Results 3001 - 3020 of 3169
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3001 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 2817 | ||
I honestly don't know how anyone could answer your question (a valid, legitimate one) before they have laid eyes on the translation. It seems that some, by implication at least, are against it without ever having seen it. Is this prejudice ("pre-judging") or what? Everyone is entitled to their opinion (when they label it as such and don't try to force it on others), but it seems obvious that to condemn something before its publication is stretching things a bit. . . . Having not seen the HCSB myself, I am not here taking a stand for or against it. The point I am making is that if you are going to judge a new translation, shouldn't you first examine it for yourself? Moreover, since so many others have had the right and privilege of producing a new translation, why not the Southern Baptists as well? . . . As far as the cost of producing a new translation, I see that as a secondary issue, not a primary one. . . . For what it's worth: as far as I personally am concerned, if I had only the NASB and the Amplified, these two would suffice for the next 100 years. However, I do use 16 different translations, a practice which I find to be helpful and not at all harmful in studying and teaching God's Word. |
||||||
3002 | What about human cloning? | Gen 2:7 | kalos | 2805 | ||
Hank, this is an issue to which I've given little or no thought. But I would say in general, the field of medical ethics is running far behind new discoveries and innovations in medical science. This may sound like I'm stating the obvious. Maybe so. But I think it is not yet obvious to everyone, neither to the general public nor to medical scientists themselves. --JVH0212 | ||||||
3003 | Eternal nature of condemned souls? | Matt 10:28 | kalos | 2777 | ||
Good question, since the Bible says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" and "...God, who alone hath immortality." (Please excuse my neglect to give Scripture references. They may be found in any KJV concordance. Or, if you wish, ask me and I will provide them.) | ||||||
3004 | Sexual lust vs. other lusts of flesh? | 1 Cor 6:18 | kalos | 2776 | ||
Why is porneia (sexual immorality) treated differently than every other sin? May I suggest a partial answer that can be found in 1 Cor 6:18? "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." | ||||||
3005 | For Hank and everybody else!! | John 11:25 | kalos | 2774 | ||
Thanks, Chris, for a very interesting profile on yourself. Re: Charles Stanley, I agree with you 110 percent. He's THE BEST in my book. I'm unfamiliar with Bible Broadcasting Network. Are you familiar with the Bott Radio Network? It's my favorite. My annoying habits? Either none or too numerous to mention, depending on whom you ask. Please feel free to write me anytime, if you would wish to do so. I would be pleased to hear from you. My address is at my user profile. --JVH0212 | ||||||
3006 | Why not Jesus' words in Red? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2707 | ||
To answer your question, let me say for starters, I myself have a strong preference for red letter editions of the Bible. Why would some scholars prefer black and white only? I suspect it may be for the same reason some prefer not to insert quotation marks into the text: because it is not always clear who is speaking, Jesus or someone else. You or I might *think* its clear who is speaking, but I for one have never translated the Bible from the original languages, in which there are no chapter and verse divisions, no quotation marks, no red letters, and definitely no capitalization (not in the Greek). When translating the Bible into English, even the placement of periods, commas, colons, and semicolons is an arbitrary decision on the part of the translators. . . . Keep in mind that for centuries all Bibles were printed in black and white only. If I'm not mistaken the first edition of a red letter Bible did not appear until the 1880s or 1890s. . . . Why do some consumers prefer Bibles printed in all black? Who knows? Why do consumers have a lot of the preferences they do? I guess all we can do is let those who prefer no red letters speak for themselves, which I hope they will. It would be interesting to know. . . . Why do I prefer the red letter edition? One reason is because my grandmother read to us children out of her red letter Bible, so red letter seems more like "the" Bible. Not a very rational reason, but a very honest one. |
||||||
3007 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | kalos | 2685 | ||
You are correct when you say "I see receiving and believing as one in the same." Using the text of the New King James Version, in which the word "even" is not inserted into John 1:12, John MacArthur writes: "1:12 *as many as received Him ... to those who believe in His name.* The second phrase describes the first. To receive Him who is the Word of God means to acknowledge His claims, place one's faith in Him, and thereby yield allegiance to Him" (p. 1574, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). | ||||||
3008 | Where is Dan? | Josh 19:40 | kalos | 2581 | ||
Rev. 7:6 "Manasseh. One of the two Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), yet mentioned separately, probably to make up 12 tribes since Dan is omitted. This omission is due perhaps to Dan's early connection with idolatry (Judg 18:30)" (p. 1857, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Zondervan, 1999). . . . If it is true that, "Dan is not listed because the purpose of the chapter is not to set forth the twelve tribes of Israel as set forth in the OT," then why pick on Dan? If this is the reason, why not omit any old tribe at random? Why does it have to be Dan? |
||||||
3009 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 2552 | ||
NO! See Eph 2:8-9, Rom 3:28, John 5:24, etc. Eph 2:8-9 teaches that we are saved by grace through faith plus NOTHING. Not plus church membership, not plus good works, not plus water baptism, not plus anything. By grace through faith plus nothing. If anything, for your baptism to be valid, you need to be saved BEFORE you are baptized. | ||||||
3010 | Define term inerrancy and is it true? | 2 Tim 3:16 | kalos | 2542 | ||
With the help of our esteemed colleague at this Forum, Charis, I have found the following. See "Inspiration and Inerrancy" by M. James Sawyer, Ph.D. You will find this document at: http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/inspdoct.htm | ||||||
3011 | Define term inerrancy and is it true? | 2 Tim 3:16 | kalos | 2537 | ||
WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IS THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE? I'm glad you worded your question "What do you understand is the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture ...?" I have an understanding, but before I replied I tried in vain to look for a published definition of inerrancy. While I found the word inerrancy used many times in various reference works, I was unable to find a definition of the word. . . . One respondent to your question wrote: "The doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture is the teaching that the Scripture is without error." This answer is almost on target. However, my understanding is that the doctrine of *infallibility* of the Scriptures is the teaching that the Scripture is without error. Inerrancy goes one step further, meaning that not only is the Bible *without* error in the original manuscripts, it is INCAPABLE of error. AND IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT? A partial answer to this question, one which you might find of interest even though it may not exactly answer your question, is as follow: . . . Dr. Charles C. Ryrie writes: "My own definition of biblical inspiration is that it is God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. Several features of the definition are worth emphasizing: (1) God superintended but did not dictate the material. (2) He used human authors and their own individual styles. (3) Nevertheless, the product was, in its original manuscripts, without error." (p. 1956, The Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) . . . "Just to illustrate how times have changed, not many years ago all one had to say to affirm his belief in the full inspiration of the Bible was that he believed it was 'the Word of God.' ... Today (i.e., 1972) one has to say 'the plenary, verbally, infallible, inspired, and inerrant-in-the-original-manuscripts Word of God.' And even then, he many not communicate clearly!" (p. 1957, The Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). |
||||||
3012 | Your exegesis of Ecclesiastes 12:!3? | Eccl 12:13 | kalos | 2529 | ||
"All has been heard: the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God's providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happinness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man." Ecclesiastes 12:13 (The Amplified Bible) | ||||||
3013 | If I love do I have eternal life? | Rom 3:28 | kalos | 2466 | ||
Love is one of the evidences of genuine saving faith. Love is a natural result of being saved. Notice love is the RESULT, not the CAUSE, of salvation. "Salvation is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ. Nearly 200 times faith, or belief, is stated as the single condition in the NT [for salvation]" (p. 1882, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) . . . This is not meant to negate such Scriptures as 1 John 4:7-8 and related passages. To love God and to love one's neighbor as himself are the greatest COMMANDMENTS. Note that Jesus said if we loved him we would keep his commandments. A true statement -- no doubt about it! But notice, we are not saved by keeping his commandments. See Rom 3:28; Eph 2:8-9, etc. Instead we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith PLUS nothing. Or, we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. To espouse any other way of salvation is to preach "another gospel" and "another Jesus." Also, if you look up the words in any English dictionary, I believe you will find that the words eternal and everlasting both mean THE SAME THING. |
||||||
3014 | Is it a sin to committ suicide? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2427 | ||
Yes, it is a sin to commit suicide. "Thou shalt not kill." . . . Is it the unforgivable sin? Jesus said in Matt 12:31 (ASV 1901) "Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." Note: "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men..." According to Jesus Himself, there is but one unforgivable sin and it isn't suicide. It is "the blasphemy against the Spirit." In reply to my answer, we may hear a chorus of "ifs, ands, and buts." Nevertheless the plain words of Jesus stand. |
||||||
3015 | What does Proverbs 11:22 mean? | Proverbs | kalos | 2420 | ||
In answer to your question, please note: . . . 1) Several Bible commentaries are available online. . . . 2) More than a dozen English translations of the Bible are available online. . . . 3) Prov 11:22 "*ring of gold.* A nose ring was an ornament intended to beautify a woman in OT times. It was as out of place in a pig's nose as the lack of discretion was in a lovely lady" (p. 892, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
3016 | "Ervah" compared to "arom" nakedness? | Lev 18:1 | kalos | 2360 | ||
You make an excellent point, one which I neither could nor would dispute. (FYI: both the Updated NASB and the Amplified Bible use the word "nakedness" in the Leviticus passage. But this is not to dispute what you so accurately said about the Hebrew words.) | ||||||
3017 | What does the Bible say about nudism? | Lev 18:6 | kalos | 2347 | ||
What the Bible says is: . . . New Revised Standard Version Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is the nakedness of your father. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's flesh. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's flesh. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son's wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. 19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. . . . Lev 20:18 (NRSV) If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people. 19 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to lay bare one's own flesh; they shall be subject to punishment. |
||||||
3018 | What unmarried sexual acts are sinful? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2336 | ||
To properly answer your question, one would first need to define "sin" and then give a definition of "sexual act", one with which most of us could agree. Here is a brief answer to your question. . . . First, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, any penetration, however slight, is considered a sexual act. In the workplace and where minors are concerned, to remark upon a woman even in her absence or to look upon her is considered sexual in nature, i.e., it is considered "sexual harassment." . . . I realize we are not primarily concerned here with the world's definition of "sexual act", which changes every time we change presidents. We want to answer the question in light of the Bible teaching on the subject. Having said that, I would also like to say: . . . A primary concern of the believer is not to sin against God at all. (We do, but our desire is not to -- see Rom 7 and 1 John 1). We achieve the goal of remaining sexually pure, not by seeing how far we can go without breaking the letter of the Law, but by staying as far away from the sin as possible. Foreplay eventually leads to the real thing, and THAT is what we must avoid. One way of putting it would be to say: If you don't want to start a fire, resist the temptation to play with matches. . . . Much more could be said in answer to your question and I trust that someone on this Forum will say more. . . . Thank you for posting a very serious and relevant question. I'm sure that if you wanted an answer to this question, there are many others out there who also want to know, although they have not asked. . . . P.S. Certain others may guide you "by saying that one should know EVERYTHING about their partner before marriage in order to make a good decision in choosing a lifelong parter". This is the wisdom of the world, not the wisdom that is from above. |
||||||
3019 | Will we recognize loved ones in heaven? | 1 Cor 13:12 | kalos | 2307 | ||
Having asked this question more than a month ago, I would now like to quote the best answer I've seen. It was posted on 04-02-2001 by Evangelist, who in turn quotes D.L. Moody who said, "Of course we will know each other in heaven. Do you think we will have less knowledge there than we have here on earth?" Thanks and a tip of the hat to Evangelist. | ||||||
3020 | Why does the NASB use "adequate" | 2 Tim 3:17 | kalos | 2272 | ||
Generally when the translators of the NASB chose one word over another in any given passage, it was because the chosen word was MORE LITERALLY ACCURATE than the other word. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 ] Next > Last [159] >> |