Results 2141 - 2160 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2141 | Repentence or remorse? | Matt 27:5 | Hank | 8892 | ||
Prayon, you mean Judas of course, not Jesus, who drove himself to suicide. And in all likelihood it was his remorse upon reflecting on the enormity of his deed that led him to take his own life. True repentence and subsequent forgiveness would have tended to lighten his burden of guilt, not augment it. --Hank | ||||||
2142 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Hank | 8873 | ||
Well, in the first place, the Bible does not reveal a great deal about the ranks or organization of the heavenly beings we call angels. Jude 9 does, of course, name Michael as an archangel, but Daniel 10:13 speaks of him as being "one of" not "the only one."......The passage, 1 Thess.4:16 says "the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God..." The phrase, "with the voice of an archangel" no more means that Christ will become Michael the archangel than the next phrase, "and with the trumpet of God" means that Christ will become a trumpet..... If, in fact, the cult to which you refer interprets this verse in such a way, it is by no means the only unorthodox twist they have made to the meaning of Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
2143 | What was the first language of Adam/Eve? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8689 | ||
Without doubt, dear gubber, you've posed an intriguing question! The Bible gives us no hint whatever about the language of our progenitors, Adam and Eve, but it at the same time makes it quite clear that they had the ability to communicate -- with God their Creator, with the serpent their adversary, and with each other. Linguistics offers us little real help. It surmises that the first means of communication was oral, but did not consist of language as we know it today. They call it, for want of anything else to call it, paralanguage -- voice sounds like grunts, hisses, giggles, etc. used in conjunction with various gestures (body language). From these beginnigs eventually came a more sophisticated form of oral language and, later still, various written forms. But this is, I re-emphasize, merely linguistic theory. It does not square with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve..... But perhaps we can be somewhat more enlightened by the Old Testament account of the time when there was one world language. Nimrod ruined it all by building a tower to reach heaven. But God stepped in and made the workmen speak different languages. So the Tower of Babel was never finished..... Now is it far-fetched to believe that the same God who could confound the language at the building site of the tower (by, in effect, creating new languages) would have any problem with endowing Adam and Eve with language skills when He created them? The Spirit of God performed nothing short of of a linguistic miracle on the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. This God who by the might of His word spoke the heavens and the earth into existence, ex nihilo, could surely have empowered, and did empower I believe, His first children with the gift of speech. We don't know what the name of the language was, or even whether God assigned a name to it, but we must conclude that it encompassed far more and was considerably more advanced than the gutteral grunts and growns that are popularly -- but unbiblically -- assigned to the language of the so-called cave man. The vocabularly must have been indeed quite rich and extensive. After all, God gave Adam the job of naming the animals -- a task requiring a great deal more than assorted grunts! --Hank | ||||||
2144 | Why did the NASB change JEHOVAH to Lord? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8675 | ||
Dear Sojourner: The most reliable and definitive answer to your question regarding the NASB's translation of Yahweh (Jehovah) can possibly be obtained by asking the Lockman Foundation. You can email your question and concern to them at Lockman@Lockman.org. I feel sure they will be quite willing to assist you. --Hank | ||||||
2145 | Why a broken heart? | Ps 51:17 | Hank | 8553 | ||
Nolan, I believe God delights in a broken and contrite spirit (or heart) for essentially the same reason that, as a young lad, I found favor in a broken-in horse. Now this may sound as though I'm making a joke of a spiritual issue or being flippant, but hear me out if you will....When I was but a boy a nearby neighbor had a horse, a beautiful animal, young and spirited. Now I'd never been on the backside of a horse before and was invited to ride this fine animal. Being both fearless and foolish, as I was soon to discover, I agreed with unbridled (pun intended) alacrity to mount the beast and go for a ride. To say that things didn't go very smoothly is to understate the predicament I soon found myself in. For instead of the horse gliding along smoothly, he started out in a slow trot, increased to a fast trot, and before I knew what was happening, I thought I was on a runaway freight train, not a horse. I was scared out of my wits. I'd never traveled 90 miles an hour before, not on a horse or any other conveyance. But my venture came to an abrupt, embarrassing, and rather painful halt when the horse threw me. I landed, unharmed except for a few superficial bruises to my body and a significant bruising of my pride, in a soft meadow. In the wake of my eventful ride, the neighbor confessed that the steed was indeed a spirited animal, rather proud and haughty, and not yet fully broken-in. Fine time for a confession I thought..... Quite a time later I screwed up enough courage to mount another horse, but this was a gentle animal, calm and obedient, and my ride, if less adventurous, was far more enjoyable...... Gentle, calm, obedient -- those are the words I used to describe the second horse which had been broken. Spirited, proud, haughty were adjectives applied to the first horse..... Does God want his people to be proud, haughty, spirited (in the sense of doing one's own thing) or does He want us to be thoroughly broken-in (disciplined) -- gentle in our relationships with God and man, calm in our absolute trust in Him, obedient to His commands? The young steed that had not been broken was undisciplined and self-willed. The broken horse was disciplied and obedient to his master. Perhaps this tale of two horses serves somewhat to illustrate and illumine why the Lord delights in the contrite human heart. --Hank | ||||||
2146 | Has God Said? | Gen 3:1 | Hank | 8518 | ||
Never. | ||||||
2147 | Why no gender-neutral language in NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8490 | ||
The answer to your question about why the more literal and (generally) more conservative translations do not use "gender neutral" language is that the languages from which they are translated did not use "gender neutral" language. We have no gender-neutral third person singular personal pronouns in the English language. The word "it" hardly can be used to describe human beings. So translators, in order to translate "gender-neutrally" are compelled to resort to various lierary devices; namely, to recast the sentence by using a construction that is different from the original languages, or to pluralize the personal pronouns so that "he" becomes "they"; "he", "them" etc. Where the original text says, for example, "adam" (man) they must resort to such terms as people, persons, or mortals. As rich and as versatileas our English tongue is, it does have its weaknesses. But even so, the language has flourished for years and even the simplest of folk understood perfectly well what Jesus meant when He said "Man shall not live by bread alone." Only recently has this become an issue. --Hank | ||||||
2148 | Origins of baptism.... | Matt 7:13 | Hank | 8485 | ||
As with most Christian practices and beliefs, the background of baptism lies in practices of the Jewish community. The Greek word baptizo "immerse, dip, submerge" is used metaphorically in Isaiah 21:4 (Greek Septuagint) to mean "go down, perish" and in 2 Kings 5:14 for Naaman's dipping in the Jordan river seven times for cleansing from his skin disease. At some point close to the time of Jesus, Judaism began a heavy emphasis on ritual washings to cleanse from impurity. This goes back to priestly baths prior to offering sacrifices (Lev.16:4-24). Probably shortly before the time of Jesus, Jews began baptizing Gentile converts, though circumcision still remained the primary entrace rite into Judaism. --Excerpted in part from Holman Bible Dictionary. --Hank | ||||||
2149 | If a person commits suiced is he damned? | Matt 12:31 | Hank | 8468 | ||
Jesus said that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. (Matthew 12:31). Since suicide is obviously not in the category of blasphemy against the Spirit, it must be considered as being in the category of sins that will be forgiven. --Hank | ||||||
2150 | Please explain | Matt 7:13 | Hank | 8453 | ||
Well, ezekiel, baptism is as you say, pretty important stuff, but Jesus was not referring to water baptism in his discourse with Nicodemus in the third chapter of John. He was talking about the need for cleansing, and water was commonly used in the Old Testament -- and in Jesus' time -- in just such a figurative sense as Jesus is using it here. Jesus was a Jew speaking to Nicodemus, who was a Jew par excellence, being a member of the distinguished Sanhedrin. Both Jesus and Nicodemus would obviously be quite familiar with the Jewish idiomatic sense of "water" in this context to be a reference to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when He used the word "water" in close juxtaposition with the word "Spirit." Here are some verses to support this exegesis: Ezek.36:24-27; Joel 20:28-29; Num.19:17-19; Is.32:15; Jer. 2:31; Ps. 51:9-10; Is. 44:3-5 and 55:1-3. --Hank | ||||||
2151 | What is Christianity? | Acts | Hank | 8293 | ||
Posted in error. | ||||||
2152 | What is Christianity? | Acts | Hank | 8292 | ||
Posted in error. | ||||||
2153 | 3 isaiah's or one? | Is 1:1 | Hank | 8250 | ||
Dear frewal, you are quite right, the Isaiah authorship is somewhat controversial. It has in fact been the focus of more scholarly discussion than any other single question regarding the prophetic books of the Old Testament. More liberal scholars and theologians tend to hold to the theory of two or more "Isaiahs" while their conservative counterparts opt for one Isaiah....Dr. Henry Morris does a fine job of stating the conservation viewpoint, and refuting the liberal, in his Introduction to Isaiah found in the Defender's Study Bible (World Publishing)..... Here are some excerpts from his Introduction: ....."Critics have viciously attacked the book of Isaiah, insisting there were at least two "Isaiahs" -- one who wrote chapters 1-39 and the other chapters 40-66. Some have even suggested 3 or 4 authors. The ostensible reason for the unwarranted assertion is that the two divisions have two different literary styles. Critics ignore the fact, however, that the two different styles relate to the two different themes of the two sections. Far more similarities than differences can be found in the two sections..... The real reason, however, for the "two Isaiahs" notion is that the second division contains many remarkable prophecies that were later fulfilled -- for example, the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus a century and a half in advance (Isaiah 45:1-4) Skeptical theologians are unwilling to believe that God can supernaturally reveal the future to His divinely called prophets. So most of them assume that the last part of Isaiah was written by an unknown writer living among the exiles in Babylon after Cyrus had conquered the city."..... Dr. Morris goes on to point out that Jesus quoted "the prophet Isaiah" in Matthew 3:3 and his quote is from Isaiah 40:3 -- a passage the liberal view attributes to a "second Isaiah" or, in other words, someone other than the prophet Isaiah. ....Furthermore, the oldest extant manuscript of Isaiah is in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated circa 100 B.C., and this gives no indication whatever that it was not all written by the same man. The same is true of the Greek Septuagint translaton of the Old Testament. In fact, all genuine historical evidence agrees on the unity of Isaiah. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire book..... I hope this has been a fairly adequate answer to your question. --Hank | ||||||
2154 | After Salvation, What? (A correction) | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 8195 | ||
. | ||||||
2155 | Do we have a flawed New Testament? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 8151 | ||
Lionstrong, thanks for your comments on my question. Your question is multi-faceted and I will attempt to address but two segments of it.....First, regarding 1 John 1:8 as it may be applied to the context of the item now under review, i.e. Do we have a flawed New Testament? and a corollary question, Are the Apostles' teachings inerrant? The passage in 1 John 1:8 says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." You ask how can we equip new believers to explain that this verse applies to the Apostles? The Apostle Paul leads the way to understanding that the Apostles were by no means men without sin. He says to Timothy in 1 Tim. 1:15, "It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." But the question, Lionstrong, has nothing whatever to do with apostolic sin or sinlessness. The question has to do with apostolic teaching. Was it infallible and inerrant? If whether a biblical writer's inerrancy is pivotal upon his sinlessness, if a writer had to remain sinless in order for his words to be fully trustworthy, then no biblical writer, from Genesis to Revelation, meets the criterion. Then where are we? We are then plunged into the ignominious position of having to say that the sacred writings all are flawed and untrustworthy because they were written by flawed and untrustworthly, yes sinful, men. It is not our logic, or lack of it, that is flawed? .......A second segment of your question I'd like to address is, What from the Word will equip (2 Tim.3:17) them with an answer? This verse says, "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The answer lies, at least in part, in the preceding verse, in the words "All Scripture is inspired by God." The obvious answer then is, everything from the Word of God equips the believer to be able to give and answer for the hope that is in them (1 Pet.3:15). "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirt, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb. 4:12) The Word and the Spirit are fully capable of convicting the sinner and leading him into paths of righteousness. I cite the experiences of three men, all of them dedicated skeptics at a time in their lives, who became staunch defenders of the faith. They are Frank Harber, an evangelist; Josh McDowell, a writer and lecturer; and C. S. Lewis, one of the foremost apologists for the faith in modern times. Each of these men set out with the aim to prove the Bible was more or less a fairy tale and ended up a powerful witness to its eternal truth. How did this happen? They read, studied, pondered on the Bible. With two of these men, Harber and McDowell, I am personally acquainted and have heard from their very lips their testimony. It is the testimony of men such as these that provides a most powerful and convincing attestation to the power of the Word of God......Thank you, Lionstrong, for posing the questions, which bear every earmark that they have the motive of searching for truth. I only hope that, in some measure, these remarks of mine have lent something toward that end. --Hank | ||||||
2156 | Whole Bible flawed? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 8148 | ||
May God richly bless you for this testimony, prayon....When we begin to cast doubts on the inerrant truth of the Bible, we put ourselves upon a pathway that leads us to ultimate destruction. The by-ways of human error and human wisdom lead to apostasy, to agnosticism, to atheism, to paganism. Once we permit a crack in the dam, the floodgates open rapidly. That's why many members of this forum have risen up so strongly against even the insinuation that Apostolic teaching could have been in error. We believe that it is wrong, terribly wrong, to entertain any possibility for error in the teachings, written or oral, of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. This forum is not the proper medium for any such wild speculation. There are any number of other places where anything goes and wherein one can philosophize and muse to his heart's content. Let those who wish to engage in such activities take their baggage and check it in at those places, but not on this study Bible forum. We are here to study God's word, not question it. The premise that God's word is authoritative and inerrant is a given, a sine qua non, on this forum. This is not to thwart honest questions by honest seekers after the truth, but it is to discourage vain discourse -- philosophical and metaphysical musings that have no didactic merit whatever. --Hank | ||||||
2157 | Replenish the earth | Gen 1:28 | Hank | 8029 | ||
The problem, Cephas, is not one of theology, because there was nothing for man to replace. It is neither a problem with the King James translation; it is right. The problem is with our tricky English language. The verb "replenish" does not always mean to replace. I cite the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary. The first definition given for "replenish" is this: "To fill with persons or animals." Fill, not refill. An archiac definition, which the 1611 scholars may well have had in mind, is "to supply fully." A second definition of "replenish" is "to fill or build up again" but that is not the definition that is in harmony with the context here, to which modern versions attest by their usage of the simple word "fill." --Hank | ||||||
2158 | Nothing New | Eccl 1:9 | Hank | 8008 | ||
Buf, this verse is part and parcel of the jaded world-view of a disillusioned man, Solomon, who for a time in his life broke fellowship with God, chased after foreign women and foreign gods, and concluded that all is vanity and chasing after the wind. The evil days had come upon him when he had no delight in them (Eccl. 12:1). He had had it all, seen it all, done it all, and concluded "there is nothing new under the sun." He had lost contact with the eternal God, from whom springs the joy and freshness of life itself. --Hank | ||||||
2159 | Did Solomon repent? | Ecclesiastes | Hank | 8004 | ||
Did Solomon repent of his sins in the book of Ecclesiastes? Good question, and the answer may be, yes he did or, no he didn't, but I tend to think he did. Here's why: The mood of the book is generally one of sadness. In good part autobiographical, it is the philosophical world-view of one of the wisest of men who finds himself, as it were, facing a mid-life crisis. Solomon had had it all -- wealth, fame, power. He had done it all -- enjoyed the pleasures of food and drink, of women and song, and even the forbidden venture of chasing after foreign gods. Still and all, he came to a crossroad in his life and looked back upon the path he had trodden only to conclude that it had been all vanity, meaningless, empty. His life had led him only to frustration and despair. Everything "under the sun" was no more satisfying than "chasing after the wind" -- an expression he uses nine times in his book. The first eleven chapters are filled with these negative "vanity of vanities" observations.....But in the twelfth and final chapter of this sad book, Solomon begins to set a new, more uplifting, tone. He says, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come....The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly....The conclusion, when all has been heard, is fear God and keep his commandments......For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." .......Now, whether Solomon took his own advice is the question of the centuries. Solomon ends his book by pointing his people to the commandments of God. I am comfortable with the thought that he may well have pointed himself in the same direction. --Hank | ||||||
2160 | should Christians go to church? | Heb 10:25 | Hank | 7949 | ||
Bel, the answer is clearly, Yes, it does matter whether a Christian attends church services. Hebrews 10:25: Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." While it may be true that sometimes we may "feel" close to God in a forest or on a mountain top, the question is not one of feeling close but being close. Our Lord said, "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." (Matthew 18:20). Christ's church is community, fellowship of the saints, not a lone-wolf, contemplative religious experience of some sort. The church is the body of Christ, and the saints are individual members of that body. It is community. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, it was "Our Father" not "My Father. Every pattern of worship given in the New Testament involves the assembly of the saints. In our vernacular, going to church. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ] Next > Last [114] >> |