Results 21 - 40 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: keliy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | I am the gate; whoever enters through me | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 221114 | ||
Christ makes the statement in Luke 11:23, "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." This means that since the gist of His teaching and His miracles was to break the grip the devil had (and still has) upon lost souls in this world, it was therefore everyone's rightful duty to join Him, following his guidance, believe in Him, and to receive His teaching over all other dogmas. Otherwise they would be considered as joining forces with the enemy. |
||||||
22 | times "Jesus" is used in Bible | NT general | keliy | 221088 | ||
occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV |
||||||
23 | Mt 6:33 and relationships | Matt 6:33 | keliy | 221046 | ||
That's great. Why can't I meet a woman like you? Just kidding, sorry. Can I ask what church you go to? (Not the location, just if it is a denomination that is.) keliy |
||||||
24 | contraception | Rom 14:1 | keliy | 221040 | ||
Hello Rajeeb, First let me congratulate you on your upcoming marriage, I wish you the very best. It is good that you are seeking God's heart as you attempt to find answers for life's perplexing questions. The Bible teaches that man was commissioned by God “to be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) Also, the Bible presents children as a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5). Children also are: a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). a blessing from God (Luke 1:42). a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6). And, God forms children in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16). God blesses barren women with children (Psalm 113:9; Genesis 21:1-3; 25:21-22; 30:1-2; 1 Samuel 1:6-8; Luke 1:7, 24-25). God knows children even before their birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15). Maybe, your spouse could have a change of heart, so I would not make any rules right now for the future. It is entirely possible for the Lord to change her heart after she has a first child. I would say to let God be your guide at that point, and read the fourth chapter of Philippians, paying special attention to verse six prior to writing anything in stone. Sadly, children today are often considered to be a burden. They are a hindrance to people’s career paths and financial goals, and “cramp our style” socially. This type of selfishness is commonly what prompts the use of contraceptives. Scripture does not specifically condemn birth control, but comes close to it in Genesis 38, the account of Judah's sons Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord put him to death, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. However,Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any offspring on his brother's behalf, so he used his available birth control, withdrawal. Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so He put him to death also.” Onan was selfishly motivated in his action: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his duty for his deceased brother. This passage has been cited as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. But the context suggests that it was not the act of contraception that caused Onan's death; it was the selfish motives behind his act. It is important for us to view children as God sees them, not as any worldly motives suggest. Having said all this, the Bible does not specifically forbid contraception. It is not the act of contraception that determines whether a couple's decision is wrong or right. As we see in the story of Onan, it was the motivation behind the action that determines if contraception is right or wrong. If a married couple is practicing contraception in order to have more for themselves, then they are wrong. If a couple is practicing contraception in order to temporarily delay children until they are more mature and more financially and spiritually prepared, then it is perhaps acceptable to use contraception for a time. I will not say that the Spirit is Not influencing your decision, God's picture of marriage was meant to be as a trinity. Husband, wife, and Jesus, living together as one. But that is a little too deep for this thread. Remember to give it time and pray together before you decide. The Bible always portrays children as a good thing. The inability to have children is always presented in Scripture as a bad thing. And there is no one in the Bible who expressed a desire not to have any children. (Onan wasn't against children, he was against having them for someone else.) At the same time, it cannot be argued from the Bible that it is ever wrong to use birth control for a limited time. All married couples should seek the Lord’s will in regards to when they should try to have children and how many children they seek to have. I would like to recommended a book, called: "Birth Control for Christians: Making Wise Choices" By: Jenell Williams Paris It just so happens to be on sale at Christian Book Distributors, online for 99 cents. Thats over 90 percent off, since it sells regularly for 14.99. May our LORD bless you and yours as you seek Him |
||||||
25 | Women being saved after childbirth | 1 Tim 2:15 | keliy | 221028 | ||
Yes, puppytoes, there is a verse. But context is extremely important in this passage, for our God is a God of order, not confusion. One might consider she is saved because of the children she bore, I have heard some thing to that effect from the LDS Church, But Jesus says in John 10:1, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." and, in 10:7, Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. see also 10:9. also, can you see the qualifier in the verse above? It is the word "IF", which is a huge IF. Without learning what these things mean, a person can walk away very confused, and possibly misled. The apostle Paul wrote this letter to instruct Timothy, not distract him. Blessings to you |
||||||
26 | # of years from creation till flood | Gen 5:5 | keliy | 221008 | ||
From the studies of the genealogy, which is considered complete and with no omissions, the time between the creation of Adam and the flood of Noah has been calculated to be almost exactly 1656 years. | ||||||
27 | Psalm 22:3 (NLT) | Ps 22:3 | keliy | 221006 | ||
Verse three is understood as metaphorical. It is possibly meant to paint a mental picture of the Lord, sitting enthroned as King in his temple, receiving all the praises being offered up to Him by His people, Israel. That He is holy, means that He is not unjust, untrue, or unkind. Holy is a derivative of the word 'Whole' (Whole-ly) which is meaning, complete, or perfect. |
||||||
28 | People on bad terms | Rom 12:3 | keliy | 220982 | ||
How about Romans 12:3 ? |
||||||
29 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220978 | ||
Thanks for your response Rick. I appreciate your heart for the Word even if we disagree on the symbolism in Genesis. (-; I do not think that symbolism should be a divisive issue, it's just a personal election, such as: I happen to be against infant baptism but I know many fine Christians who do espouse that doctrine, and I believe that God is probably laughing at us for the personal investments we make into these implicit issues. Also, when I was first saved, I had a hard time with the KJV. So, I had a class where I took a GNT along with a study Bible in KJV. That is how I grew to understand the semantic shifts such as suffer means permit, and so on. So what is comfortable for one may not be for someone else who is on a different spiritual level. We will find out soon enough when it will all become obvious. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1Cr (13:12) But until then, all we have is faith, hope, and love. Lord bless you and yours. |
||||||
30 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220973 | ||
Hi Rick, I am hoping that you understand my gist here, and that you are not experiencing too much friction in this thread. This goes back to the belief that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God. This is in the SBF doctrinal statement I reiterate: If we cannot accept the account of creation as related by God in Genesis, then we cannot trust anything in the entire Bible Is this not how this thread got from creation to interpretation? |
||||||
31 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220972 | ||
Thank you Rick, I appreciate your comments as being forthright, and I feel that when you have given personal interpretations, you have labeled them as such. Therefore I enjoy conversations with you, because we are all here to learn and grow, and this is exactly what I am doing here. You asked about what I call a 'free' interpretation, and what this falls under is the paraphrase category. Please let me explain myself. Many people today think that a good translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, then there is a noun in the translation. If the verse has six words, they don't want to see seven words in the translation. This method of translation is referred to as literal, or "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard are found near the formal end, where a literal translation would be the very end. On the other hand is a more free translation, what is referred to as a "dynamic equivalent". This is not as concerned with the grammar of the original, as it is with the basic gist, or the essence of the original. A dynamic equivalent is more interpretive, which makes it easier to read. One major complaint with this style is that it leaves too much open to the convictions of the interpretors. The New International Version and the New English Bible fall into this category. At the far free end of the spectrum are what is often called 'paraphrased'. These throw out grammatical rules and simply convert the text on a thought-for-thought basis. These include the Good News Bible, and the like. For an instance of how this type of interpretation can be damaging, let's look at Hebrews 1:3 and see who the translation says Jesus actually is. The KJV (formal equivalent) reads, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; And the NIV (Dynamic equivalent) has it: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Now for the free end of the spectrum. The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English. GNT says, (parenthesis mine throughout) "He reflects the brightness of God's glory (!) and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. Here is the RSV, He reflects the glory of God (!) and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. And this is the New Century Version: The Son reflects the glory of God (!) and shows exactly what God is like.(!) He holds everything together with his powerful word. Now, the paraphrase versions are dangerously free, because they change the description of Christ. If Christ is a reflection of God's glory, then He has no glory of His own. This makes Christ to be to God, as the moon is to the sun. The sun is the light, and the moon gives off no light but reflects the light from the sun. Is this how we want to portray Christ to an unbeliever who is seeking answers? This will only lead to confusion. God is not an author of confusion but the enemy uses this as an arrow in his quiver. A college professor used to say, "The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded!" Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU. |
||||||
32 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220963 | ||
I find the Gk. word for interpret in 1Cr 12:30 to be diermeneuo definition: 1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language Nothing about freely interpreting, but thank you for your heart in this matter. I do enjoy your presence here and hope to continue. Being somewhat new here, Rick, you are in a slight learning curve, and one thing you will find is that free interpretation is just not accepted as well as formal interpretation. I agree with the ones who think formal is better. Lord Bless |
||||||
33 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | keliy | 220960 | ||
What I am making of the Gk. "hosei" is that it is used before something definitive, such as 8 days. "hosei" would be placed before the numeral '8' to mean: like, as, or approximate. True, there is a possibility of a continuance afterwards, but this would likely be short. I am seeing more evidence to show that Mary would not stay longer, than she would've. But this is only my suggestion. Other instances of the word "hosei" include, Matt 3:16, and he saw the Spirit of God descending "like 5616" a dove, and lighting upon him (Strong's 5616 meaning: similar to) Matt 9:36, and were scattered abroad, "as 5616" sheep having no shepherd (Strong's 5616 meaning: for instance) Luke 3:23, And Jesus himself began to be "about 5616" thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (Strong's 5616 meaning: approximately) So, please understand that I am no Gk. expert either but when Jesus was "hosei" thirty years of age, that could easily mean plus or minus a six month period or more. We simply are not allowed that much latitude in the passage about His mother. In Vs. 56, when Mary was there "hosei" 3 months, it could possibly mean, yes, plus or minus 2 weeks or so, but I still hold to the opinion that Mary would rather leave Elizabeth before all the commotion surrounding John's birth gained a presence, as well as the circumference of her midsection. (o: The majority stick to the story as is, and I concur that Mary headed for home when Elisabeth was near her time. As the Christ was being formed inside of her, she would take a great deal more delight than usual in sitting alone and remaining silent. Thank you for the good question, it is a pleasure studying with you. |
||||||
34 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | keliy | 220957 | ||
Hi Rick, Just a small addition, as food for thought, Mary, being a young virgin and not knowing clearly what to expect with a pregnancy went to her pregnant cousin's house to get some first hand info. Then, after about three months, as she began to 'show', she would be forced to hurry home to her betrothed to deal with that scenario in the timeliest manner. It is unlikely that she would have stayed gone for four months, for her 'family way' would have been increasingly hard to conceal. As Christ was being formed in her womb Mary also would likely have taken more delight than she used to do in sitting alone peacefully and keeping in silence. |
||||||
35 | Did Satan know that Jesus was God? | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 220956 | ||
Hi jaypat25, welcome, and thank you for your question. I do not find a verse in the Bible that answers your question per se, but we do know that Jesus knew who satan was, and he was to make abundantly clear to satan that He was the Son of God before beginning His ministry on earth. The account begins in Matt 4:1, "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." Satan told Jesus in vs 3, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." Now satan had an obvious hunch who Jesus was, or he would not have even been there. But satan also knew that God could not fall into temptation, so he tested this 'Son of Man' to see if He really was who He was supposed to be. Satan is not omniscient so he was possibly on the constant lookout for the one to come who was going to crush his head. That is, if it would be possible for Jesus to actually have given in to satan's cunning deceptions, it would have proven that He was no more than a mere man, and all bets would be off. |
||||||
36 | What are Sau'l strengths and weaknesses? | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 220954 | ||
There are three Sauls mentioned in the Bible. Two were kings. The third Saul was an author of many New Testament epistles. It is easy to forget about Saul the king of Edom (Gen. 36:37-38) One of King Saul's most obvious strengths is the providential circumstances that were connected with his election as king. These are recorded in 1 Sam. 8-10. After meeting Samuel, and being annointed as king, Saul reached his home in Gibeah and the Spirit of God came upon him, and then “he was turned into another man.” The simple countryman was transformed through God's Spirit into the king of Israel. One of Saul's most obvious weaknessses was his jealousy of David. After David slew Goliath, Saul took David into his service (18:2); but he became jealous of him (verse 9), and let his anger towards David (verses 10-11), ripen into a murderous rage which several times he tried to carry out, but was unsuccessful. |
||||||
37 | new testiment first publication | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 220948 | ||
Wycliffe is the Person credited as being the First to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible in English, in 1384 AD. This Bible contained a total of 80 Books. Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate during the fourth century AD. The first Bible was printed in English on October 4, 1535 |
||||||
38 | What is Nazareth like in this time? | John 1:46 | keliy | 220943 | ||
Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. | ||||||
39 | who are Pharasees and why the questions | John 1:21 | keliy | 220942 | ||
Mary, just because someone holds the title of a priest, does not make them any more wise than the next man. The Pharisees were respected in their culture because they held authority. Yet this authority did not mean they did not abuse authority. This does not mean that they were holy and certainly they were not close to God. Also, I think you might be confusing the Levites with the Sadducees, but that is o.k. here, we are all here to learn. John the Baptist saw the Pharisees and Sadducees arriving at the site of a baptism and, in Matt 3:7, "...he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? " The baptist discerned that they were not there to be baptised, but possibly to stir up trouble, such as through attempting to corrupt John's influence. In John 8:13 the Pharisees are seen questioning Jesus's authority: "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true." And in John 8:37-59, we see Jesus discussing their own lineage and authority as He says, "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." Jesus knew that they were racially mixed and yet claimed Israelite heritage going back to Abraham. While this is too broad of a subject to discuss in detail here, there are a few points that should prove that the Pharisees and Sadducees were not meeting John for the baptism of repentance. 1). Pharisees revered the traditions of the elders over God's holy Word. They were in competition with the Sadducees for power and influence. They came to observe John baptize and witness his influence. 2). The Sadducees were of humanist beliefs, they were wealthy, and of high position who lived for one life only and rejected the resurrection. As with the Pharisees, the Sadducees were watching John. They also were not coming for the baptism of repentance, and had no desire to repent of anything. They would never give up their wealth and position to follow Jesus. He required those who followed Him to seek first the “Kingdom of God” and not the kingdoms of the world. (cf Matt 6:33) |
||||||
40 | Fig tree meaning? son of man meaning? | John 1:50 | keliy | 220940 | ||
Hi Mary, It is so refreshing to see a new member, so filled with enthusiasm. We are all glad that you decided to join us. If I may make a suggestion though, it would help us all if you could limit the body of your post to maybe one question. ((o: It is difficult to frame a thought pattern when there are several questions being asked in the same paragraph. Now, to the passage at hand, Christ reveals to Nathanael that He is Divine by showing how He is able to know things that otherwise are not known. "Before Philip called thee, I saw thee." The fig tree has very little to do in this passage, but only proves that Christ did possess intimate knowledge of Nathaniel's thoughts, as well as his location as he thought them. Men can gain knowledge only through the senses, as they live in the physical world. But Christ has knowledge of us before we ever have knowledge of Him. It is God's capability to know all things and all people and in this Christ proves His identity on many occasions. Christ said as Nathanael approached, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" This is in response to Nathanael's asking Philip, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Nate's caution here is actually commendable, that he did not believe every thing that was said, but placed all things under scrutiny. This was owing to the fact that the prophets placed Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah, and secondly that there was a lower class of people that inhabited Nazareth at the time. It is through this discourse then, that Nathanael gains his faith in Jesus Christ, as he exclaims in vs. 49, "thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel" In other words, the true Messiah. It is a wonder to me that such a small instance of Christ’s wisdom should have such a great effect, which only shows proof of the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is a humble title which Christ uses as He refers to Himself as "The Son of man." He is the only one who uses it of Himself , and does so frequently in the gospel. This is an expression of His humility in the middle of much high praise given to Him, such as when Nathanael calls him the Son of God and king of Israel. By using that title Christ also properly teaches His own humanity, which is just as important of a belief as His divinity. I hope this helps to clear up your confusion. If not, feel free to ask away! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |