Results 21 - 40 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15468 | ||
Dear Charis, Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I am not the only person who believes that God continues to inspire His Word. I also really like the point that you bring up about God inspiring the reading of the Bible through the Holy Spirit. I completely agree with that, and do think that it is a critical point in understanding how a person today could hear God speaking to them through reading the Bible just as much as they did 2000 years ago. |
||||||
22 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15469 | ||
Dear Charis, Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I am not the only person who believes that God continues to inspire His Word. I also really like the point that you bring up about God inspiring the reading of the Bible through the Holy Spirit. I completely agree with that, and do think that it is a critical point in understanding how a person today could hear God speaking to them through reading the Bible just as much as they did 2000 years ago. |
||||||
23 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15470 | ||
Dear Radioman, I must agree with you that I have no evidence that the modern versions of the Bible are inspired by God. I would hope that you would not think of me as heretical or going completely against Biblical doctrine to have this idea though. That seems a bit harsh, especially since I don't know of any Biblical passage that denies that God would continue to inspire His Word. Going back to the evidence issue, I would question whether there is any evidence that the original manuscripts were inspired by God either. It seems to me that it is something which we must choose to believe on faith, and thankfully both you and I have made that choice. |
||||||
24 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15471 | ||
Dear Retxar, I actually agree with almost all of the things you mentioned. I agree that the Holy Spirit will keep readers of the Word from going astray, if they will follow His direction. I also agree that God has preserved His Word throughout the centuries. I would disagree however, that it is insulting to God for me to believe that He has continued to inspire His Word. I don't understand why that would belittle God in any way. In fact, I think that it shows how brilliant, powerful, and most of all loving I believe Him to be. For God to be able to keep His message to mankind relevant and understandable in thousands of different languages and to people from thousands of different cultures, shows incredible intellegence. And for God to maintain the truth of his message throughout 2000 years despite the natural inclination of man to disrupt it with mistakes, and even changes due to different theological perspectives, shows great power. And finally for God to go to all this trouble in order to be able to speak to each and every person in the world regardless of educational background or anything else, shows just how much He loves every human being. |
||||||
25 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15478 | ||
Dear Tim, Once again, we are very close to agreement on this issue, as we both feel that God has "preserved" His Word. It seems to me that you are saying that a translator puts the original text in a new language, as opposed to a commentator who tries to explain the text. However, if God is not involved in the translation process, then isn't the translator also just trying to take an idea expressed in Greek or Hebrew and "explain" it in English (or whatever). That just seems to be to close to the same thing. In order for it to make sense to me that the Bible is more authoritative than a commentary, I think that God must have been inspiring the translation process. It also seems to me that God inspiring the copy/translation process is the only thing that could have stopped the "telephone game" phenomenum. |
||||||
26 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15481 | ||
Dear Schwartzkm, I apologize if I misunderstood your first post. I also would just like to say that I do not wish to "challenge you on the inerrancy of scripture". I agree with you that the Bible is inerrant. My question is specifically related to the "inspiration" of not only the original manuscripts, but also of a Bible you would find in your motel room. On the one hand, you said that "erros have crept in" to the modern translations, which might indicate that you believe that they are merely the work of man. On the other hand, you said that these errors "would not change a single Christian belief". My question to you is, "Do you believe that the accuracy and authority of the Bible has been maintained throughout the centuries by the work of man, or due to the inspiration of God upon the copiers/translators etc.?" |
||||||
27 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15483 | ||
Dear Tim, The same could be said about commentaries. Most Bible verses are very clear cut. If the verse says "Perez was the father of Hezron", then Perez was the father of Hezron. Most commentaries do agree on the interpretation of most verses. Yet there are some passages that are interpreted differently by different commentators based on their backgrounds and ideas. Once again, it seems to me that there is little difference between a translation and a commentary without believing that the Bible is still the inspired Word of God, and a commentary is solely the words of man. |
||||||
28 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15492 | ||
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between your view of God's "providence" preserving the Bible through translations and my view of God's "inspiration" preserving the Bible through translations? How do you see those as being different? | ||||||
29 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15497 | ||
Dear Joe, I like your point that a message is authoritative based on its source. To an extent this is true. However, a message from even the most authoritative source can become meaningless depending on the transmission of that message. For instance, a person could be reading a delicious recipe from the Betty Crocker cookbook. Now I would submit that is an authoritative source (when it comes to cooking, nowhere near the Bible). However, if that person is dislexic, and puts in 61oz of an ingredient instead of 16oz, then that recipe will not be successful. I would submit that if left to only the minds and abilities of man, an "accurate translation" that you refer to, would be impossible to the degree which we currently have. Would you not agree that God had to have been involved in that process to some degree? |
||||||
30 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 16223 | ||
Peches, I think you are at the right forum. I think that there are many people here who would be glad to help you learn about the Bible, and about God. It would help if we knew a little more about you though. I have a question posted for you about that. Would you mind answering it? |
||||||
31 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17580 | ||
There is another possibility as well. in 1 Cor 15:5 "the Twelve" is capitalized (at least in the NIV). Thus it seems to be a proper noun refering to a group of people (ie. the British, the Germans, etc.) It is possible that "the Twelve" was another name for the group that today we call "the Apostles". If this is the case, then the passage in Matthew is refering to the actual number of people there (notice that "eleven" is not capitalized). But Paul is refering to the group as a whole instead. Once again, the message that God would want us to learn is that Jesus did actually raise from the dead after being crucified for our sins. God wants us to know that this was witnessed by many people, and is something that we can trust to be true. |
||||||
32 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17585 | ||
I completely agree with Schwartzkm. This is not a contradiction at all, but instead is just an example of two different writers giving different details about the same event. It is like the three blind men who encounter different parts of an elephant. The first man finds its leg and says that it is like the trunk of a large tree. The second man encounters the midsection and says that it is like a wall. The third man discovers the trunk and says that it is like a snake. The three descriptions at first appear to contradict each other. But after thought and further inspection they instead each give a valuable perspective that can be combined to give a complete picture. |
||||||
33 | Where was God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17835 | ||
MStevens, The verse that immediately came to my mind was John 11:35 "Jesus wept". This is a good example of a time when God shared the sorrow of His friends Mary and Martha. Eph 4:30 also talks of how our sin can "grieve" the Holy Spirit. Although this doesn't specifically say that God "cries", I thinking "grieving" would be the same idea. |
||||||
34 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17958 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank Kalos Lionstrong Nolan Keck Norrie - Yes Ray Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm Sir Pent - Yes Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran There Total Yes 5 Total No 1 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
35 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18058 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, Charis, and Jensen, Thank you for your responses to these suggestions so far. It sounds like we all agree that a much better job could be done of maintaining the relevancy of discussion to the original question in a post. (In fact, I noticed that Bill Mc did a good job of this in his most recent post on regarding where souls come from.) It also seems that there is agreement on the need for greater unity, which could be aided by having "consensus posts" at the end of threads. (I didn't catch your take on that idea though Jensen.) I think that this would help people who are searching for an answer to a question to be able to get an overall idea before wading through all the "personal notes". I appreciate Bill Mc and Charis support for the third idea of limiting our responses to 3 after a person initially asks a question. I understand your reservation, Jensen, that perhaps all of the first three responses could be completely incorrect. Although this is possible, I think that it is unlikely. There is a large number of very consistent members of this forum who seem to always look out for new questions and jump at the chance to answer them (Nolan Keck, Steve Butler and Tim Moran are three of many examples). I have observed enough of all of these people's posts to have confidence in their responses. Even if I don't completely agree with what they might say, I know that they will be at least based in scripture and pretty well thought out. In short, they would be sufficient for a starting point for the original questioner to respond to. The alternative is to keep doing what we're doing and have 10 responses to a question that are so overwhelming and many times contradictory (to the point of confusion after 10 of them), that the original person who asked the question never comes back. Finally, I would like to say that these are not absolute rules to be followed upon penalty of death. Instead they are "Unity Guidelines" which I hope many of us could agree to abide by as a pattern of behavior. Of course if there was a time that the first three responses to a question said that Jesus was not the Son of God, there would be just cause for an exception to be made. |
||||||
36 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18161 | ||
Christianity in a Nutshell part 2 Here's the rest of the story: Faith - This is believing something even though there is not absolute proof of its truth (Heb 11:1). In Christianity, it is critical to have faith that the essentials of Christianity (ie. Apostle's Creed) are true. Apostle's Creed - A summary of beliefs that are essential to Christianity. It is the most famous of many creeds that were created by a council of church leaders with much prayer and discussion. I would encourage any introduction to Christianity to include reading this creed. Ministry - A way of life that is primarily focused on doing the will of God. The most commonly thought of way of doing this is as a Pastor of a church, but there are of course many other ways to "minister" to people. In fact, all Christians should be involved in some type of ministry (Eph 4:11-12). Baptism - A ceremony where an individual is either submerged with water or has water poured or sprinkled on their head. This ceremony is a symbolic representation of the complete change that has taken place in the person?s life. It shows to all who observe it that the person has chosen to have faith in Jesus Christ, has been cleansed of their sins, and has become a new creation (1 Pet 3:21). Bible - This is God's written message for mankind (Matt 5:18). God used many different people over hundreds of years to write, copy, compile, and even translate this message so that it could be read and trusted by the entire world (Rom 15:4). Old Testament - This is the record of the time before Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God used one chosen nation, Israel, to be an example to the world of how to relate to God (Jer 3:17). New Testament - This is the record of the time during and shortly after Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God Himself, through His own Son, Jesus, showed the ultimate example of how to relate to God (John 8:42). Prophecy - These are statements made about future events. Many of these are recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and of these, the vast majority have already been proved true (Isa 7:14). Some have not happened yet, and are anticipated by Christians (Acts 1:11). Heaven - The final destination of all persons who ultimately accept God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal joy both physically (no pain or tears) and most importantly spiritually (ultimate communion with God) (Rev 21:3-4). Hell - The final destination of all persons who ultimately reject God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal pain both physically (lake of fire) and most importantly spiritually (completely seperated from God) (Matt 25:41). |
||||||
37 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18257 | ||
Dear Forum Coleagues, Since Lanny has recently asked about this subject, I believe it would be good to resurrect and add to this thread from long ago. I am curious how your study turned out Tim Moran. What did you end up deciding and why? |
||||||
38 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18269 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc - Yes - especially responses like "already answered, do search on ..." BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie - Yes - definately duplicate threads, maybe also similar threads EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank - No - too difficult, and repetition has its usefulness Kalos - No - it would be too difficult Lionstrong - No - the repetition is a safeguard Norrie - Yes Ray - Yes Sir Pent - Yes - it will assist clarity and searching Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran - No - it is unnecessary Still missing? Nolan Keck Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm There Total Yes 8 Total No 5 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
39 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18270 | ||
All votes count, including yours. Greetings There and Tim Moran. You both bring up valid points. I seem to have confused There and apologize for a lack of clarity about my first suggestion (limiting initial responses to 3). My intention was not to say that there could never be more than 3 responses to a question (so that our friends like There could not chime in unless they happened to get in at just the right time). Instead, I just meant that after the first 3 responses to a "primary" question begining a new thread, we would wait for the original questioner to respond before continuing to "pile on" so to speak. For instance, BillyK recently asked a question about where souls came from. There have been literally 40 responses, and none of these are from BillyK at all. This is exactly the type of thing that I wish we could avoid. I think it would be better for there to just be a few, relatively simple answers to "primary" questions. This way, new people to the forum would find it easier to read through and respond to them, instead of being confused and overwhelmed. Tim, you also brought up the point that you were uncomfortable with limiting debate beyond civility. I would hope that you would not see any of my suggestions as doing that. Adding a post at the end of a debate to summarize it does not seem to limit the debate, at least in my mind. Staying focused in a debate on the subject that the debate was supposed to be about in the beginning seems to be exactly what civility would demand. And as for limiting initial responses to primary questions, I admit that this is a limitation, however, as I tried to explain above, I think it is also the most civil and helpful way to respond to new posters. Also this limitation is not complete, if the original person elaborates after any of the three initial responses, then it becomes open season again to unload with both barrels and post as many times as wanted. I have a lot of respect for your opinions, and feel that both of you add significantly to this forum. I just hope that you can understand my heart on this issue. I feel like this forum is a phenomenal resource for the regular members, and I just want to improve it so that it can also be welcoming to "seekers" and "visitors" so that they too can benefit from it as we all have. |
||||||
40 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18274 | ||
Dear Reformer Joe and EdB, Thanks for your thoughts on these issues as well. If I understand correctly, you both agree with the second idea, that we should be more commited to staying focused on the topic of the original question in a thread. It also seems that you agree that we should be more selective in responding to "primary" questions. I completely agree with your ideas about how when we get to far away from the scripture itself, we move into very dangerous waters. The one disagreement that I picked up on was the idea of ending threads with a summary statement. I'm glad that you also see the value in this EdB, and would like to provoke a couple thoughts for you Reformer Joe. You mention that it is impossible to come to consensus when we have such different ideas about many subjects. However, let me give you an example of how it is possible. A recent thread asked whether one could lose their salvation. Those who agree mainly with Reformed theology said no, and those who agree mainly with the Arminian theology said yes. However, in the midst of all that there was a common idea held by both sides, and that was to not risk it. One poster said it best when they said, "This 'debate' is not about initial salvation it is about living after salvation. It comes down to a debate on what I can and can not do and still remain saved. All I'm saying is that is not how a Christian should approach salvation, A Christian should shoot for the best and let grace cover everything else." Therefore, if I was writing a consensus statement of that thread, I would focus on two things. The first would be the ideas that almost all of the posts agreed with (whether I agree with it or not). The second would be how that topic could be applied to our lives. Then as a final note, I would just mention any significant minority opinions. This would be in my opinion a fair, relatively unbiased (as much as possible), and most of all extremely helpful way to end a thread. The final point that I would like you to think about is that although you do not think there are many "seekers" who visit our forum, couldn't there be another explanation. Perhaps there are actually a large number of these visitors, who come, but because of the way that they observe us responding to people they decide to not post, or even leave completely. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [24] >> |