Results 1621 - 1640 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1621 | What are the seven Spirits of God? | Rev 4:5 | Morant61 | 7303 | ||
Greetings Gloria! Steve gave an excellent answer to your question. I would like to add another observation though. There is no way to be dogmatic about this phrase, but some feel that it is a reference to the Holy Spirit. The Greek of Rev. 4:5 literally says, "the seven spirits of God." Some think that the number seven may be a reference to Is. 11:2-3, which lists seven qualities of the Spirit: "The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD— 3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;" I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1622 | How should we deal with difficult people | Matt 5:39 | Morant61 | 7302 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I have a little different take on this issue than most people (that I know.) I think Mt. 5:38-42 absolutely teaches that Christians are not to be people who "resist" evil people, in the sense of claiming our rights. The issue in this passage was how to respond when someone went beyond their legal limits in their relationship with you. The Law gave answers to each of the situations listed in Mt. 5:38-42, but Jesus said that we should not avail ourselves of their remedies, but go "the extra mile." I think the issue really revolves around our attitude when we are mistreated. Christians should not retaliate in kind. Christians should not be angry. Christians should not try to get even or gain the upper hand. Christians should simply "turn the other check" and then (Mt. 5:42-48) love our enemies. Most will view this as being a door mat! I prefer to see it as modeling ourselves after Christ, who suffered without saying a word. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1623 | How many resurrections, and where stated | Rev 20:5 | Morant61 | 7301 | ||
Greetings Isabel! The answer to your question about the number of resurrections is found in Rev. 20:5 and Rev. 20:12-13. Rev. 20:5 clearly states that there will be more than one resurrection. Those who are a part of the first resurrection reign with Christ for a thousand years. Rev. 20:12-13 deals with the "rest of the dead", who do not reign with Christ and are subject to the second death. In actuality, there are several resurrections. The "first" of Rev. 20:5 seems to be in relationship to the last resurrection of Rev. 20:12-13, not 'first' in a chronological sense. I say this because the evidence for the following resurrections. a) The resurrection of Christ and the Old Testament saints - 1 Cor. 15:23 and Mt. 27:52-53. b) The resurrection of dead saints and the translation of living saints at 13-18. c) The resurrection of the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3-11. (This may be a subset of the rapture!) There are probably more references, but this is just a quick list that I threw together. Concerning the relationship of multiple resurrections to John 5:28-29, I think that John 5:28-29 is an example of prophetic telescoping. In prophecy, several distant (in time) events are often telescoped together in such a way that they appear as a single event. Thus, John 5:28-29 is concerned with the reality of resurrection and judgement, not necessarily with giving an indepth description of how it occurs. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1624 | going to heaven..body and soul.. | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 7300 | ||
Greetings Jaded13! I always tell my Bible Study group that "there is no dumb question, except the question we don't ask!" Your question basically contains two parts. What happens to the soul of a believer at death? What happens to the body of a believer after death? Two passages in particular, make it very clear that as soon as a believer dies, their soul is present with Christ: 2 Cor. 5:8 says, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." Phil. 2:21-23 says, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;" There are others, but these should suffice to demonstrate that a believer's (soul or spirit) is immediately present with Christ after death. The second part of your question is answered by 1 Thess. 4:16-17, which says, "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." Here it is clear that a believers body and (soul or spirit) will be reunited at the rapture. Those who die after the rapture, will be reunited at a different time. Revelation 20:4-6 says of them: "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." I hope this answers your question! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1625 | What does the word "Wormwood" mean? | Rev 8:11 | Morant61 | 7093 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The word in question is the Greek word 'apsinthos.' It simply means bitter. It is derived from a bitter herb (wormwood)that was used to cure intestinal worms. The word is only found in this verse of the Bible (twice). It is mentioned seven times in the Old Testament where it represents sorrow and bitter judgment (Deut. 29:18; Prov. 5:4; Jer. 9:15; 23:15; Lam. 3:15, 19; Amos 5:7). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1626 | Persuasion or manipulation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 7086 | ||
Greetings JVHO212! I've never really thought about this question before! I did a search on the Greek words for "persuasion" and "convince." They seem to be used in both a positive and a negative sense. So, I'm not sure there is really a Biblical answer to this question. However, I think we can appeal to Biblical principles! a) I would see persuasion as an attempt to convince someone of the truth, based upon a loving desire to benefit them. b) I would see manipulation as an attempt to convince someone of a position, based upon a selfish desire to benefit oneself. But, this is just my opinion! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1627 | What is the word "Abaddon" referring to? | Job 26:6 | Morant61 | 7085 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The word "Abaddon" seems to be most likely a synonym for "Sheol." Hebrew prose tends to use a lot of duplicate words with the same meaning in conjuction with each other. "Abaddon" only occurs 6 times in the Old Testament. Twice it is used with "Sheol." Twice it is used with "Grave." Therefore, "Abbandon" probably refers to a place of destruction (lit. the grave or hell). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1628 | What is this pattern? | Phil 3:17 | Morant61 | 7056 | ||
Greetings Charis! This is an excellent question. I think the only way to determine the pattern is to examine the context of the chapter. Paul's primary concern in this chapter are the Judaizers (3:2), who are changing the Gospel. He tells the Philippians to "watch out" for these false teachers. Note the similarity to his command in 3:17 to "take note" of those who live correctly. So, I would say that the pattern Paul referred to is the pattern of correct teaching that he gave them when he led them to Christ. Thus, the Philippians are being told to note those who agree with Paul's pattern of teaching, and watch out for those who deviate from the Gospel of Grace. p.s. - I've always been intrigued by your screen name. I have a daughter named Charissa. Her name is derived from the Greek word 'charis,' which means "Grace." So Grace to you Charis, Tim Moran |
||||||
1629 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Morant61 | 6978 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is nothing wrong with taking the Bible literally. The problem is that we often read things into the Bible that aren't there. Taking the Bible literally simply means to take the Bible for what it actally says, not what we think it is saying. For instance, in the current thread, the debate is over the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:2. There is nothing in the verse that says an overseer must be married. The word 'marriage or married' is never used in the passage. However, many have interpreted a phrase that basically means "faithful to his wife" as meaning marriage is a qualification for service. Notice that verse 3 says that he must not be a lover of money. Are we then to say that an overseer must have money? How about v. 4, which deals with children? Must an overseer also have children in order to lead? I agree with one of JVHO212's posts, here he made the case that the issue is not marital status, but the moral conduct of the leaders. I do appreciate the reminder to watch our tone in the debates we engage in. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1630 | What does receive mean? | 1 John 2:2 | Morant61 | 6966 | ||
See other post! There is an ammended version of this post! Tim Moran |
||||||
1631 | Shamayim - why heavens, not two heavens | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 6774 | ||
Greetings, My Hebrew is very rusty, but from the grammars I consulted I was able to find the following information about dual nouns. Dual nouns usually refer to things like body parts that naturally occur in pairs, and are normally simply translated as plurals. However, there are some nouns which have a dual form without having a dual meaning. For instance, the Hebrew word for 'water' has a dual form, but does not have a dual meaning. The word for 'heavens' seems to be the same kind of word. It has a dual form, but can be translated as either a singular or a plural. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1632 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 6762 | ||
Great question Nolan! The crucial difference between the three texts (Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and the Critical Text) concerns the weight given to different manuscript traditions. Each of them is technically an 'eclectic' text, since we do not posess any of the original autographs. Each of them had to make critical decisions. The basic approach of each is as follows. Textus Receptus: The TR was the first attempt at putting together an 'offical' Greek text. The only problem with it is that there were very few manuscripts available at the time, and they were all comparatively late manuscripts (which allows for possible mistakes). The Majority Text: Is almost identical to the TR, but not quite. It uses the theory that critical decisions must be made on the basis of the number of texts, rather than the quality of the texts (hence the name Majority Text.) It differs from the TR primarily only where the majority of texts differ from the TR. The Critical Text: Usually refers to the Nestle-Aland Text. It primarily gives weight to ealier and higher quality texts, rather than later and more numerous texts. Byzantine does not refer to either the Majority Text or the TR. It refers to a number of texts produced in a certain area at a certain time. The same is true of Alexandrian. The only relevance to these two terms is that the Critical texts usually give more weight to Alexandrian manuscripts, while the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus rely more heavily on others. Other types include: the Western and the Caesarean Texts. In my opinion, the Critical text is better and more reliable! However, let me note that none of them are 'bad' texts. The vast majority of textual decisions have to do with spelling and word order. Though the different texts may disagree on minor points, they all teach the same doctrine. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1633 | What is meant by this passage? | James 4:5 | Morant61 | 6722 | ||
Greetings Bleavell! This is a very difficult verse to translate, let alone interpret. Here is the literal reading of the Greek text: "Or do you think that in vain the Scripture says, to/for jealousy he longs for the spirit which he placed in us." The first phrase is fairly clear (Or, do you think that Scripture says in vain...".) However, in the second phrase there are several difficult tranlation decisions which must be made. 1) Is spirit the subject or the object of the clause? In form, spirit could be either. However, I think it is more likely that spirit is the object. For one thing, if spirit is the subject, there is no other object for the verb 'he longs for.' Secondly, the pronoun 'which' would have no antecedent. 2) How should 'for jealousy' be translated? The best option seems to be to treat it as an adverb, even though it is a noun. Based upon these choices, the smoother English translation would read something like this: "Or, Do you think that Scripture says in vain, 'He jealously longs for the spirit which He placed in us.'" Now that we have translated the verse, we still have to interpret it. This is just a difficult task as the tranlation, since it is not clear to what Scripture verse James is referring. 1) Is 'spirit' a reference to the Holy Spirit, or to man's spirit? I believe it is a reference to man's spirit (i.e. - life), since the context deals with man's attitudes towards one another and God. In fact, there is no clear reference in the entire book of James to the Holy Spirit. Consider the logic of the passage, which probably begins at 3:13. Chapter four begins with a discussion of evil desires. James asks in 4:1, "What causes fights and quarrels among you?...." He then answers that they come from our internal desires. We want something, but don't get it. We will kill or fight to get what we want - v. 2. However, we don't ask God. Even when we do ask God, we don't get what we want because we ask with wrong motives- v. 3. We ask for our own pleasure. James 4:4 is the key (I think) to understanding verse 5. This attitude that he has been describing is now equated with spiritual adultery. Rather than loving and longing for God, we are seeking the pleasures of this world. We have become His enemies. In this context, James 4:5 would be saying that God is a jealous God - cf. Exodus 20:5. He wants our worship and love. I hope this helps! Tim Moran |
||||||
1634 | More Info on Beliefs | 3 John 1:11 | Morant61 | 6710 | ||
Greetings Chris! If you read all of my posts, you sure are a glutton for punishment! :-) Thanks for the kind words! The shortest way to list my beliefs would probably be to use common labels: I hold to a: Arminian, Pre-Wrath-Millenial Eschotology, Evangelical Theology. Through the years, I have had contact with many different theological bents (my Father-in-Law is an American Baptist Pastor.) Because of this, I have learned that many good Christian people have differing views on certain topics. I think it was JVHO212, who dealt with the issue of historic Chrisianity in one of his posts. He made an excellent point. There are core beliefs that define Christianity. In those core beliefs, there can be no debate. In all else, we can gracefully agree to disagee. 1a) Rom. 9:19-21: Romans is a wonderful book. From my study of it, I have developed the following interpretive paradigm. The main issue in Romans is this: Why are Gentiles being saved, while Jews are not? The Jewish nation had a tremendous amount of pride in their status as "God's choosen nation." This pride turned into an assumption that they were automatically "right" with God. In Romans, Paul destroys this believe. In chapter one, He argues that God's wrath is revealed against all pagans who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (1:25). Every Jew reading this would have been saying, "Amen...Paul!" But, in chapter two, Paul includes the Jews under God's wrath for their violation of the Law God had given them. Consequently, according to Romans 3, all have fallen short of the glory of God. He the goes on to argue in chapter 4 through 8 that salvation is obtained only through faith in Christ, not by works. Chapters 9-11, focus specifically on the question of Israel's rejection of Christ. Has God failed in His promises to Israel? Of course not, Paul replies! You haven't understood His promises to begin with: a) Israel is an Israel of promise not of birth - Rom. 9:1-9. b) God has the sovereign right to extend His mercy to whomever His wishes - Rom. 9:10-29. So my short answer concerning Rom. 9:19-21, would be this: Israel (the clay) has no right to complain about how the potter (God) chooses to use them (the nation.) His purpose, according to Rom. 11:32 is clear, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." 1b) In my opinion, the views of people like Robert Shank or Hank Hanagraf(?) are views that do justice to both election and responsibilty. I would highly recommend their writings. 2) I am very familiar with Dr. Zodhites(?). I have the utmost respect for his works. I'm not sure what the best resources are, there are so many. You need a good text (I used the UBS Greek text). You need a good lexicon or dictionary. The best is probably Kittel's, but it is very expensive. Good commentaries, which deal with the orginal text, are also helpful. Someone else might have some helpful suggestions as well. I have never used the Complete WordStudy Bible CD. I currently use the Logos Systems Bible program. 3) I would consider myself conservative, but I do believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers (including the gifts.) Your Brother in Christ |
||||||
1635 | What is your take on Isa 28:10? | Isaiah | Morant61 | 6533 | ||
Greetings Jim! One source I consulted suggested that the religious leaders were mocking Isaiah's words. They felt like they were being lectured, like little children. So either they were using nonsensical words to mock Isaiah's message or they were simply imitating an adult lecturing a child. The phrase "a little here, a little there" referred to a method of teaching children. So, in vv. 11ff, Isaiah tells them that if they would not listen to his words, then they would be "lectured" by a conquring nation instead. Any other thoughts? Tim Moran |
||||||
1636 | How does the wall theory soften? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6387 | ||
Greetings, I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear. I've been up all night (work)! Basically, the passage is simply saying that with man it is impossible, just as it is impossibe for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. If we change the meaning from impossible to simply difficult, we have softened the meaning of the text. I think we also miss out on Jesus' sense of humor. The disciples understood what Jesus was saying, as is clear from their response, "Who then can be saved?" God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
1637 | What is the "eye of the needle"? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6384 | ||
Greetings, To the best of my knowledge, the belief that the eye of the needle referred to a small gate is an attempt to negate the clear message of the passage. It was believed that "with alms man purchases his salvation." Therefore, when Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the disciples were stunned. "Who then can be saved," they asked. The whole point of this passage is that it is impossible for anyone to earn salvation. Not even the rich can buy their way in to Heaven. However, God can provide salvation to anyone. Many have tried to water the passage down by downgrading the meaning. Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
1638 | What is 'justification'? | Rom 3:24 | Morant61 | 6317 | ||
Hi Nolan! This a great question because it forces us to examine what Scripture says about our salvation. Justification is the translation of the word 'dikaioo.' It basically means 'to show or declare righteous.' It is sometimes used to refer to someone being proven right. However, most of the time, in the New Testament, it is used in the sense of a believer being declared righteous by God. Gal 2:16 says, "...know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (NIV) This is a good summary to explain the doctrine of justification. The question which the doctrine of justification deals with is how do we obtain a right standing before God? Do we earn it by keeping the Law? Scripture says this is impossible. Rather, Scripture affirms over and over that we are justified (or declared righteous) through faith, grace, and the blood of Christ. The best modern illustration to use when explaining justification is that of a pardon. When a pardon is granted to someone they are declared free of all penalty. It does not say that they did not commit the crime. It does not say that they are a good person. It only says that there will be no penalty attached to the crime. This is what justification does for us. Because of what Christ did for us on the Cross, we do not have to pay the penalty. Justification does not make us righteous, it only declares us righteous. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit which actually transforms us over time and makes us righteous. I'm looking forward to see other responses to this question. Tim Moran |
||||||
1639 | Did God create evil? | 3 John 1:11 | Morant61 | 5333 | ||
Greetings, This is a tough question. My short answer would be this: Evil is not a thing that can be created. Rather, evil is the choice to disobey God's law. Evil is a natural possibility where choices are really available. Tim Moran |
||||||
1640 | How many daughters did Lot have? | Gen 19:14 | Morant61 | 5243 | ||
Greetings, I believe Lot only had two daughters. In Jewish culture, you were considered married if you were bethrothed. Remember the case of Mary and Joseph! So the virgin daughers of Gen. 19:8 are the same 'married or bethrothed' daughers of Gen. 19:14. The fiances did not believe Lot and were left behind. The NIV actually translates Gen. 19:14 as "pledged to marry." I hope this helps. Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ] Next > Last [83] >> |