Results 201 - 220 of 305
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Corrected, accepted, none of the above? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 8109 | ||
Where in Acts 17:11 (NIV) do you see the words "corrected" or "accepted"? I posted a note to Steve Butler on 06-21-2001, 3:36pm. The last thing I said to him in my note was: "You have a real knack for changing the subject, ignoring the question, and then asking...new and different QUESTIONS that you made up." On 06-21-2001, 4:11pm, Steve replied to me. To answer my questions, he wrote SEVEN (7) MORE QUESTIONS, which is what I expected. Also note: Nowhere in Acts 17:11 (NIV) do you see the words "corrected" or "accepted." They just aren't there. Acts 17:11 (NIV) STILL does not say, "The Bereans corrected Paul and he accepted it." |
||||||
202 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | Radioman | 8096 | ||
Reposted by popular demand. From: Radioman To: His Honor, Judge Steve Butler The beam that is in thine own eye grows longer and heavier by the minute. Before you go completely blind, you may want to use yor judge's scalpel to dissect yourself and see how (if) you measure up. |
||||||
203 | Paul's teaching: Inerrant or Fallible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman | 8058 | ||
Unlimited potential for doubt. Speculate. "Once one starts speculating on this, the potential for doubt and deception is unlimited." Main Entry: spec·u·late Function: verb intransitive sense 1 : to review something *idly or casually* and often *inconclusively* transitive senses 1 : to take to be true on the basis of *insufficient evidence* 2 : to be curious or *doubtful* about (emphasis added) |
||||||
204 | Paul's teaching: Inerrant or Fallible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman | 8056 | ||
No, this is not a possibility worthy of anyone's consideration. I would like to comment upon the exceeding foolishness, ignorance and absurdity of even implying or suggesting that the Apostle Paul (and by implication the other Eleven) went around teaching error, inaccuracy and falsehood. To create such doubt in the minds of people as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the Apostles' teaching is to cast doubt upon the New Testament as well as upon Christianity itself. Once one starts speculating on this, the potential for doubt and deception is unlimited. As I say, I would like to comment upon such a nutty notion, but it would do no good whatsoever. Let the foolish and ignorant remain foolish and ignorant. It's their choice. |
||||||
205 | Haven't we had enough? | Rom 5:6 | Radioman | 8037 | ||
Enough is enough already. ezekiel: No offense intended. I merely pose the question: Haven't we all had about enough of this ceaseless debate over Calvinism vs Arminianism (the sovereignty of God vs the responsibility of man)? Literally HUNDREDS of entries have been posted regarding this question. (Please see the tree (thread) "Christ dying only for elect?" and "What does Bible teach on election?") |
||||||
206 | Replenish the earth | Gen 1:28 | Radioman | 8033 | ||
Cephas: To you and to all my wish is that there be peace among us. No way in the world is this post intended to do anything except shed a little more light on the subject. Only 1 of 4 translations I consulted uses the word "replenish". The other three all use the word "fill." . . . Gen 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. . . . Gen. 1:28 (Amplified) And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth... . . . Gen 1:28 (NASB) God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." . . . Gen 1:28 (The NET Bible) God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! |
||||||
207 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8011 | ||
Mark: You are no fan of CRI? Somehow I doubt that CRI is a fan of Mark Sutton. So you're another one of those unteachable spirits who don't need any man to teach you? Does this attitude not strike you as arrogant, as well as foolish? You've walked with many fringe groups, some of which hold beliefs or practices that are controversial? It's OK to listen to fringe groups, but not OK to listen to widely known, widely respected teachers? I can only imagine what your belief system consists of. What could it be but chaos and confusion? I haven't heard you say anything on this Forum that represents sound Bible doctrine. Those in the first century who rejected or disobeyed the truth were not rejecting the very words of the New Testament, since it was as yet not completed. What they rejected were the teaching of men (oh, I thought we didn't need men to teach us). They rejected men who were apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, etc. So much for the theory that all teachings of men should be rejected. Instead of rejecting such teachings, it would be far more appropriate to test those teachings against the written Word to see if they line up. As someone here has posted previously, if all we need is the Bible and no teachers, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel? According to your logic, wouldn't it have been just as effective to keep the disciples in Jerusalem, mail copies of the Bible to nonbelievers, and let them figure it out for themselves? Whoever despises and distrusts most, if not all, of the teachers that Christ has given to the church is a fool. But whoever despises and distrusts outstanding leaders and teachers of conservative evangelical Bible doctrine shall have to answer for it to God. To malign the character of someone who can see through false doctrine and speak out against it is to stand on very thin ice. It is the duty of every teacher to warn others against false doctrine. The problem with many people is that they base their beliefs, not on the Bible, but on what their Sunday School teacher taught them in the distant past, what their parents said was true, what they hear on TBN, and who knows what else. When a teacher who is thoroughly grounded in the Word and unemcumbered with superstition and bad doctrine comes along to fulfill his duty to warn others to turn away from error, heresy, apostasy or whatever term fits, all the pious self-appointed experts want to do to him what others did to the prophets and to Christ himself, which is to arrange a violent and speedy death or exile for the true prophet. It's not right for someone who really does know basic Bible doctrine to appraise the controversial teachings of a group of men? (Men, you know, the plural of man, as in i need no man to teach me. By the way if one needs no man to teach him, why join up with some fringe group in the first place? I have a problem with those who are condemning those who are most qualified to preach the truth of God's word and then defending those who have questionable beliefs.) Surely you are not suggesting or implying that "trusted defenders of the faith" are out to persecute, whip up powers against and kill people who are in error as to their doctrine, are you? Bad enough to slander a man's character with lies and slander, but worse still to accuse him of nurturing murder in his heart. Verbal "attacks" on false doctrine are entirely essential and fitting in this age of bad teaching, no teaching, and deceptive teaching. As far as understanding what a man means before you judge his words, your assertion is full of confusion and illogic. When a man speaks or writes, we determine what he means by what he says. Words have meaning and by a man's own words he will accuse or excuse himself. If a fringe leader or anyone else has insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the doctrine it contains, he'd best stay off the platform and away from the pulpit, the camera and the microphone. I admit there is a lot of bad teaching on TV and radio and one must use a great deal of discernment to know which to turn on and which to turn off and leave off. But, if one looks for it, he will find many trustworthy ministries whose teaching is uncorrupted by strange and outlandish false doctrine. A good example of TV to beware of is the so-called Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Why do they even call it the Trinity Network, when they allow on the network people who do not even believe in the Trinity? You may or may not be open to reproof, correction or instruction. But it is hoped that someone will read this post and wake up and be warned. To summarize: a cult is a cult is a cult. False doctrine does much harm to many people. If anyone exposes false doctrine, he should be commended, not condemned, for doing so. |
||||||
208 | Light and Good Works | Matt 5:16 | Radioman | 8006 | ||
So that..."they may BECAUSE OF YOUR GOOD DEEDS, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." 1 Pet 2:12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. Matt 5:16 *light so shine*." A godly life gives convincing testimony of the saving power of God. That brings Him glory. Compare 1 Pet 2:12." (MacArthur Study Bible) |
||||||
209 | You answer one question with 3 more? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7955 | ||
EdB: Apology accepted! Please excuse my unintentionally late reply to your posting of 12:52pm. I only saw it a few minutes ago. Before I say anything else, let me say: I overlooked and was completely unaware of your apology until just a few minutes ago. I regret and apologize for any and all harsh remarks that I posted to you between 12:52pm and the writing of this note (approx. 9:00pm). For such replies of mine to be posted after your apology only compounds my offensive behavior. Please let me explain something that accounts for, but does not excuse, my outburst. Dr. Scofield has been a favorite of mine since childhood. I am exceedingly sensitive to any personal criticism of Dr. Scofield. But, as I say, this is no excuse for rudeness or unkindness on my part. I gladly choose to forget our heated exchange and put it in the past. I freely, joyfully, sincerely accept your apology. I must apologize to you for my overreaction to your comment. Will you forgive me? You had the right intention when you attempted to get the discussion between JVH0212 and Lionstrong back on track. I assure you I think none the worse of you. It is I who hope that you think none the worse of me. Consider the sword in your heart removed. EdB, I would rather be your friend than not. Bless you. Radioman |
||||||
210 | How did Paul know they were checking? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7931 | ||
You're absolutely right this time: "It does not SAY it anywhere." It sure doesn't. Your question about checking Paul out is totally incomprehensible. Again, who said or where does it say in Acts that "they" were checking Paul out? To quote Hank: "Steve, from what version of Acts...were you able to infer that ["they were checking him out]?...What are you saying and what do you mean to say?" I say again: You have a real knack for changing the subject, ignoring the question, and then asking/answering new and different questions that you made up. |
||||||
211 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | Radioman | 7929 | ||
EdB concludes: "Scofield must be right his Bible has been in print for 90 years 9 decades". You're the one who said it, EdB, not me. Steve Butler must be right, because EdB agrees with him. EdB must be right, because Steve Butler, the man who knows everything and understands nothing, agrees with him. Or, here is another alternative: The blind are leading the blind. |
||||||
212 | Why don't we obey 1 Timothy 2:9? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Radioman | 7926 | ||
Q: In 1 Timothy 2:9, it says that women should not wear braided hair, gold or pearls. Why is this not being obeyed today? A: Your question is one that is frequently asked and deserves a reply. Nothing in my reply is intended to be critical of you or your question. 1 Pet 3:3 Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; If this verse prohibits women from braiding the hair and wearing gold jewelry, then it also prohibits them from putting on dresses. Does it not? Why is this not being obeyed today? Please read the verse in 1 Peter 3. Also notice the use of the word "merely" in the verse. |
||||||
213 | Churchianity to be answered: | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7923 | ||
Steve Butler: "Radioman ... it is by implication." Radioman speaks: "It is by implication?" No, it isn't. It may be by the infallible inference of one who was "correct most of the time." However, no such implication is made anywhere in that entire chapter of Acts. Remedial reading: The Bereans corrected Paul and he accepted it? Where does it say that in Acts 17:11? Notice, the question is not 'where does it IMPLY that?' The question is 'where does it SAY that?' By what stretch of the imagine do you take "they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" to mean they corrected Paul and he accepted it? You have a real knack for changing the subject, ignoring the question, and then answering new and different questions that you made up. |
||||||
214 | Ignorance of God, Christ and man. | Matt 24:11 | Radioman | 7922 | ||
. | ||||||
215 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Radioman | 7921 | ||
Elijah's Answer: "The sons spoken of in 6:2 are angles that left there proper dewling place (heaven)and came down to marry the daughters of men (Elijah)" Reply: Matt 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. "Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
216 | "Many false prophets will arise ..." | John 10:27 | Radioman | 7914 | ||
(The following has been re-posted to keep it in the right thread. My apologies for posting it twice.) Matt 24:11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many." I have a question for all who would defend the word of faith movement and those who would defend its super-star preachers, including Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Paul and Jan Crouch, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Jesse Duplantis, and Marilyn Hickey, and the many other evangelists, teachers, and writers promoting the teaching. For a moment, forget their unbiblical doctrine of the prosperity gospel (i.e., name it and claim it). What about their heretical, near blasphemous teachings concerning the nature of God, Christ and man, as summarized below? "In brief, the teachings of these men may be summarized as follows: God created man in “God’s class,” as “little gods,” with the potential to exercise the “God kind of faith” in calling things into existence and living in opportunity, however, by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan’s nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan’s nature), went to Hell, was “born again,” rose from the dead with God's nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is often taught) be left by one’s spouse, and not to have these problems go away by “claiming” God’s promises, shows a lack of faith" (Christian Research Institute). |
||||||
217 | Ignorance of God, Christ and man. | Matt 24:11 | Radioman | 7913 | ||
I have a question for all who would defend the word of faith movement and those who would defend its super-star preachers, including Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Paul and Jan Crouch, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Jesse Duplantis, and Marilyn Hickey, and the many other evangelists, teachers, and writers promoting the teaching. For a moment, forget their unbiblical doctrine of the prosperity gospel (i.e., name it and claim it). What about their heretical, near blasphemous teachings concerning the nature of God, Christ and man, as summarized below? "In brief, the teachings of these men may be summarized as follows: God created man in “God’s class,” as “little gods,” with the potential to exercise the “God kind of faith” in calling things into existence and living in opportunity, however, by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan’s nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan’s nature), went to Hell, was “born again,” rose from the dead with God's nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is often taught) be left by one’s spouse, and not to have these problems go away by “claiming” God’s promises, shows a lack of faith" (Christian Research Institute). |
||||||
218 | Churchianity to be answered: | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7911 | ||
The Bereans corrected Paul and he accepted it? Where does it say that in Acts 17:11? By what stretch of the imagine do you take "they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" to mean they corrected Paul and he accepted it? Also, thank you for judging every church in America and finding yourself not guilty. But I guess never being guilty goes hand in hand with never ever being wrong. |
||||||
219 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | Radioman | 7904 | ||
From: Radioman To: His Honor, Judge Stevie Butler The beam that is in thine own eye grows longer and heavier by the minute. Before you go completely blind, you may want to use yor judge's scalpel to dissect yourself and see how (if) you measure up. After you have authored either a study Bible that remains in print for NINE decades or ONE coherent posting (whichever comes first), then some sentient creature might begin to take you seriously. Have a nice day, your honor. |
||||||
220 | You answer one question with 3 more? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7902 | ||
Apparently, as far as you are concerned, a prohibition against slandering another man's character is not a commandment. What does your life attest to? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [16] >> |