Results 161 - 180 of 7732
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | ... | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166452 | ||
... | ||||||
162 | ... | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166454 | ||
... | ||||||
163 | Christians with demon oppression | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166545 | ||
OVERSTATING THE BELIEVER’S AUTHORITY ____________________ "believers do not have the prerogative to say, "I command you, Satan (to do this or not do that)..." "Those biblical passages that do speak of believers’ authority over the demonic realm apply strictly to driving demons out of lost human beings (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:19; Acts 8:7). They are never applied to pastoral counseling or the believer’s personal battle with the devil." ____________________ The notion that people can order Satan about when they can't even get their kids to do what they tell them is truly astonishing. ____________________ STATEMENT DA082 The Bondage Maker: Examining the Message and Method of Neil T. Anderson (Part Two: Spiritual Warfare And The "Truth Encounter") by Elliot Miller "The biblical evidence suggesting that believers have been given direct authority over the demonic realm is scantier than is usually supposed. Anderson applies Matthew 12:29 ("first binds the strong man") to believers, when it is obvious from the preceding seven verses that Jesus was referring to Himself alone. Matthew 18:18 ("bind" and "loose") refers to church discipline, not spiritual warfare, as the larger context makes entirely clear. Anderson uses Ephesians 1:18-21 (Christ is seated above all authorities and powers) combined with Ephesians 2:5-6 (believers are seated with Him) as proof of the believer’s authority over the devil. But rather than dealing with spiritual warfare, these passages speak of Christ’s exaltation by the Father and the believer’s acceptance and exaltation before the Father in Christ." One should therefore be careful not to infer too much from them. "Nowhere does Scripture state that believers have authority over Satan himself. Those biblical passages that do speak of believers’authority over the demonic realm apply strictly to driving demons out of lost human beings (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:19; Acts 8:7). They are never applied to pastoral counseling or the believer’s personal battle with the devil. "This does not mean Christians must accept defeat in spiritual warfare. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus has won the victory over the devil and all authority has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Col. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:22; etc.). While believers do not have the prerogative to say, "I command you, Satan (to do this or not do that)," Jesus does. Believers are indeed positionally seated with Him in heavenly places and are thus made partakers in His victory. They therefore can be confident that if they resist the devil, he will flee from them (James 4:7)." To read more go to: www.equip.org/search |
||||||
164 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166667 | ||
Md1234: What is your question? I'm not sure what you are asking here. I understand the situation you are describing, but what can a person do about it? There's no law decreeing that everyone must use one and only one English version of the Bible or that everyone must use the same one. I sure don't want some preacher, priest or politician telling me what translation to use. Short of that I don't know what we're supposed to do. We can't even agree on what God's Name is. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
165 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166671 | ||
Use the first English Bible? Now which version would that be? Among early English versions were The Wycliffe Bible (1395), Tyndale New Testament (1526), Miles Coverdale Bible (1535) and The Geneva Bible (1587). Oh, and I almost forgot, there was the King James Version, a latecomer, in 1611. So which translation would you go with? You ask, "Why was this changed anyway?" Why was what changed? You mean why didn't we stick with the Wycliffe Bible or the Geneva Bible? Why did we need those new modern versions of the 16th and 17th centuries? |
||||||
166 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166673 | ||
The notion that we each write our own version to satisfy ourselves to justify our actions is an odd one. I don't write my own version to justify my actions. There is no evidence that the ASV, NASB, NKJV or even the NIV were translations made to justify the actions of their translators or sponsors. You write: "There would be a lot less controversy concerning different interpretations of the scriptures." Translation and interpretation are two different things. As far as that goes, the Jehovah's Witnesses used the King James Version of the Bible when they were formulating their teachings -- more than 50 years before the publication of their own version, the NWT. The King James Version is also used by the Mormons and modern-day teachers of heresy. I suppose it was easy for the cults to confuse and deceive people by using a translation filled with archaic and obsolete language. No translation of the Bible -- not even the King James, which was NOT the first English translation -- is infallible or inspired. Whether a newer version has the same meaning as an earlier translation is not the issue. We compare the translations to the original language text, not to another translation. The only infallible and inspired Scriptures were those in the original languages in the original manuscripts. |
||||||
167 | Destressing | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166675 | ||
Md1234: Question: Is it wrong to take nerve pills? My answer: Christians are not exempt from diseases and disorders such as the flu, cancer, heart trouble, or diabetes. Are we somehow magically exempt from depression and anxiety and their consequences? For example, many Christians, including some pastors, have little knowledge and absolutely no understanding of clinical depression. (Although your question is not about depression, allow me to use depression as an example.) Some try to label depression as a sin. Or they say that if you had enough faith, you could be healed. To this I reply: no responsible person would tell a diabetic to have faith and quit taking his insulin, would he? In the same way, it would be very foolish and irresponsible to counsel a person being treated for depression to stop taking his prescription medications. Depression, left untreated, often leads to suicide. So my answer, based on the Bible and reason, is that no, it is not wrong to take nerve pills prescribed by a licensed physician. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
168 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166724 | ||
Md1234: seek after leasing; fetched a compass Using only the King James Bible -- no other versions or books -- please explain in today's English: In this verse what does "seek after leasing" mean? Psalm 4:2 King James Version (KJV) O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? In this verse what does "fetched a compass" mean? Acts 28:13 King James Version (KJV) And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: Grace to you, Kalos 168931 |
||||||
169 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166727 | ||
No, Jesus did not speak to the people in several languages. He also did not speak in a language that was spoken by only 5 or ten percent (or less) of the population. Neither was the New Testament written in an ancient, archaic, obsolete dialect. It was written in the common, everyday language of the people. It was written to be understood. I am not against the KJV. I love it, quote it from memory, and read it every day. (I doubt that many people born after 1945 have read the KJV more than I have.) Personally I don't believe in dumbing down a translation for the convenieince of the masses of people. Also, I agree with you that it would be very helpful if everyone used the same translation of the Bible. If I had my way, we would. And it sure wouldn't be the NIV. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
170 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166728 | ||
"THE GREATEST PROBLEM, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version." ___________________ [Huron: Thanks for providing information that is accurate and informative. To expand a bit on what you've said, I quote from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version. --Kalos] 'A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible -- the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. 'The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say. 'Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.' (Preface to the Revised Standard Version, 1952, 1946, 1971) |
||||||
171 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166729 | ||
Hank: Excellent post! You've said it all. I can just imagine that by the middle of this (the 21st) century , you'll have some people outraged at the idea of making new Bible translations. They'll be holding to the idea that the NIV was good enough for Paul and Silas "and it's good enough for me." They'll be old-time Christians of the 20th Century. Then there will be other people preferring a translation in what will then be current English. They'll be clamoring for a translation that they can understand. And the beat goes on... Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
172 | Two House Teaching--T or F? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166986 | ||
Two House Teaching--T or F? [Defined below is the "Two House Teaching" or "Two House Movement". Do you agree or disagree with this teaching? Why or why not? I'm not testing anyone with this question. I really want to know; what do you all believe about this subject? --Kalos] 'The "Two House Movement" claims that many Gentile Christians, especially in Western Europe and America, are in reality descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (the house of Israel), and that now is the prophesied time for them to accept their true identity and join together with their brothers the Jews (the house of Judah) through observance of the Law of Moses, and in this way to bring the Jews to belief in Messiah Jesus. This teaching has several features in common with Anglo-Israelism, which is considered a cult by most Christian groups. '...the real issue here, and what separates the two house teaching from other Christian groups, is their conviction that Gentile Christians (or what they prefer to call Ephraimites or Israelites) are required to obey the Law of Moses in some way.' (www.totheends.com/questions5.htm#House) |
||||||
173 | Two House Teaching--T or F? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 166987 | ||
. | ||||||
174 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167051 | ||
Geisler writes: It is not necessary, however to believe in... "Christ's virgin birth,...Christ's bodily ascension...Christ's present service, or...Christ's second coming and final judgement as a condition for obtaining a right standing with God (justification)." Perhaps the key words here are "not necessary to believe in" these things "as a CONDITION for obtaining a right standing with God (justification). It would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to agree or disagree if I don't know what Dr. Geisler meant. I cannot know for sure what he meant unless and until I read it in context. Could he be saying that belief in these doctrines is not a prerequisite to salvation? Does he mean that one does not have to know and believe every doctrine in the Bible BEFORE one can be saved? I.e., that a person can be saved without first knowing about the doctrines Geisler lists? The following quote will, I hope, explain what I mean. Here the example is the Trinity. 'The fact that there is one God who is a Trinity is clearly essential to Christian orthodoxy, but there is no scriptural statement stating that to believe in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. However, that does not mean that denial of the Trinity is acceptable. A person can be saved without knowing about the Trinity. But, since the Trinity is a biblical truth, and the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who bears witness of truth, a true Christian will not openly denounce the Trinity once he has been taught it from scripture...' (www.carm.org/church/apostacy.htm). Likewise, perhaps Geisler meant that a person can be saved without knowing about the virgin birth. But, since the virgin birth is a biblical truth, a true Christian will not openly denounce the virgin birth once he has been taught it from scripture. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
175 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167077 | ||
THE CONDITION FOR SALVATION 'A. The Condition. Salvation is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ. Nearly 200 times faith, or belief, is stated as the single condition in the N.T. (John 1:12; Acts 16:31). That faith must be placed in Christ as one's substitute for and Saviour from sin. ... 'B. The False Additions to Faith. ... '3. Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith. It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved.' ____________________ (p. 1950, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978). |
||||||
176 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167103 | ||
'New Testament Repentance: 'Repentance in the Gospels and Acts 'By: Robert N. Wilkin Ph.D. 'Scripture does not contradict itself. Different authors may have different emphases, but not disparate views, on a given doctrine. 'We begin this study with a consideration of the requirement of eternal salvation as found in the Gospels and Acts. 'II. The Gospel in the Gospels and Acts 'The four Gospels and Acts present a united front. There is but one condition of eternal salvation: faith in Christ alone. The following references from John's Gospel are clear on this point: 'John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 'John 6:47: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." 'John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 'John 20:31: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (...) 'The hermeneutical principle called "the analogy of faith" suggests that we can best understand unclear passages of Scripture by allowing related clear passages to shed light on them. This principle suggests that one should understand the occasional references to the Gospel in the Synoptics in light of the Gospel of John and not vice versa. John's Gospel clearly says that the sole condition of salvation is faith in Christ. That will inform our understanding of any so-called problem passage in the Synoptics. 'Some passages from the Synoptics clearly confirm that the sole condition of eternal salvation is faith in Christ. 'Luke 8:12: "Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts; lest they should believe and be saved." The sole condition of salvation given by the Lord here is faith in Him alone. All who believe are saved. 'Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. " In direct answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" Luke reports Paul's sole condition: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. ...' To read more go to: www.bible.org |
||||||
177 | ...mindless devotion by imitating others | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167124 | ||
Food for Thought In 1948 A. W. Tozer wrote the following words, underscoring how we can become swept up in mindless devotion by imitating others: “Christian literature, to be accepted and approved by the evangelical leaders of our times, must follow very closely the same train of thought, a kind of ‘party line’ from which it is scarcely safe to depart. A half-century of this in America has made us smug and content. We imitate each other with slavish devotion and our most strenuous efforts are put forth to try to say the same thing that everyone around us is saying.” |
||||||
178 | Essentials, where is the proof? | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167172 | ||
Tim and atdcross: By posting the following quote, I am not siding with or against anyone in this discussion. I am merely pointing out a principle of biblical interpretation. 'Words have different meanings in different contexts (that's what makes puns work). When we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it's the right one? Help won't come from the dictionary. Dictionaries only complicate the issue, giving us more choices, not fewer. Help must come from somewhere else close by: the surrounding paragraph. 'With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself.' ____________________ www.str.org |
||||||
179 | Mark of the Beast | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167247 | ||
Mark: You're saying the book of Revelation is not apocalyptic literature? I have three questions. 1) In Revelation 1:1, what is the Greek word that is translated by the English word "revelation"? 2) What is the etymology of the English word "revelation"? 3) How do you define the word "apocalytpic"? I do not have a definition for it. I barely know how to spell it. But, is there a definition of the word that is different from the dictionary definition? (I really don't know and sincerely want to learn.) Another way to put it is: what are your criteria for determining whether a book of the Bible is of the apocalyptic genre? Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
180 | ... | Bible general Archive 3 | kalos | 167248 | ||
TJ: This is not a political forum. If you wish to swap political opinions, you are advised to find a forum whose purpose is to discuss politics. This is not that forum. There's enough arguing over religion here. We don't need to argue over politics, too. --Kalos |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [387] >> |