Results 21 - 40 of 93
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Jalek Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | When fasting can I drink coffee? | Matt 6:16 | Jalek | 240182 | ||
Greetings, The idea of a fast is to go without luxuries, and contemplate on your stance with God. Traditionally, the only thing consumed during a fast is bread and water. Everything else, like coffee, would be an unnecessary luxury. Jalek |
||||||
22 | Who or What created God? | Ps 90:2 | Jalek | 240150 | ||
Greetings, Why does God have to have a beginning? As the Psalmist wrote, God is from everlasting to everlasting. One of the first things created on that first day of creation was the concept of time. Before God declared a start to the day and began creating, there was no time. There was no prior beginning. There was only God. It is from God that all things came to be, not the other way around. This is hard for us to grasp sometimes. It's a scientific principle that everything has an origin, but God defies that principle. He has no origins, nor will he have an ending. He will always be. He existed before time began and he will continue until time stops. Jalek |
||||||
23 | HOW CAN AN AGNOSTIC FULLY BELIEVE IN GOD | Bible general | Jalek | 240143 | ||
Greetings, An Agnostic becomes a believer by the same way everyone else does, by not only acknowledging the existence of God, but also admitting that he is the one true God. The problem lies in proving to the Agnostic that God exists. It was said by my philosophy teacher in college that a true atheist is one who is absolutely positive that there is no God. He went on to say that the only way to make such a claim is to know everything that is knowable, which is impossible. It was his conclusion that there are no true atheists. However, he went on to say that what we call atheism is little more than varying degrees of Agnosticism because we don't know everything. A true Agnostic will admit that he doesn't know everything, and will also admit that the proof for God's existence lies in that knowledge he doesn't have. Now, there are people who will disagree with my former philosophy teacher's definitions, but it does make sense from a certain point of view. The Old Testament refers to people who claim there is no God as being fools. In proverbs, the Fool is described as a person who rejects knowledge. I explained it once to a person who claimed to be an atheist that my faith isn't blind faith. I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible for a reason. That reason is founded upon facts. We don't believe in mythology and make believe. We believe in actual people who participated in actual events at actual times in history. My advice, start with the facts, and go from there. Jalek |
||||||
24 | WHATSOEVER YOU ASK THE FATHER | Bible general | Jalek | 240137 | ||
Greetings, Are you referring to John 14:13-14? "Whatever you ask in my name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in my name, I will do it." I just happened to have done a lesson on this passage this morning in Sunday School. Jesus isn't proclaiming, as my Dad would call it, a "blab it and grab it" theology that is popular among liberal TV evangelists. Praying in "Jesus's name" isn't just saying "In Jesus's name, Amen" at the end of your prayers. Rather, it is more akin to praying in a manner that would befit and reflect Jesus Christ. In Matthew 6, Jesus gives the Lord's prayer as a model for us to pray by. Praying in a manner similar is what he is referring to. If you look at Jesus's prayers through the Gospels, they follow a similar pattern to the Lord Prayer in Matthew 6. There's no falsehood being proclaimed. As Doc stated, it's a case of taking a passage out of context. The context of John 14:13-14 is that Jesus is going to be an advocate on our behalf to the Father. This is reflected in 1 Timothy 2:5, where Paul calls Jesus the only mediator between God and Humanity. This passage in John 14 is also one of many passages during the last week where Jesus speaks about the Holy Spirit. As mediator, Jesus says he will pray to the Father to send the Holy Spirit as a helper and counselor. Jalek |
||||||
25 | Who was Jesus referring to in John 19:11 | John 19:11 | Jalek | 240118 | ||
Greetings, Jesus was sent to Pilate by High Priest Caiaphas. The jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead, but they had no authority to kill him. So, they sent him to the one man who did: Pilate. Pilate has heard the accusers, faced the people, and was now speaking to Jesus on a one on one point. He informs Jesus that he has the authority to release him or kill him. Jesus reminds Pilate that what power he has was given to him by God. Basically, Jesus is saying that Pilate is simply put into the position to declare Jesus's fate because God appointed him. However, Pilate's not innocent. He's just doing his job. It's the ones who sent Jesus to him that are the true sinners. This includes Caiaphas, but also Annas, Judas, as well as the Sanhedrin. They used and twisted God's law into a means to murder a man who was innocent of the crimes they wanted to kill him for. Hence, that is why Jesus is saying that their sins are greater. Jalek |
||||||
26 | Im looking for a specific passage | 1 Corinthians | Jalek | 240116 | ||
Greetings, I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but try 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. It's Paul's lessons on Divorce and marriage. Jalek |
||||||
27 | HOW MANY DAYS WAS NOAH ON THE ARK | Gen 6:15 | Jalek | 239997 | ||
Greetings, According to Genesis 7:6, Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. According to Genesis 8:13, Noah was 601 years old when the flood waters receded, and he left the ark about a month later. If you calculate the time listed in between those verses, Noah and his family were on the Ark for every bit of a year, at least 250 days. Jalek |
||||||
28 | how long was noah on the ark | Gen 6:15 | Jalek | 239994 | ||
Greetings, Putting the Ark into modern day measurements: 450ft long x 75ft wide x 45ft high. Now, to put this into perspective: NFL regulation Football field: 360ft pylon to pylon NHL regulation Hockey Rink: 85ft wide Commercial building Story: 10-15 ft. Furthermore, the Ark would have contained 1,500,000 cubic feet of space. This is equal to approximately 570 standard American Railroad Boxcars, each capable of holding 240 sheep each, which is the size of the average animal. Now, the bible doesn't say that Noah took adult specimens, and he was on the ark long enough for many of them to mature if he took young animals. It is estimated that about 30k to 50k of animals would be needed to save enough animals to repopulate the earth. Of the given space, Noah would have used only 30-40 percent of the space for animals, leaving 60-70 percent for food and supplies. Jalek |
||||||
29 | God's instructions only AFTER the Dove. | Gen 8:16 | Jalek | 239973 | ||
Greetings, You answered your own question. To see if the water had gone down enough to disembark. However, Noah still remained on the Ark. Why? That should be obvious. God didn't tell him to. God told Noah when it was safe to leave. Jalek |
||||||
30 | how so many races-only one on the Ark? | Genesis | Jalek | 239968 | ||
Greetings, If I recall correctly, the three sons of Noah and their descendants each went their own ways to eventually grow to become the separate races. This separation was further enhanced by the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, and the separation of the continents in Genesis 10:25. Jalek |
||||||
31 | Noah's exit from the Ark. | Gen 8:16 | Jalek | 239964 | ||
Greetings, Actually, he did tell Noah when it was safe in Genesis 8:16. Jalek |
||||||
32 | was timothy an apostle | 1 Timothy | Jalek | 239878 | ||
Greetings, Timothy was one of Paul's companions, and one of his most promising students along with Titus. So, no, he wasn't an apostle per se, even though the Eastern Orthodox Church venerates him as an Apostle. However, despite this, Timothy is listed as a co-author of 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He was also the pastor of the church of Ephesus in the later half of the first century. According to "the Acts of Timothy", he was stoned to death in 97 AD by pagans when he tried to stop the worship of the Roman goddess Diana, which was popular in Ephesus. Jalek |
||||||
33 | Did Christ die only for the elect? | John 10:15 | Jalek | 239864 | ||
Greetings, Normally, I agree with much of what Doc says. However, Doc seems to imply that Christ died for the Elect only. This I disagree with, and here's why. 1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for out sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John makes it clear that Jesus's death was the propitiation (ie: Appeasement or Satisfaction) of our sins as well as the sins of the whole world. Now, he doesn't limit it to the sins of just those who would become Christians around the world. Another place is in Titus 2:15 Titus 2:15 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," As Paul shows here, Salvation is available to all. However, the Bible is clear that not everyone will be saved, despite God's will as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 "Who (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of Truth," and a couple verses later, Paul says this about Christ's sacrifice. 1 Timothy 2:6 "Who (Jesus) gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." Even in John 3:17, Jesus tells Nicodemus "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Many who claim that Christ died only for the elect will twist these passages to say that the writers meant that it was for the elect only, but the passages don't say that. They say "whole world", "All Men", "for all", and "the world". Even in the greek, to imply that these passages are referring to only the elect would be reading into the text what isn't there. Now, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not advocating that everyone will be saved, but that the option to be saved is possible if everyone chooses to be saved. God created hell for those who would reject Christ and salvation. Jalek |
||||||
34 | what does Leviticus 19:31 means | Lev 19:31 | Jalek | 239820 | ||
Greetings, It should be straight forward. This is a warning to not mess around with the occult, witchcraft, sorcery, tarot card, and the like. The Bible paints a dim view on such things. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 goes into greater detail about this. Basically, such mysticism takes one's view and faith away from God. While they may have religious symbolism to them, they aren't Godly nor Christian. In fact, the passage in Deuteronomy says that such practices corrupt and defile a person. Despite the attempts of Hollywood to paint a pretty picture of sorcery, witchcraft, and similar practices, such things lead to nothing good. Jalek |
||||||
35 | time lapse between Gen 1:1 and G | Gen 1:1 | Jalek | 239771 | ||
Greetings, I'm a literalist. So, this is day one, which I believe took 24 hours to complete. Jalek |
||||||
36 | Rahab Mother in law of Ruth? | OT general | Jalek | 239769 | ||
Greetings, There is a theory called the "Open genealogy" theory that claims that the genealogies listed are listing the more well known members of the line, like the family leaders and so forth. There's an article about it in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. It does have merit, especially when you compare genealogies together, such as Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:11-12, and 1 chronicles 6:6-14 with Ezra 7:2. Also, if you do the math in Genesis 5-11 and assume there are no gaps, then you come to some implausible conclusions, which can only be explained away via an open genealogy. This theory is not without objections. The primary objection being that some think it takes liberties and uses more isogesis (reading into the text) instead of exegesis (reading out of the text). Jalek |
||||||
37 | Why were Midianites enemies and killed? | Num 25:18 | Jalek | 239760 | ||
Greetings, This is about the evil acts of the prophet Balaam, who is the most vile and hated prophet of the Bible. He came under the pretense of being a true prophet, but gave into greed. He worked with Balak to corrupt the Israelites into being idolatrous against God's command. This happened at Peor, which is a location. As a result, God ordered that the Midianites be slain from the leadership down. Cozbi was one of the women leaders involved. Jalek |
||||||
38 | Genesis angels creating giants? | Gen 6:2 | Jalek | 239758 | ||
Greetings, It's a misinterpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. The phrase "Sons of God" is interpreted by some to mean "Angels". However, the context of the book of Genesis doesn't support it. What the context does support is that the Godly line of Seth and the Ungodly line of Cain intermarried. As for the giants, that is a misreading of verse 4. The verse reads that the Giants or Nephilim "were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the Sons of God came in to the Daughters of Men,". The indication being that the Giants existed before the two groups came together. Therefore, the giants cannot be the offspring of the Sons and the Daughter. It is my personal belief that the Giants are mentioned as a time reference, as if to speak of sports history and say that "The Rams football team was still in California". Anyone familiar with the giants, or the football team in the example given, would know when the event took place. Jalek |
||||||
39 | Jesus is Jewish, | John 5:18 | Jalek | 239728 | ||
Greetings, The jews who sought to kill Jesus didn't see him as the Messiah. 1) They saw him as a Sabbath breaker. In John 5:1-17, Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, and told the Man to carry his pallet away. The jews saw this as a direct violation of the mosaic laws on honoring the Sabbath. 2) They saw him as a blasphemer. Later in the same chapter, Jesus makes the claim of being the Son of God. In the Jewish belief system, Jesus's claim of being the Son of God, true or not, was blasphemous. That's why they tried to stone him nearly every time he tried to claim to be the Son of God. 3) They feared how influential he would become. John 11:48 talk about one of the final plots to kill Jesus, and one reasoning given is that they feared how the Romans would react to Jesus's growing influence and power. Jalek |
||||||
40 | NASV translation accuracy | Bible general | Jalek | 239725 | ||
Greetings, I've heard of Frank Logsdon, but only barely. I've not read any of his works. As far as the claim about the defection of one man invalidating the NASB, that seems a little far fetched to me because the NASB wasn't translated by one man. However, I am familiar with the KJV only movement, and have studied it to a good degree to know the basic premises of the belief. First, KJV only activists claim that since the NASB, and other modern translations for that matter, are based off of greek manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus, then they are untrustworthy. This is specifically directed towards the Alexandrian textform manuscripts. Apparently, there is an obscure warning in the Bible not to trust anything that comes from Alexandria. Thing is, the only passage I find that says something negative about the place is Acts 6:9 when men from Alexandria and other places stoned Stephen. Thing is, other places are mentioned also, and it is my belief that the KJV claim about the Alexandrian text forms are based off of passages taken out of context. Now, aside from this, there is one question that so far every KJV only supporter has yet to answer. If the King James Version is the only inspired word of God, then what was the inspired word of God before 1611? Paul says in 2 timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed. How can this be referring to the King James Version only if Paul wrote it some 16 centuries before? Second, another common claim, and misconception, is that the modern translations leave out passages or change the meanings of the words. That simply is not the case, and shows the ignorance of the King James Version Only believers in terms of Textual Criticism. Take 2 Timothy 2:15 for example. Now, in the King James, it says "Study to Show thyself approved". However, the NASB has it rendered as "Be diligent to present yourself approved". KJV only people will turn to this and say that the NASB is saying to no longer study the Bible. However, that's not what Paul was saying to begin with. The term "study" and "be diligent" in the greek comes from the same root word that means "hasten" or "Be eager". Paul is advising his pupil to always be ready and always handle the word of God accurately. So, the NASB actually has the more accurate translation. So, what about the King James? Well, it too is correct from a certain point of view. This passage shows the second primary flaw in the King James Version Only belief: Age. The English dialect used in the King James is no longer spoken actively anymore. Thus it is a dead dialect. Words have changed meaning across cultures and time. 400 years ago, "Study" actually meant "to devote oneself to" or "to be busy with". It didn't mean then " to acquire knowledge through reading and investigation", which is what you'll find in the modern dictionary. So, from the old English definition of "study", the King James is correct also, but it isn't correct with the modern definition of "Study". The final part about this is that not only does the age of the King James show differences in meanings of terms used, but older manuscripts have been found in the past 400 years that are far older than the manuscripts used to translate the King James. As a result, these older ones are closer to what the original texts would have included, and shows passages that appear to have been edited in by copyists and scribes. The perfect example is Mark 16:9-20. This passage is not included in the oldest existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. However, this doesn't change any doctrines or beliefs we as Christians hold to because the teachings and events found in this passage are reflected in other places throughout the Bible. I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer your primary questions, but I do hope that I provided some insight into the KJV only debate. There are other issues and concerns not addressed here, and there are further details in the issues I covered that I didn't address simply due to time sake. I merely intended to give an overall summary of what the KJV only view was all about from an objective and unbiased viewpoint. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |