Results 161 - 180 of 362
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: keliy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Is "supposedly" a misprint? | Luke 3:23 | keliy | 214321 | ||
Hi Sam, Hi Fred, Actually it is very simply explained about the 'Father' of Jesus. At thirty years of age,Jesus was about to start His earthly ministry. We actually have no information about Him from the time Jesus was 12 yrs, until He became 30. Before this time, He was raised in the family arrangement of Joseph and Mary, with His brothers and sisters. It would therefore be assumed by all their fellow citizens that since He was the Son of Mary, that her husband Joseph would be His father. I simply substituted the word 'assumed' for 'supposed' -make sense now? 30 years is how old Joseph was when he stood before Pharaoh (Gen. 41:46), and the age of David when he began his reign (2 Sa. 5:4), and also the priests were to enter upon the full execution of their office at this age as well. (Num. 4:3) Blessings, keliy PS, I am happy that your dogs have found such a loving home. My 4 month old Jack Russell Terrier is named 'Esther' |
||||||
162 | Bible Translations | 2 Tim 3:14 | keliy | 214318 | ||
Hi C.S. Thank you for your response, and clarification. I was purposefully trying to keep my post at an elementary level, so I suspected that there would be follow-ups. Yes, I was '...referring to the traditional 66 combined OT/NT books of the Christian Bible...' as you understood. Yes, The RCC church uses a different Canon, but the 66 inspired Books are essentially the same. Thank you for your comment on the Book of Mormon, -I knew some Mormons when I lived near Salt Lake City, but did not know much about their beliefs back then. The JWs use their own Bible, at least in my eyes. Because when the inspired Word tells us in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The JW Bible mistranslates the ending and actually says, 'and the word was a god." So I see this as a contradictory translation. I completely agree with your statement that, "What separates the traditional Christian Denominations to my knowledge is doctrine, not what bible they use." My Dad's church says they are non-denominational, yet they practice infant baptism and some other 'hold-overs' from the Roman Catholic Church. I do not see biblical evidence to support this doctrine, but I do not believe it to be a divisive issue. They use the same Bible as my church, but just read things a little differently and hey, were only human. The 66 Books are accepted by thousands of Christian denominations as the inspired Word of God, and that is what is important. The particular translation is less important, because this is the additional efforts that are done by men, and we are strongly urged to pray before reading or studying God's Word -so that the Holy Spirit may reveal to us the message that God is trying to convey. Thank you for sharing your additional thoughts, may our Lord bless you as you serve Him. keliy |
||||||
163 | Bible Version for Lutheran | 2 Tim 3:14 | keliy | 214313 | ||
Hello acs, What a wonderful question you have! It is really anything but dumb because it makes me, as a (somewhat) learned Christian think back to the day when I was wondering about which Bible translation to use. I still wonder today from time to time. (o: Being raised Catholic, I knew nothing more about the Bible than that there was a New Testament, and an Old one. The Catholics have their own version of the Bible, but What are commonly referred to as "Protestants all share the same Bible. There are just many different translations of the original manuscripts. That is how the King James Version and the New International Version came along,as well as the New American Standard Version, which is promoted by this online Forum, as well as the Amplified version. There are a great many stories that can be told about the usage of one translation over another. That is all it is. A Translation. Someone used their knowledge to convert the original writings into the English language is all that happened. The Books are the same. Some versions lean toward literal translation and some favor a more free, or thought for thought translation. The Catholic Bible has about 15 more Books than the Protestant version, but Lutherans and Methodists and Non-Denominational all use the same collection of Books (called the 'canon') that they consider as inspired from God. There are other cults that use their own distorted translation, such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. The version you have is fine, as any should be if they are sold through a Christian Book Store. Your home church wwould likely be glad to let you use a pew Bible for home study. The best version to own is actually the one that you will read. Some are uncomfortable with the wording of the King James and some say it is the 'only' Bible worth reading. Can you state a verse possibly that causes you to think that your Bible may be in error? there are many here with insight into the languages that will be glad to help you out. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
164 | why pigs | Luke 8:26 | keliy | 214302 | ||
Hi catfish, It is my understanding that it would be appropriate for these demons be cast into pigs, because they are non-kosher animals. The first mention of the idea that demons may prefer the bodies of animals is shown in Genesis 3. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
165 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | keliy | 214299 | ||
Lionheart, thank you for your encouragement. I have always enjoyed your posts as well as your screen-name (o: keliy |
||||||
166 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | keliy | 214292 | ||
Hello Joshua, I am not sure of your second question, so in absence of clarification I will offer the following. Jehovah, or Yahweh, is actually an English conversion of the Tetragrammaton (or, YHVH) which is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). God has always existed as three persons yet remains one God. This is referred to as the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
167 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | keliy | 214291 | ||
Hello Joshua, Deut 4:2 says, ""You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Your question is a little misleading from the outset. You ask, "From the time all the original texts were found...." Yet actually, the canon was not found but formed over the entire history of the OT. Beginning with the Ten Commandments, These form the beginning of the canon, as the earliest recorded words that were actually written by the finger of God. (Exo 31:18) these were the terms of God's covenant with his people and were placed into the Ark of the Covenant. (Deu 10:5) The LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud (Deu 31:15). And this is one of the ways that the collection of God's words grew and Moses himself wrote additional words as God gave to him to be placed beside the Ark of the Covenant. (Deu 31:24-26) After the death of Moses, Joshua added to he collection of the Words that were inspired by God yet recorded by the hand of man, see Josh 24:26a: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God" This is quite profound, since the command from God was, "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you..." (Deu 4:2) Therefore, Joshua must have been convinced that God himself had authorized all the words he wrote, because he never would have put himself in such a predicament to disobey His command by choice. Following the establishment of the nation of Israel, God continued to speak, mostly through prophets, who revealed additional words from God, see 1 Sam 10:25a: "Then Samuel told the people the ordinances of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book and placed it before the LORD." "Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer," (1Chr 29:29) "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book." (Jer 30:2) And the content of the OT continued to expand through the years until Malachi, around 435 B.C. There is further history of the Jews recorded in other literature such as the book of Maccabees (aprox 100 B.C.), but these writings are not considered to be inspired by God. The author of Macc. wrote in 4:45-46, "So they tore down the altar and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until ther should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." Josephus (born aprox 37 A.D.), being the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, knew of the writings called the Apocrypha (from the Greek word meaning 'hidden), but along with his contemporaries, he did not consider these 15 books of Jewish literature to be worthy of inclusion with the earlier recorded books. Rabbinic literature espouses similar convictions and it is generally accepted that no more of God's Words were added to Scripture after around 435 B.C. Jesus and His disciples, as well as the Jewish leaders, were apparently in agreement that additions to the canon had ended after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, and Malachi. Jesus and NT authors are said to have quoted from the OT 295 times but not once are the Apocrypha or any other literature cited as having divine authority. Therefore they were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
168 | why was Jabez named sorrow maker | 1 Chr 2:55 | keliy | 214260 | ||
Hi Sista, Could you please tell us where your information comes from about Jabez making sorrow? Was it possibly a sermon you heard? In the King James Bible, the word Jabez does not appear together with sorrow, or maker. neither do the words sorrow, or maker appear together in the same verse. Is there a different Bible translation that I should be looking at? Very little is actually said about Jabez in the Bible and there is much room for guesswork, but that would be irresponsible. In Him, keliy |
||||||
169 | did Jabez have sicle cell | 1 Chr 4:9 | keliy | 214258 | ||
Hello Sista Sorry, I am having difficulty making a connection between what the Bible says and the pain of Jabez. There is no disease mentioned in the life of Jabez that I know of. The pain mentioned is due to his mother's labor pains which are understood to be beyond normal. The pain felt by Jabez was actually removed by God as an answer to the prayer of Jabez. See the following passage, Jabez was more honorable than his brothers, and his mother named him Jabez saying, "Because I bore him with pain." Now Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, "Oh that You would bless me indeed and enlarge my border, and that Your hand might be with me, and that You would keep me from harm that it may not pain me!" And God granted him what he requested. (1Ch 4:9-10) Forgive me for not knowing more about the sickle cell, but I understand it to be caused by genetic mutations. These mutations develop over time, so I would assume that this blood-borne characteristic was not in existence during Jabez's time. Again, this is only my assumption, there may be references to disease in the Old testament that could be translated as sickle cell but I am unaware of any. One symptom of sickle cell is a shortened life span, and this is not mentioned in Jabez. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
170 | Class on historical background. | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 214248 | ||
Hi MJH Just to share something that I found interesting in a class I once took, I am going strictly from memory here so bear w/me. We were in the Book of Ephesians. The topic came up about historical-cultural context and how it relates to the interpretation of the text. The Economics came into play, and the point made by the instructor was that the silversmiths in Ephesus were up in arms against Paul because by spreading Christianity, He was taking away their livelihood. This was because the silversmiths made a living at making silver trinkets that honored Diana. Silversmithing was a major industry, so therefore Paul had a major influence on economics by proseletyzing the public into Christian beliefs. Anyway, the instructor appeared to be very well informed and had some interesting points to make. Sorry I cannot come up with sources or references at this point. God Bless you in your endeavor. keliy |
||||||
171 | What does judgement look like | 2 Cor 5:10 | keliy | 213969 | ||
Hi Shelby1 This would be rather hard to describe, since no one alive has seen it. Nevertheless, there could be some very valid views held, but we need to know which 'day' you are referring to. There is the "Great White Throne" judgment, And There is the lesser known "Bema Seat" judgment which will only be attended by reborn Christians, and shall follow the "Great White Throne" judgment. In the verse above, the Words 'Judgment seat' have been translated from the Greek, 'Bema', which means the official seat of a judge which is normally upon a raised platform. And where it says, "we must all" it is important to consider the audience that Paul was talking to. This would be the Church in Corinth, and as Paul clarifies his selection of audience in verse 7, the ones who "...walk by faith, not by sight" See you then (o; keliy |
||||||
172 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | keliy | 213936 | ||
Dear Doc, I know Chuck Smith to be a Good And Godly man who remains very close to God's Word. And by Implication, close to our Lord. I read the list in your post of verses you pasted out of the London Baptist's Confession of Faith, and they do little, if anything in responding to the question of what our bodies will be like, they only give reference as to where our body will be. Our bodies are unable to be unchanged in the state we are to become. Therefore, In Pastor Smith's exposition, he stated that it is unwise to speculate upon the true nature of our resurrected bodies, since no one really knows. Can I ask you to give one verse to support that our bodies will be unchanged, or the same as we know them in this life? Sorry, -I just prefer anticipation above speculation (o; In Him, keliy |
||||||
173 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | keliy | 213934 | ||
Dear Doc, You Wrote: "There is an erroneous teaching that is common today that believers will receive "new bodies" in glory. We believe in the resurrection of the body, not the creation of a brand new body." I am of the mind that our resurrected bodies will not have flesh that requires blood. We may be identical in appearance, but our cells will likely not be reproducing at the rate that replaces our entire body every seven years, and we will most likely not be dependent upon 14 psi of atmosphere that contains approx 19 percent oxygen. The following verses are what Chuck Smith used to support his views: For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. ( Phl 3:20-21) "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, it doesn't yet appear what we're going to be, but we know that when He appears we are going to be like Him" (I John 3:2). And as is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, so shall we also bear the image of the heavenly (1Cr 15:48-49). But flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven, so I've got to have a new body. A new body that will be fashioned like to the body of Jesus Christ, His spiritual heavenly body. That's what my new body will be like. (Chuck Smith) flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven (1Cr 15:50) Now behold, I show you a mystery; We're not going to all sleep, [we're not all going to die,] but we're all going to be changed, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (1Cr 15:51-53). In anticipation, keliy |
||||||
174 | Did Jesus ever have a knife fight ? | 2 Tim 2:15 | keliy | 213904 | ||
Hi Thomas, My feelings are that to have an actual 'fight would be contrary to Jesus' character. Even in self-defense, he would not commit an offense, see Isa 53:7a He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth For if he would have opened His mouth to speak, He would be wielding the most powerful weapon: The Word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, (Heb 4:12) This is not to say that He was opposed to ANY offensive behavior, but He did reserve His righteous indignation for times that were appropriate to do so. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove [them] all out of the temple(Jhn 2:15) The example Jesus gave to us while on earth was to forgive and not to injure others. A knife fight, again would be inappropriate. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
175 | PAUL LETTER | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 213888 | ||
Sorry kwright39, In order to submit an unanswered question, there must be an instance of asking |
||||||
176 | What are three of the most important the | NT general | keliy | 213886 | ||
see Acts 18:12 | ||||||
177 | Who is the ancient of days in Rev7 | Dan 7:9 | keliy | 213878 | ||
Hi Bream, I apologize, but your question is confusing me. Could you have possibly meant Daniel 7? (-see verses 9, 13, and 22 ) In the case of Dan 7:9 Daniel saw thrones of judgment set up,and one was occupied by the Ancient of Days. I believe that this is our Father, the sovereign God. (see Isa 43:13 and 57:15a) Blessings, keliy |
||||||
178 | he raised Lazarous from death and healed | Luke 1:2 | keliy | 213873 | ||
Hi ikechukwu, To me, at least the answer is fairly obvious, but there are many others also with opinions about this. Jesus came to preach the 'good news', and His actions added validity to His words. -That is, He walked His talk. The message of 'good news' brought by Jesus Christ from the Father was not about Jesus, but about the Kingdom of God. The miracles He performed for our benefit gives us a picture of what things are like in heaven: There is no sickness, and Jesus healed the lepers. There is no death, and Jesus raised Lazarus. There is no blindness, or hunger, as He also gave sight to the blind and fed the hungry with loaves and fish. There is no condemnation, and Jesus gave a reprieve from a certain death sentence to the adulterous woman, and to the woman at the well, who was divorced 5 times and living in sin, He made her into an evangelist. Jesus calmed the sea and walked on the water to show He held power over the physical realm. He cast demons into the pigs to show that He had power over the spiritual realm. Jesus' coming to earth was a miracle in itself: one man fulfilling over 300 prophecies. The way Jesus left the earth was the most important miracle of all, and He said He was going to prepare a habitat for us in His Father's estate. He did all these things so that we would be without excuse when He comes back to separate the sheep and the goats. -Do you have any doubts as to which you will be counted among? God Bless, and bless God. keliy |
||||||
179 | this is a qustion ask for a bible study | James 5:14 | keliy | 213854 | ||
Hi Dale, Welcome. The question has been up for a while so I hope you don't mind if I take a stab at it. In the book of James, the inspired writer exhorts: “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up” (5:14, 15). The sick are still among us. And virtually no one questions the fact that the church should have elders today, where qualified men can be found. Should elders, then, in connection with their prayers, be anointing the sick with oil? Though this procedure has not been practiced by churches of Christ in modern times (as a general rule), some are suggesting that it ought to be a part of our ritual. How should this matter be viewed? First, it ought to be noted that this reference to “anointing with oil” (James 5:14) is extremely abbreviated. Nothing is specifically stated in the context as to the design of the practice. Second, there are no contextual indications that this anointing with oil had any sort of spiritual basis that would make it universally applicable or perpetually obligatory. If this was to be a requirement for the universal church for all time, it would seem to be a reasonable expectation that some foundation for the practice might have been supplied. Commentators are sharply divided as to the meaning of the passage. Certainly any view of this text which comes into conflict with other clear biblical information must be rejected. I actually found this info on the internet, so these are not my words, but to read the article in its entirety, please go to: christiancourier.com/articles/118-anointing-with-oil-james-5-14 Blessings, keliy |
||||||
180 | What was the nature of the Jew-Gentile c | Acts 9:3 | keliy | 213632 | ||
This has also been asked at justanswer.com, under homework. -except they charge a fee. keliy |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [19] >> |