Results 301 - 320 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | How many Gospels record the feedings | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 182247 | ||
Duplicate question. | ||||||
302 | How many days had Lazarus been in the to | John 11:17 | Hank | 182245 | ||
Luv - Your answer is in John 11:17, but let me ask you, are these "homework" questions? It certainly seems so, and if they are, you should be digging out the answers for yourself instead of looking to the members of this Forum to do it for you. The answer to the question about how long Lazarus had been in the tomb before Jesus arrived in Bethany is so easy that a sixth-grade child who knows how to use a Bible concordance or Bible dictionary should be able to answer it without any trouble. We aren't trying to run you off from using SBF, but we are urging you to research simple questions like this one for yourself. If you're engaged in a Bible study class, we most assuredly commend you for it and, again, we encourage you to do a little mental spade work yourself. You'll be better off for it if you will. --Hank | ||||||
303 | who wrote about Jesus death 700 yrs prio | Is 53:6 | Hank | 182243 | ||
Dear Luv - The conditions stipulated in your question are met in Chapter 53 of the Old Testament book that the "Prince of Prophets" Isaiah wrote. But I hasten to add that by no means does Chapter 53 exhaust the number of Messianic prophecies that Isaiah wrote or, for that matter, that other Old Testament writers were inspired to write. --Hank | ||||||
304 | Euphrates (Gen 2:14) | Gen 2:14 | Hank | 182068 | ||
xina - I rather doubt that you're "missing anything" in your reading of the rivers of Genesis 2. The descriptions of the rivers and the locations mentioned reflect pre-flood geography, now dramatically altered, making uncertain the locations of some of the places mentioned in the text. The remarkable thing is that the Hiddekel (post-flood Tigris) and the Euphrates still flow, though their course is likely not the same as it was in the days of Eden before Noah's flood. But it underlines in my thought the reminder that the Bible is not a piece of fiction nor an allegorical fantasy trip of some sort, but a real book about real people, places and things, revealed by the very breath of the real and true God of heaven and earth. See 2 Timothy 3:16. In like manner, our faith is not founded on a hunch or a puff of air, but in a real Person -- Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who for us human beings and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; he rose from the dead the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and from there He will come to judge the living and the dead. The Christian does not look to myth, philosophy or good works for his salvation, nor follow the teachings of a founder long dead, but to the grace of God through faith in the living Savior, His Son, Jesus Christ. --Hank | ||||||
305 | What or who are the Nephilim? | Gen 6:4 | Hank | 182065 | ||
Alexis - Welcome and thanks for your question. There are scores of entries in our archives on the subject of the Nephilim. Please use the search box and type in the key word, which is Nephilim. Additionally, you may find the article at the following link helpful: http://www.gotquestions.org/Nephilim.html --Hank | ||||||
306 | What does giant mean? | Ps 7:11 | Hank | 181886 | ||
Big. | ||||||
307 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | Hank | 181760 | ||
shing - Chances are that "your Bible" and "my Bible" share a common bond, because "my Bible" also is decidedly monotheistic from Genesis to Revelation. But it also teaches trinitarianism, or the triunity of God, and from your post I gather that you could use some tutoring on this biblical doctrine. For starters, why not visit the following link: http://www.gotquestions.org/trinitarianism.html .... Now let's look at a passage of Scripture together. Turn to Matthew 3:13-17 -- go ahead, use "your Bible" if you wish -- and you will see Matthew's account of Jesus' baptism. Look at three segments with me, please. I'm using the KJV, but use whatever version you customarily use. (1) "And Jesus, when he was bapized" -- This is God the Son, right? (2) "and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him." -- This is God the Holy Spirit, don't you agree? (3) "And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." -- This clearly is God the Father, isn't that true? ..... So here in two verses of Scripture we have one of the clearest manifestations in all of the Bible of the Triunity. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT that all three Persons of the Trinity are involved here on the occasion of Jesus' baptism. The Son is baptized, the Spirit descends and the Father speaks. ..... Additionally you may wish, as Kalos has pointed out, to avail yourself of a multitude of posts on the Trinity that are in this Forum's archives. And, finally, I'd strongly recommend that you get yourself a good book on systematic theology -- Wayne Grudem's comes readily to mind -- and study it. I've discovered that it is far better and infinitely wiser to avail oneself of the wisdom of saints, who have done an enormous amount of trail blazing, many of them long before I was born, than to fly by the seat of my pants and be forced to reinvent the wheel every day. We see all too prevalently in our time pitiful examples of men and women who have forsaken orthodoxy and in attempting to "reinvent the wheel" on their own, they have created a monster of deception, gutting the church of sound doctrine and replacing it with various brands of "feel good religion." --Hank | ||||||
308 | What author in the Bible influences you? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 181739 | ||
God. the Father; God, the Son; God, the Holy Spirit! --Hank | ||||||
309 | Inspiration and Authority of the Bible | Ps 119:105 | Hank | 181725 | ||
Kevin - Thanks for submitting your concerns about various and sundry aspects of the word of God, chiefly of the Canon. Your post has all the ear marks of a sincere inquiry and has an honest ring to it. I see no attempt on your part to denigrate the Bible but I do hear a plaintive cry for help. ...... Kevin, your concerns are so complex and cover such a broad spectrum that I fear no one will be able to do full justice to them on this SBF, even though we are blessed with a number of gifted contributors. I feel almost sure that some of the other members of this company will respond to your appeal with messages far better than anything I can offer, but please allow me to make three suggestions to you. (1) You state that you are a believer, so go to God in prayer, Kevin. Tell Him your troubles and pray for His help. (2) Read and study the Bible with a vigor like you've never done before in your life. You mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16 in your post. This verse and the one that immediately follows it say what they mean and mean what they say. Memorize them or copy them on a card, carry them around with you, and meditate on them every day. (3) Get yourself a copy of a book by Josh McDowell called "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict." It will answer many if not all of the questions that are troubling you. ...... But don't just do nothing! Get busy. Pray. Read and study the Bible in earnest. And soak up all the good stuff you'll find in Josh's book. It's a big, fat book of 760 pages and should keep your mind off your doubts while you're learning that your doubts are groundless anyway. :-) I do wish you well, Kevin, and I've already prayed for you. --Hank | ||||||
310 | The Bible KJV | Matt 28:19 | Hank | 181714 | ||
Shing - A perusal of Scripture will introduce you to the fact that the members of the Triunity have various names. What is meant in this passage is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Let's not exegete the prepostion 'of' in your question by assigning to it an arbitrary meaning that the context does not support! --Hank | ||||||
311 | what does that mean | Prov 18:21 | Hank | 181676 | ||
Octela - By your asking what"that" means, I infer you are referring to Proverbs 18:21. Solomon is pointing out that the tongue has enormous capabilities for good, but it has great potential for evil also. In the New Testament the book of James, which is reminiscent of the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, sheds additional light on the tongue which, says James, "no man can tame" it being "an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." Read James 3:6-10. --Hank | ||||||
312 | what does that mean | Prov 18:21 | Hank | 181675 | ||
Octela - By your asking what"that" means, I infer you are referring to Proverbs 18:21. Solomon is pointing out that the tongue has enormous capabilities for good, but it has great potential for evil also. In the New Testament the book of James, which is reminiscent of the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, sheds additional light on the tongue which, says James, "no man can tame" it being "an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." Read James 3:6-10. --Hank | ||||||
313 | Sorry...first timer here. | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 181674 | ||
The Matthew 18:15-17 passage about church discipline should be read in light of the parable of the lost sheep in vv. 12-14. The goal is restoration. The 6:1-6 passage of Paul's first Corinthian letter treats of the problems of litigation in heathen courts. The two passages are related in a general way perhaps, but I'd hesitate to call them parallel passages by any means. I'll reserve comment on the last segment of your question because I'm not clear what you're asking. Perhaps someone else will be and can contribute something worthwhile to the conversation. --Hank | ||||||
314 | malkisedak | Luke 24:51 | Hank | 181660 | ||
Thomas - I presume you are asking about the ascension of the risen Christ. See Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9. --Hank | ||||||
315 | Matt. 18 Mediation or Christian Hearing? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 181655 | ||
You inserted a great deal of material between your introductory "Before I ask my question" phrase and the end of your post, but I, like Kalos, can't find a question in your "question." However, from all the involved entanglements to which you refer, I rather think that this Forum is neither designed for or equipped to deal with these kinds of specific and obviously personal problems involving your church members, your pastor and you and your family. Having no knowledge of your church, its organization, denominational affiliation or polity or how it customarily handles disputes -- or even a clear picture of all the circumstances surrounding the crucible -- I find myself most reluctant to offer specific advice or suggest any solution. In my considered opinion it is inappropriate to ask and unrealistic to expect a Study Bible Forum such as this to provide a solution to this sort of thing. Such is not the aim and mission of Lockman's SBF. --Hank | ||||||
316 | What are Pauline verses? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 181580 | ||
rod - If "Pauline epistles" is your meaning, you'll find them listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles --Hank | ||||||
317 | Which version to memorize | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 181578 | ||
Anotherview - I'd have to go along with my colleagues Doc and Kalos and say that merit lies in memorizing a translation more modern than the centuries-old King James Bible, although it saddens me to say so, because the King James is such a lovely rendering in English of the ancient manuscripts. But the aim of language is, above all, to convey the thoughts in the mind of the author to the mind of the reader as efficiently and as accurately as possible, and for most modern readers some of the modern translations are better vehicles for that now than the older models are. The King James once was a fresh new translation, but much has happened to the English language since 1611. Even before then, there was a time when Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" was easily understood by any literate reader of English, but the "Tales" in the original language of Chaucer is practically unreadable today without extensive training in the English that Chaucer knew. ...... So, having attempted to establish the need to use a modern translation for memorization (and peradventure, for reading and study also), we should address the question, "Which version from among an ever growing number of versions shall we choose?" I confess to a decided bias against the paraphrased versions (some of them call themselves dynamic equivalence versions, but they are all in some measure paraphased versions). Instead of translating as nearly as possible a transparency of the ancient manuscripts, that is, a word-for-word translation (e.g. NASB), the paraphrased (dynamic equivalence, e.g. NIv) versions attempt to convey in their versions a thought-for-thought "equivalence." That is to say, they presume to tell the reader what the author meant by what he said instead of telling him what the author actually did say. This method not only places on the translator an enmormous responsibility to "get it right," but it opens wide the gates of opportunity (if not actual temptation) for the translator to insert his bias, his opinion, and his own doctrinal points of view. Thus, I would never recommend that a paraphrased version be used for serious study and certainly not for memorization. This narrows the field considerably, because so many of the modern versions are nothing more than paraphrases, some wildly so. We then have remaining the NASB, NKJV, ESV and perhaps HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible). Of these the NKJV is the only one that follows the traditional text (sometimes referred to as Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus) for its translation of the New Testament. The NKJV has preserved much of the flow as well as the poetic and literary qualities of the KJV. The ESV, a remake of the Revised Standard Version, is essentially a literal translation of excellent literary quality written in clear modern English that I find pleasing to read. The NASB is a fine translation, perhaps a shade or two more literal than either the NKJV or the ESV, but falls somewhat behind the NKJV and the ESV in literary quality. As for the HCSB, I'm not particularly keen on it personally, though I have nothing specific to say against it. Some of the turns of phrase just don't "float my boat," but that is merely my subjective feeling about the translation, nothing more. The language is generally contemporary and reasonably clear, but it simply doesn't stir me the way the old King James does, or to a slightly lesser degree, the way the New King James and the English Stanard and New American Standard versions do ...... I'm like Kalos in that I began my memorization efforts back when the KJV was really the only version in town, and I, being even older than Kalos, have traveled much too far down the pike to think of trying to convince my reluctant little gray brain cells that it's time for them to clean house of all the King James verses that they have faithfully filed away for so long a time and begin the formidable task of replacing them with another version. I should be most unwise to ask them to undertake so prodigious an enterprise, for fear that they would rise up in sheer protest and refuse to function at all! ..... I believe the Bible and the Bible says (in the King James Version, by the way), "Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee" (Psalm 119:11). Therefore it not only behooves the follower of Jesus Christ to store up as much of the word of God as possible in his memory, but it is also one of the exquisite joys of life to be able to recall portions of God's word and reflect upon them in times of laughter or tears, work or play. In good times or bad, sunny days or rainy days, God's precious word is always a treasure beyond measure. ..... I hope that the responses to your question will help you to select a translation for your memory work and spur you to begin a life-long journey of committing portions of God's word to memory. --Hank | ||||||
318 | Psalms 23 | Phil 4:1 | Hank | 181577 | ||
Mae - Nothing ever written about Psalm 23 that I know of is more senstive or more lovely than Phillip Keller's little book, "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23." As a young man Keller spent some eight years making his living as a sheep rancher. He knows sheep and shepherding and weaves his first-hand experience masterfully into the fabric of this meditation on the beautiful Psalm 23. Written by a shepherd who knew the Shepherd, and by a shepherd who was also a sheep of the Shepherd. It opened my heart and mind to an understanding and appreciation of this best-known of all Psalms in ways that I'd never dreamed of before. Highly recommended. The book is still in print and is readily available at low cost at on-line sources and book stores. --Hank | ||||||
319 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Heb 9:27 | Hank | 181349 | ||
Robert, two things come to mind in view of your question. (1) There are indeed traditions which preach and practice praying for the dead. (2) This doctrine and this practice are not to be found in Scipture. ...... I could expand on this, but can find no cogent reason for additional exposition. Someone else on the Forum may incline to add additional remarks. --Hank | ||||||
320 | Church for believers only? | Acts 2:39 | Hank | 181348 | ||
Hello, Azure. The word "church" is so bandied about these days and used so loosely that one never can be sure what the user of the word really is saying. Here in the western world at least, the word "church" has come to be used more of a building than anything else. But this meaning is foreign to the sense in which the New Testament uses the word. When, for example, the apostle Paul speaks of the church at a certain place, his meaning invariably is people, not a building. And the people Paul calls the "church" are the called out ones, the regenerate believers, who collectively comprise the church. And, quite unlike secular organizations, the church is not something one joins. On the contrary it is an organism to which God adds those who are being saved. (cf Acts 2:47). Thus in the sense in which "church" is used in Scripture, it is solely and absolutely "for" believers. Perhaps a more accurate way to state the matter is this: The church IS believers, born-again followers of Christ, and exclusively that. Claims to church membership are groundless and pointless unless the claimant is a regenerate follower of Jesus Christ. A person could "join" and have his name entered on the membership lists of a thousand congregations and still be as lost as a goose in a snow storm. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [114] >> |