Results 21 - 38 of 38
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Chris Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Chris | 2762 | ||
All in Genesis Ch. 1(Creation Story). I believed in both for a long time Hank. Evolution seems to mirror the story of Creation in a general fashion, but it only works at first glance or from a distance. The more specifically you study either, the more they cancel each other out and eventually become mutually exclusive (at least in my experience). Creation: if you study the hebrew words in the creation story and review the exact definitions (created, and notice where, when, and how often the word is used) there is simply no way these words can allow a slow gradual evolution form one form of existance to all the others, this would allow for only one 'created' being, a single cell! Evolution: evolution theory would reject water animals and BIRDS before land animals. Evolution says birds came after reptiles, which came after ?amphibians? (frogs!!), so not only were there water/land animals but also the most pimitive land/water animals (my terminology). The Bible discusses NO land animals until after birds. Evolution is also based upon random mutations in beings that, when the mutations are positive, continue on through the process of natural selection. This completely rejects the idea of design and/or purpose which is a primary force in the Creation story. This is a difficult area Hank, all I can tell you is that at some point all christians are forced to separate themselves from the world. For me, this question was a difficult time in my walk with Christ, I hope you're not having the trouble I was having. I am naturally an analytical person, and it seems like, when a was at this point I was asking Christ to prove Himself to me daily on an analytical basis. I can joyfully say He did, at least He did for me. If you are going through what I went through I will be praying for GOD speed and blessing to you, Hank! Let me know if you need these prayers, or just the general kind!:-) |
||||||
22 | Easter Bunnies...or Risen Lord? | John 11:25 | Chris | 2760 | ||
I'll try to answer all of them, but I'm not promising! 1.Only in the KJV, correctly translated passover.(Acts 12?) 2.Easter was an idolatrous worship of a goddess for fertility(hence, eggs) (Ezekiel?) 3.I believe it was in April of our calender, but correct me on this one. 4.Mary Magdalene (John 20 or 21) 5.Woman, why are you crying(?) (Jn, next verse) 6.He wasn't limited by flesh, walking through doors and such (fill me in on the rest) (Jn 21) 7.the women, peter, apostles, two men on the road, paul, 500 others (tell me what I missed!)(Not even going to try!) 8.I am certain there were, but I've got no scripture in mind, fill me in! 9.Part of the idolatrous practice of Easter.(Ezekiel?) 10.No! (correct me if wrong!?) Sorry about the lack of more specific references, but that's alot a questions! Plus, I took this off the cuff, so I'm hoping you'll tell me how I did! Thanks Hank! GOD bless!! |
||||||
23 | Unmarried men pastors? | 1 Timothy | Chris | 2757 | ||
Wow, this question got some interesting and enthusiastic responses! Good question, remember the great apostle Paul was not married, so there is certainly no restriction on unmarried men being pastors. A previous answer used our Lord Jesus as an example, but that, in my view, is inappropriate, we are His children for Him to marry one of us would be unusual. Also, He will have a bride (the church) and He came to redeem her (kinsman redeemer; see Ruth), so one could say that our Lords future bride was the motivating force behind His leading. Women seem to be restricted from such service according to I Tim 2:9-15, but there are differing opinions on the interpretation of those verses. I believe Paul encourages any male leader with a need, to get married (I Tim, Titus), thereby, avoiding temptation. But, Paul also states that he wishes all men/women were as he is, or single, to focus completely on the Lord. (I Cor 7:7) I do see a problem with the catholic practice of unmarried priest, Paul states clearly that if a person has a desire for sexual relations s/he should get married "rather than burn!" with sin (I Cor 7:9) When these men burn with passion and yet cannot get married it could cause all sorts of sexual problems with the priesthood. Which raises another question, why is it that we are asked to "overcome" all sins of the flesh, with the exception of sexual lust? If we have this desire we should satisfy it in a Biblical manner (marriage; one woman), but still it is treated differently than other lusts of the flesh! Great question! Let me know any other thoughts! GOD bless!! |
||||||
24 | What if Jesus hadn't been crucified? | Heb 9:22 | Chris | 2691 | ||
GOD is Holy or perfect, without blemish. If GOD were to accept anyone who is not perfect He would not be perfect. I picture it like this, if you got a 100 percent on a test, and you had to keep your 100, could you average you score with anyone who got below a 100 percent? No, because that would make your grade something below 100, even if I got a 99.9999 our average grade would not be perfect! So, GOD had to make us perfect. To do this, someone had to live a perfect life, to be worthy. But, someone also had to find a way to wash away the sins of the other people who would be forgiven. Heb. 9:22 says sins cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood. Jesus had to be crucified be cause: first, GOD is Just and for human sin there must be a human sacrifice, this is why the sacrifical system in the OT is a "foreshadow" check Heb. again the blood of bulls cannot wash away sin. Second, the sacrifice has to be perfect because an imperfect sacrifice cannot cleanse anything! But, this causes a huge problem! How can a just GOD kill a perfectly righteous human being (Jesus)? He had to go to a cross because, it is a curse to hang on a tree! See Galations! So that's why he went to the cross! Hope this helps! GOD bless!! |
||||||
25 | What does it mean to believe. . . ? | John 3:16 | Chris | 2689 | ||
My understanding of the Biblical definition of believe is; to trust in something to the point of acting upon that trust. So, there has to be a change in lifestyle based upon one's claim to believe in Jesus Christ, and there should be a willingness and even an eagerness to obey His commands. I'm no scholar, so I apologize if this definition doesn't float! GOD bless! |
||||||
26 | is there a specific scripture? | Matthew | Chris | 2679 | ||
I don't know of any particular verse that describes angles, but some things can be inferred from the Bible. First, we were created with flesh bodies, we can't drop them and pick them up again (I mean the physical nature of flesh); angels seemingly can, they are all around us and at times show themselves to us, so they are not flesh in the sense we are flesh (and, for that matter, when they show themselves they may not be flesh at all, but they may simply open our eyes to the spiritual realm). So, I would interpret the Bible as saying that angels are not made like man, they are spiritual beings; whereas, man was created from dust (flesh) and our spirits were "breathed" into us from GOD. We also know that angels have the power of choice; because many angels "chose" to follow lucifer (satan) in his revolt. However, they may have more knowledge and understanding of GOD than we do, because they are offered no salvation, so they know the consequences of their actions, whereas, we sin against GOD, often, in ignorance. All these statements can be "inferred" from the Word. The first two statements are rock solid, the third may not be, GOD will show mercy to whom He will show mercy. So, the fact that the angels are not offered salvation, doesn't mean they know more about GOD. But, they do live with Him in heaven and hover around His throne, so it's a good bet. By the way, where did you get the idea that angels were made in the same way as man? |
||||||
27 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2678 | ||
The Bible plainly says, "'I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.' John testified saying, " I have seen the Spirit desending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ' He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' So, one reason, there may be more, was to let the forerunner know whom he was running for. (Is whom correct there?) |
||||||
28 | Scriptural answers for John 12:31? | John 12:31 | Chris | 2676 | ||
I would tend to agree with your interpretation, Hugger, see John 16:11. The Holy Spirit comes to convict the world of judgement because the ruler has been judged, so by the time the apostles received the Holy Spirit, this scripture indicates that GOD's judgement of satan was complete. As for Rev. 12, this will happen during the Tribulation (at least that my interpretaion). And, if I am missing the point on Rev. 12, I didn't take much time to study the passage before answering. My focus was on Jn 16. Please, correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks, and GOD bless!! |
||||||
29 | Why not Jesus' words in Red? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2675 | ||
My personal reason (silly as it may be) is that in the Bibles I buy (even Zondervan) the red print is faded in some areas. This is distracting, espescially when the print is blood red on one page and you turn to the next and it is so faded you can't make out the words! For a more mature and reasoned answer, I believe the primary reason is that all Scripture is inspired, so it all comes from GOD. It is possible, and I have seen this happen, that those that don't know much about their faith, or what they think is their faith, believe that the words in red mean more than the rest of the NT. Especially for some of the controversial topics spoken of by Paul in his letters. I still use red-letter but I know some that don't. GOD bless! |
||||||
30 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 2674 | ||
This is certainly a controversial topic, and I can only give you my understanding of the Scriptures. Gal. 3:28, in my opinion, is talking about all believers being in the body of Christ or being one in Christ. No member of the body is less important or more important than another, we are all in Christ, but that does not mean that any member of the body can assume any position in the body. See I Cor. 12:20 Paul says (paraphrase), there are many members but one body, but a foot cannot be a nose, ect. So, I do not believe Paul wrote Gal. 3:28 with positions of authority in the church in mind. To further add to this conclusion, I Tim. 2:9-15 seems quite adament about women not being in the highest position of authority, Paul being the author of both these letters. Anytime women are forbid something in scripture, I look to see if the reasoning is because of the social climate at the time of writing, or if it is a command from GOD; the reasoning for this one seems to be a command based upon the rights of first born and the punishment of Eve in the garden. I know some say that these verses could be translated as talking about husband and wife, but if that were the case, Paul must have no interest in what single folks do in church, he being single, because the greek words for man and woman remain the same from 2:8 thru to v15. And, there is no further discussion of what should be done in the church by single folks; Paul immediately moves to the leadership positions in the church. I should say that I would only forbid women from assuming the highest role in the church, pastor or elder. I believe that women should be deaconnesses. I also am one to simply trust the scriptures as I read them if the debate is too complicated for my miniscule mind; that may be the case here! Hope this helps! GOD bless! |
||||||
31 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Chris | 1541 | ||
This is certainly a controversial topic, and I can only give you my understanding of the Scriptures. Gal. 3:28, in my opinion, is talking about all believers being in the body of Christ. No member of the body is less important than another, but that does not mean that any member of the body can assume any position in the body. See I Cor. 12:20 Paul says there are many members but one body, but a foot cannot be a nose, ect. So, I do not believe Paul wrote Gal. 3:28 with positions of authority in the church in mind. To further add to this conclusion, I Tim. 2:9-15 seems quite adament about women not being in the highest position of authority, Paul being the author of both these letters. Anytime women are forbid something in scripture, I look to see if the reasoning is because of the social climate at the time of writing, or if it is a command from GOD; the reasoning for this one seems to be a command based upon the rights of first born and the punishment of Eve in the garden. I know some say that these verses could be translated as talking about husband and wife, but if that were the case, Paul must have no interest in what single folks do in church, he being single, because the greek words for man and woman remain the same from 2:8 thru to v15. And, there is no further discussion of what should be done in the church by single folks; Paul immediately moves to the leadership positions in the church. I should say that I would only forbid women from assuming the highest role in the church, pastor or elder. I believe that women should be deaconnesses. I also am one to simply trust the scriptures as I read them if the debate is too complicated for my miniscule mind; that may be the case here! Hope this helps! GOD bless! |
||||||
32 | Can someone tell me about original greek | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2533 | ||
There are three major groups of manuscripts; the Received Text (RT), the Critical Text (CT), and the Majority Text (MT). The KJV, and NKJV are both from the RT, and both are LITERAL translations, or the translators attempted word for word accuracy. The RT was composed of 6 greek manuscripts and the sections that were not available at the time in greek were translated back from the Latin Vulgate. (These translated section are the biggest problem with the RT, much of Revelation was missing and because of that there are many differences in Rev between the RT and the MT, CT.) The NKJV give footnotes for all variation between the RT, CT, and MT, but you spend most of your time in the margins! (slight exaggeration ;-) The RT also has some obvious additions, see 1Jn 5:7,8 in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (All added; in neither the CT nor the MT!) Wescott and Hort prepared the most widely used version of the CT. Critics of the CT say that the majority of the text is based upon two very old manuscripts (4th Century?!) both found in Eygpt. The problem with this is that at the time there is substantial Church Father writing to suggest that there was great apostasy in Eygpt. The Pro-CT folks say that the older the manuscript the more reliable. The two manuscripts disagree on many renderings which suggests there was no collusion, and if the two manuscripts agree, that must have been the original writing! Many translations use the CT: NASB, NIV, NRSV, etc. The MT is the last group, it is similar to the RT, but much more reliable because of the vastness of the manuscripts(hence, majority). Critics say that the manuscripts in the MT "evolve" towards agreement; thereby, eliminating descrepancies and difficult readings. Pro-MT folks say all the original letters with the exception of perhaps one (drawing a blank??) were sent to western Europe, so they would have the originals to correct any incorrect manuscripts. So, if the originals were compared to the copies every decade or so, the manuscripts in Eygpt would be more likely to have errors, and the majority of manuscripts would agree because as mistakes were found in manuscripts those manuscripts would be destroyed! Hotly debated topic! I prefer the MT; because, the CT eliminates Jn 7:53 - 8:11, I love that passage!! For further study see: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html (MT site; gives thorough and well reasoned arguments.), and NET Bible: (Dallas Theological Seminary) - http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/theology.htm(CT site) go to Bibliology (The Written Word) and click on anything that mentions the MT or KJV. (Very thorough, they really go at the MT!) You'll have to make up your own mind RevC, but a very good question. Unfortunately there is no main stream version using the MT, so our options are limited!(Though it doesn't seem that way with the vast amount of english translations!!) Hope this helps, those websites are great! You may want to put the NET Bible site on you Fav's, great theological site!! GOD bless! Chris |
||||||
33 | Is God fair? | Ps 11:7 | Chris | 2197 | ||
God is JUST, which is very similar to fair, but you have to remember that we have all sinned against GOD; thereby, we are all deserving of Hell. Those of us who know Jesus as our personal Savior are completely cleansed of our sins and will therefore not be punished after death or at the end of the age. So, if GOD was completely just we would all immediately go to Hell as soon as we sin against HIM! Obviously, this doesn't happen and that is because God is merciful and longsuffering, or simply, willing to be patient with us. So, what's it all mean? Basically, GOD's fairness has little to do with believer's or unbeliever's sufferings! (See Luke 13:1-3) If you suffer with a horrible aliment all your life, but receive Christ as your Savior not only did GOD not give it to you as bad as you deserved, but He also gives you eternal glory and rewards based upon your additional sufferings compared to other christians. If the person is not saved, they will be separated from GOD, because that is what they deserved from the beginning. The sufferings of the physical life are so minute in comparison to eternal damnation that the physical sufferings on earth would be immaterial. Hope you can make something of this!? GOD bless!! |
||||||
34 | Salvation in other religions? | John 14:6 | Chris | 2161 | ||
The problem with this idea is that you are forgetting what GOD is first and foremost, HOLY! GOD is perfect and unblemished; now, what is the problem with other religions, and why is GOD fist HOLY? Well, GOD is Holy first, because we can only fatham His love by realizing that He is perfect, we are not and have no hope of satisfying His requirement, but He was willing to make a PERSONAL sacrifice to save us! The only way to make the unholy holy is to offer a holy sacrifice. So, GOD had to sacrifice Himself, in the form of His SON, Jesus Christ! That tells us that His love for us is truly AMAZING GRACE! If you don't know how badly you need Grace, you don't have a solid understanding of the Love of GOD! Therefore, if people are not made HOLY by GOD, the only Holy thing in existance, they are not only unacceptable to GOD, but they are, in fact rejecting His love for them. All other religions command their followers to justify themselves, which breeds pride. GOD hates pride and no unholy thing can make itself holy! Last illistration, if God took a test, and of course got a hundred, if he ever excepted anyone who did not have a hundred His grade would drop below a hundred. Or in english, if GOD accepted anyone who was not perfect, He could no longer be perfect!! Jesus Christ is the only way to become HOLY; because, He is the only man with the GOD-nature and the only man with a sinless life! GOD bless!! |
||||||
35 | ...intended to pass by them? | Mark 6:48 | Chris | 2159 | ||
Curiously enough, an assistant pastor gave a sermon on this verse just a few weeks ago! If you look at the action before this particular story it points to the greatmess of Jesus over that of Moses (feeding of the 5000 vs manna from heaven, Jesus did it Himself, He is GOD vs Moses asking GOD and receiving from GOD). This story continues that theme! It is important at this point to check your translation; it should read Jesus walked on the SEA, not the WATER. What's the big deal? The sea symbolizes evil in the Bible (Revelation, "there will be no sea") Moses, with GOD's power, parted the sea, but Jesus with His own power didn't just part the sea, but walked over it, or overpowered it! So to your question, the reason for the story was to show Jesus' superiority to Moses and His dominance over evil, so that was His focus, not the disciples. But our GOD and Savior is so great that while He is doing all this He is still available to comfort us when we are fearful and weak!! The Bible is truly has many layers! Hope this helped more than it hurt! GOD bless!! |
||||||
36 | How Judas Iscariot died? | Acts 1:18 | Chris | 2157 | ||
The gospels DO NOT contradict; however, they do not always complement each other. I see inspiration as, the writer "seeing" the event and writing it in his own words. Example 1:if you and I were writing a story about the same person, and my view was in 20 feet ahead of the person and yours was 20 feet behind the person our stories, at times, would seem to contradict; however both could be accurate. If the subject was in a house and performed a miracle, I would write that we were leaving the area we were in, but you might write that we were entering the area! Both are true, yet they seem to contradict! This particular issue has to do with what I call, "gaps." Example 2: often times in the Gospels and Acts apparent contraditions exist simply because there are gaps in the information. I personally believe that each writer is given only a certain amount of information from the Holy Spirit, others believe that the writer simply chose only certain facts to write about; either way, there is not a contradition only an information gap. Judas probably hung himself on a easily accesible branch and stepped off a cliff that the branch was hanging over. After he died (or before) the branch broke and his body dropped on rocks. In his emotional state it would have been difficult to climb up a tree, tie a knot to a branch, tie the nuse, slip is over his head, and jump out of the tree. All that for an explanation as easy as this, sorry! Hope it helped!! God bless! |
||||||
37 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Chris | 2156 | ||
Very good question! The answer is difficult, and I don't claim to be correct; all answers to this question are subjective because the Word does not provide it's own anwser. My belief is that a true interpretation of scripture cannot assume that Jesus was only promising the Holy Spirit in the gospel of John; because, the verb, "breathed" seems to clearly suggest that our Lord actually gave the apostles something. Also, John is clearly referencing Creation when GOD, "breathed" life into man. Jesus breathing on the apostles starts a new Creation, so to speak. Considering that the apostles did in fact receive the Holy Spirit, I am persuaded to believe that the Holy Spirit was given to PROTECT the apostles until they were, "given power from on high" Luke 24:49. I believe it would be foolish for us to believe that the apostles could resist the devil without Christ for 50 days or 1 day or hour! Throughout the gospels we see the apostles fail, although they have just seen a miracle. So, in the gospel of John the Holy Spirit was given for PROTECTION, and in the book of Acts (40 or 50 days later?) the Holy Spirit was given for POWER! Hope this helps! God bless!! |
||||||
38 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 2152 | ||
Many believe the best translation for study is the NASB. It is the most literal english translation, which is important for study. Many other translations are good. The King James and New King James are literal translations as well, but they use the received text, rather than the critical text. Most consider the critical as the closest to the original manuscript. The NKJV footnotes all major variations between the RT and CT, and it also considers another group of manuscripts called the majority text. So, this may be a good translation to study with, if you like constantly checking the footnotes for textual variations. (Actually all known manuscripts of the Bible agree around 85 percent of the time!) However, for a study in Revelation the RT has quite a few variations; for this reason I am currently using the NASB for study pruposes. For reading there are a number of other translations: NIV, CEV, NET, NLT, etc. Hope I helped more than I hurt!? God bless!! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |