Pagans."-The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop. Truthfinder |
||||||
174 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80511 | ||
Hi CDBJ I am not interested in discussing the matter as of yet but did have a question. You quoted Lk 23:43, as "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Why would a comma be placed after "thee," instead of after "Today" ? You notice you would have two completely different meanings if it were placed after "today". Very interesting and I thank you for your time and effort. Truthfinder |
||||||
175 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80507 | ||
Hi Joe, I have not dialogued with you before, welcome. Alright, good, so who go to this "real place",where is it,why do they go there, and you mentioned Matt. 25:46, for how long? Thank you Truthfinder |
||||||
176 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80489 | ||
Hi Justme, Your approach and complimentary remarks are refreshing and add that pinch of salt for peaceful dialogue. I believe Jesus is the "Son of God". This is a most honorable position. As the One and Only Son "only begotten" Son or God (either/and), he is differentiated from all other sons since he (Jesus) was the one that made them(all other sons). I believe that for eons of time there was only the Father-Jehovah and His Son-Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Then, other sons (angels) were made by Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Sirit (all three). Then in time Gen. 1:1 came into play and again God is acredited the action of "creating" but Jesus and the Holy Spirit accomplished it. As Solomon built his timeple but he didn't really, but gets the credit. I am merely asserting my beliefs now but would be more that happy to argue them with scripture later. Lastly, I know the NWT and it does present matters this way. I feel it presents matters more accurately than any other translation, but has its flaws. Truthfinder |
||||||
177 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80476 | ||
Thank you EdB, Do you understand Jesus' "story" of Luke 16 as literal? If so, why can we not accept it as a parable? My second question might be: what do you understand a dead soul to be? Truthfinder |
||||||
178 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80454 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
179 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80453 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
180 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80452 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [15] >> |