Results 1641 - 1659 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1641 | Elohim instead of God | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 5241 | ||
Hi, 'Elohim' is used in the Old Testament 2,606 times. In most of those occurances, it is translated 'God.' I don't know the exact number of times it is used to refer to God as opposed to an occasional other usage. In Gen. 1:1, 'Elohim' is the word that is translated 'God.' Tim Moran |
||||||
1642 | Jesus Himself said, I AM | John 8:58 | Morant61 | 5069 | ||
Greetings, I agree with your point. Most of these verses would have been better translated as simply "I am." I don't think the translators are wrong. I just think that they didn't choose the best option. If you don't like the NASB, KJV, and NKJV, you should really check out the NIV. I usually like the NIV, but they translate most of these verses, "If you don't believe I am who I claim to be." The one verse where I think the translators choose correctly is the John 18:5-8 passage. Here they asked if He was Jesus and He replied, "I am." In English, it makes sense in this case to add the "...He." I feel for translators. They do not have an easy job. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
1643 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4909 | ||
Greetings, I just came across your question. I am an Arminian, so let me take a shot at answering your question. Calvanists and Arminians disagree on several crucial points. One of those areas of disagreement concerns the extent of the atonement. Calvinists believe that on the cross Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only. Hence, the term 'limited atonement.' Arminians believe that on the cross Christ potentially atoned for the sins of the entire world. Hence, the term 'unlimited atonement.' This does not mean, however, that Arminians believe that everyone will be saved. The atonement at the cross is for everyone, but effective only for those who respond to God's grace in faith. Thus, God's foreknowledge of who will be saved does not limit the atonement. The 'unlimited' part of the phrase refers to those for whom the atonement is available, not to the actual number of the atoned. I hope this helps! Tim Moran |
||||||
1644 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | Morant61 | 4908 | ||
Greetings RWC! I think you have made some excellent points. Phil. 2:5-11 never says that Jesus ceased to be God. It does say, however, that a change occurred in His status. He 'emptied Himself' by, according to Phil. 2:7, "....taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Therefore, the 'emptying of Himself' refers to the fact that He did not grasp or hold on to the rank and privilege that He had as God, but took upon Himself a real, human nature. He became fully man and fully God at the same time. I like the way 2 Cor. 8:9 puts it: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." However, I believe that Jesus became fully human in the way that Adam was created. In other words, you can't really compare the humanity of Christ with fallen humanity. He always knew who He was and what He was doing. He was always aware of His Father's presence. So, He wasn't human in exactly the same sense that we are human. He was perfect and sinless, we aren't. I think this is the reason why we have such a hard time understanding His humanity. Thanks for the question. Tim Moran |
||||||
1645 | Do We Worship On Our Knees Only? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4857 | ||
Greetings, Could you provide some specifics for your question? Broad questions are difficult to discuss. For instance, what words for worship did you study? What translations are in error? What teachings have you heard that were in error? This sounds like an interesting topic! Tim Moran |
||||||
1646 | Have I misunderstood your question? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4834 | ||
Sorry, double post! |
||||||
1647 | JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4747 | ||
Greetings RevC: I have been following your dialogue about the Oneness belief. Most everything you say about Jesus, a trinitarian would accept as well. The only point of contention is whether or not there are three distince Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the Godhead (the Trinity) or whether these three terms all refer to one Person (Jesus Only). With this in mind, I would like to address question # 4 in your list. Look at Luke 22:42! Jesus is in the garden preparing to face His death. As the incarnate Son, He prays to His Father, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." My answer to your question # 4 is that the three terms definitetly refer to three distint Persons, not simply three offices or modes. In this prayer, Jesus is praying to someone else - His Father. He asks for one thing (the cup to be taken from Him), but yields to the will of His Father instead. If there are not three Persons in the Godhead, how do you explain this verse? Was Jesus praying to Himself? If there are not three Persons in the Godhead, how could Jesus yield to someone else's will? He clearly states His will, but chooses to comply with His Father's will instead. The simplest and most logical explanation of this verse is an interaction between two members of the Godhead, each unique and distinct from the other. I look forward to your reply! Tim Moran |
||||||
1648 | Why Saul to Paul? | Acts 13:9 | Morant61 | 4688 | ||
Greetings, One commentary I consulted (The Bible Knowledge Commentary) suggested that Paul is used from this point on because it is at this point that Paul steps into a leadership position in the mission to the Gentiles. Paul was Saul's Roman name. Paul himself only uses Saul when he refers back to his prior life (Acts 22:7, 26:14). Other than that, I haven't heard of any significant reason for the change in names. Tim Moran |
||||||
1649 | A Hebrew Version of Matthew? | Matthew | Morant61 | 4660 | ||
Greetings: There are ancient traditions that Matthew wrote either a Gospel or a collection of sayings in Hebrew. Here are the relevant quotes. 1) Papias wrote, "Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as he was able." (Cited by Eusebius, HE, iii. 39. 16.) 2) Irenaeus wrote, "Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church." (Cited by Eusebius, HE, v. 8. 2.) 3) According to Eusebius, Pantaenus went to India and found that the Gospel of Matthew was already there in Hebrew. (HE, v. 10). 4) Finally, Origen stated that Matthew had composed a Gospel in Hebrew. (J. Munck in Neotestamentica et Patristica, 1962, pp. 249-260). There are several reasons why these statements are traditionally discounted. 1) Most people believe that the Gospels are late compostions. However, if these statements are true, then Matthew may have been written before Peter and Paul were killed, not hundreds of years after the death of Christ as so many want to believe. 2) Most scholars today believe that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and an unknown document Q to compose their Gospels. However, if Matthew wrote in Hebrew and early, then it is unlikely that Mark was first, since Mark was most likely written with Peter's help. Some have tried to say that maybe this Hebrew Gospel was Q. These quotes are a fascinating study and further evidence that the Gospels were probably written much earlier than scholars commonally believe. I hope this answers your question. Tim Moran |
||||||
1650 | How many before Pilate | Luke 23:1 | Morant61 | 4659 | ||
Luke 22:66 identifies the body as the council of the Elders, otherwise known as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was basically the Jewish Supreme Court and traditionally numbered 70 members, after the 70 Elders who assisted Moses in judging Israel (Num. 11:16-24). So, the body was a quite large number of people. It may even have included other witnesses and family or friends (see the reference to the crowd in Luke 23:4). I hope this helps! Tim Moran |
||||||
1651 | don'y understand your answer | Job 1:6 | Morant61 | 4611 | ||
Wow! I wasn't expecting such a quick response. The reason I asked for a reference is two fold. First, I did a search using my Bible software and I couldn't find any verse in any version of the Bible that says God can't look upon sin. Second, from a logical standpoint, He must be able to look upon sin or He wouldn't be able to see anything that happens in this world. If you find the reference, please let me know. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
1652 | Was there two from the godhead Christ? | John 6:56 | Morant61 | 4610 | ||
Allow me to address both of the Scriptures that you quote. In Cor. 5:19, 'in Christ' cleary refers to the means of reconciliation that God was using, not the location of God physically. Here is the passage in it's context. 1 Cor. 5:18 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God." Notice the progression. God works through Christ, then through us to reconcile the world to Himself. Now concerning John 14:10, let's compare it to John 6:56. In John 6:56, Christ says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." The word translated 'remains in' in this verse is the same word translated as 'living in' in John 14:10. Therefore, Christ has the same relationship with those who eat of His flesh and blood as God the Father has with God the Son incarnate. Does this mean that Jesus is literally present in the flesh within believers? Of course not? Neither was God the Father present in the flesh inside the incarnate Christ. Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
1653 | please interpret this verse | Job 1:6 | Morant61 | 4605 | ||
Question: Can you provide a reference for your first statement that God cannot look upon sin? It would help to understand your question. Tim Moran |
||||||
1654 | New Testament guidlines | 1 Tim 2:12 | Morant61 | 4470 | ||
May I throw out a question for debate? Should 1 Tim. 2:12 be taken as a commandment from God which is in force at all times and all cultures? Or, should 1 Tim. 2:12 be taken as Paul's practice in the time in which he lived? The reason I ask is the text specifically says, "I do not allow....." Is Paul giving us a universal principle or a cultural one? Are there any other passages that specifically say that God does not allow a woman to teach or preach? As you can probably tell from my question, I lean toward 1 Tim. 2:12 being a cultural principle. However, I am willing to keep an open mind! Tim Moran |
||||||
1655 | Popular opinion? or Scripture? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Morant61 | 4469 | ||
Greetings, Romans 16:1 literally reads, "But I commend to you Phoebe our sister and deacon of the church in Cenchrea. (My translation based upon the 26th Edition of Nestle Aland's Greek Text)." The term translated as 'servant' in both the KJV and the NIV is the same word translated in 1 Tim. 3:8 and 3:12 as 'deacons.' The difficulty is in deciding what the word means in this text. The word 'deacon' is used in many ways in the New Testament. In the Gospels, it always refers to a servant (Mt. 20:26, 22:13, 23:11, Mk. 9:35, 10:43, Jn. 2:5, 9, and 12:26). It is used in the same way a number of times in the rest of the New Testament (Rom. 13:4, 15:8, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 6:4, 11:15, 11:23, Gal. 2:17 (Servants of sin), Eph. 3:7, 6:21, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:7, 23, 4:7, and 1 Tim. 4:6). Then there are several passages where it seems to describe an office (2 Cor. 3:6, Col. 1:25, 1 Tim. 3:8, and 3:12). The question then is which meaning applies in Rom. 16:1? Given that the other two occurances of this word in Romans definitely do not describe a deacon of the church, I would say it is used in the more general sense of a servant rather than a deacon. However, I could be wrong. Tim Moran |
||||||
1656 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4149 | ||
Greetings! I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, so I might be repeating old material. If I might make an observation, I believe that you are taking the Bible literally only when you understand the original context and then apply it appropritately. Given the original context, the exact historical situation might not be be same, but the underlying principle in the text may still apply. For instance, In 1 Cor. 8, Paul addresses the issue of eating meat offered to idols. This is not a problem that we face today, however the principle of 1 Cor. 8:9 (not using your freedom is such a way that a brother is made to stumble) does apply. Thus, while not every historical situation may apply to today, the Biblical principles certainly do. Tim Moran |
||||||
1657 | ... | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 4071 | ||
In Luke 22:31, Jesus says that "Satan has asked to sift you as wheat (NIV).) The 'you' in this verse is the 2nd person, accusative, plural pronoun. Therefore, Jesus in saying that Satan has asked to sift all of the Disciples. But, in verse 32, Jesus says, "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail (NIV)." In this instance, the pronoun is the 2nd person, genative, singular pronoun. Thus, verse 32 refers only to Peter. In both cases, the pronoun is the same expect for case and number. I hope this helps. Tim Moran |
||||||
1658 | Who wet Jesus feet with her tears? | Luke 7:44 | Morant61 | 4026 | ||
Each of the four Gospels records an instance involving a woman with perfume and Jesus (Mt. 26:6-13, Mk. 14:3-9, Lk. 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8). However, the incident described in Luke appears to be a different one than the one described in the other three Gospels. The incident in Luke occurs early in the ministry of Jesus, while the other three accounts occur in the last week of Jesus' life. The focus in Luke is on the character of the woman touching Jesus, while in the other three accounts the focus is on the price of the perfume. The woman in John is described as "Mary of Bethany," but the woman in Luke is never named. I hope this is helpful. Tim Moran. |
||||||
1659 | ingredients found in the annoiting oil | Ex 30:22 | Morant61 | 4000 | ||
Ex. 30:22-33 (NIV) lists the ingredients of annointing oil as: 500 shekels of liguid myrrh, 250 shekels of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane, 500 shekels of cassia, and one hin of olive oil. I hope this helps. Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ] |