Results 321 - 340 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | The Bible written in code ? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 144848 | ||
Bruce ::: Who better to tell us than the Author of Scripture about the nature of the Book He wrote? And He is as silent as the tomb on writing in codes! Penning God-breathed words, the Apostle John says that his gospel was "written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" [John 20:31]. John wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit in plain language -- the common, everyday Greek of his time -- and so did Paul the Apostle, who wrote that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" [2 Timothy 3:16,17]. ...... "That the man of God may be complete" by reading and study of Scripture, without codes, bodes ill for the garbage being dumped from the pens of writers such as Michael Drosnin, who wrote "The Bible Code" some seven years ago; and for Dan Brown who recently came out with "The Da Vinci Code." Drosnin's book is listed as non-fiction while Brown's is listed as fiction, but in essence they are both of them fiction, as are all of the genre of "code" books that have sprung up like weeds since Drosnin published his "The Bible Code" in 1998. Publishers and reviewers alike have used words like "stunning" and "explosive evidence" and "bombshell" to describe these "code" books, and the gullible public obviously have believed their hype, because the books have made the best-seller lists. But so have the Harry Potter tales, and where trustworthiness is concerned, the "code" books are no better guides to understanding the Bible than the Harry Potter tales are. If the purpose of these "code" books is to make money for the authors and publishers, they are by this measure highly successful and have achieved their goal. If, on the other hand, their purpose is to introduce the reader to a reliable new key with which to unlock heretofore hidden meanings of Scripture, they have failed dismally. I know not what all other Christians may think about the rash of "code" books, but this Christian joins a number of other believers who have called them utter nonsense, pure trash, warmed-over garbage. I read Drosnin's "The Bible Code" some few years ago. It didn't make sense to me then and makes no sense to me still that the eternal God of heaven and earth would wait around for some nerd hacking at his computer to reveal to the world the divine message that has been locked up in code for all eternity past. Grimm's Fairy Tales were never so grim as this! --Hank | ||||||
322 | Man and woman regard Marriage | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145405 | ||
harvest ::: What's your question, please? --Hank | ||||||
323 | where did the other people come from | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145475 | ||
Wal-Mart, I guess. | ||||||
324 | Ran down to place of security | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145477 | ||
Sorry, Jimmy, the Forum only does riddles on the third Saturday of the week following the first day after the second full moon. --Hank | ||||||
325 | are woman allow to preach in bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145557 | ||
Duplicate. | ||||||
326 | An indepth helping of the act of marriag | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145658 | ||
noodlehead ::: If your young friend claims to be such a hot-shot theologian, challenge him to compare notes with a seasoned pastor of an orthodox, Bible-preaching church. I agree with EdB: this young man is trying to justify his actions by twisting Scripture around to fit them. He needs personal contact with someone capable of setting him straight. Obviously he and his 16-year-old lady friend are still a bit damp behind the ears. --Hank | ||||||
327 | Seeking Bible version history chart | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145681 | ||
brazos ::: Type in the Google box these words: bible english translation history .... You may find among the selections what you are looking for .... and even a few bonuses. --Hank | ||||||
328 | Why the long threads on sexual topics? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145707 | ||
Greeting, justme ::: An excellent question/observation yours, and it is one that new and seasoned Forum users alike ought to pay some attention to. Kalos and EdB have posted excellent responses to this thread and need to be commended for their honesty and candor. I doubt that I can add much if anything of value to what these two good brothers have said. Clearly this Forum aims to be a place for Bible study and hence it should never be allowed to take on the appearance of a lurid soap opera or an advice column for persons with sex problems. ...... You ask specifically, justme, why it is that legitimate Bible study questions don't make nearly as big a splash as questions about masturbating or shacking up (my choice of words, not yours). :-) I rather suspect the answer may be found in Proverbs 23, which continues the study of contrasts between righteousness and wickedness begun in Proverbs 10. From 23:7 "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." ..... Civilizations have a way of aging and decaying. Once moral and upright, Greece then Rome fell prey to moral corruption and decay. They fell from within, victims of their own immorality. Western civilization is now in the process of crumbling from within, and the obsession with sex and all its trappings that we witness on this Forum is merely a reflection of the society we live in today. But we should not, we must not, permit this Forum to stray from its purpose which is true Bible study, not an expose of sexual problems and dysfuntions. Follow the guidelines of the Forum, I say, and think less about sex (there are, albeit this may come as a surprise to some, other things in life besides sex), and think more about the things that are listed in Philippians 4:8. God bless. --Hank | ||||||
329 | Why is Church full of pagan beliefs ? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 145964 | ||
swerv ::: The idea of this Forum is to ask questions of someone else, not answer one's own. If you knew the answer yourself, why did you ask? In this case, this reader finds the quality of the question and of the answer weighed in the balance and found wanting: the question assumes much; the answer says little and what it says is pure opinion, and it is totally bereft of Scripture references. You're getting off to a bad start on this Forum, my friend. Read the usage guidelines carefully, please, especially those that address the prohibition of pushing denominational biases. --Hank | ||||||
330 | passover offering you get 7 blessings? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 146239 | ||
manyapples ::: Perhaps it's Benny Hinn, not the Lord, who promises 7 miracles. :-) ..... Benny is apt to promise 7 -- or 70 -- miracles to anyone who will send in money. --Hank | ||||||
331 | Children are God's , not man's | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 147824 | ||
Uh-oh : Emmaus has responded with grace and wisdom: please ponder long and hard on what he has generously given you. In my home state of Arkansas the chicken business is big. Thousands of hens are maintained in huge houses for the purpose of laying eggs. In a sense I suppose you could call them egg donors. But you are not a chicken. You are a human being created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Use your body and your sacred procreative gifts, which are really not your own: they belong to God (1 Cor. 6:19), in accordance with God's design. From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture is clear: God instituted marriage between and man and a woman, commanded them to become one flesh, to be fruitful and multiply, and His word even contains instructions to parents on how to bring up their children. God has left no doubt whatever about what His will is regarding marriage and families. There is no evidence, not an iota, that it includes being an egg donor. In a word: Don't! --Hank | ||||||
332 | My God is good! | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 149856 | ||
umagumadog: Wonderful! Now what is the question? --Hank | ||||||
333 | "My God". "My God". Why? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 149860 | ||
Aixen: I'm not surprised that your fertile mind would come up with such a question :-) -- and a good one, at that. You have done admirable Bible research into this question yourself, and the only thing I can think of to add is this. The possessive modifiers 'my,' 'your,' and 'our' can be exclusive or they can be non-exclusive. When one speaks of a nation as 'his country' he is not claiming exclusive ownership or even ownership at all. What he is usually saying is that he is pledging his allegiance to his country -- that he feels a certain loyalty to, or an obligation of loyalty toward, the country of which he is a citizen. Similarly, by the use of the term 'my God' one is not expressing ownership by any means but is affirming his belief in God along with expressing his conceptual idea of his personal relationship with God. ..... I was astonished to learn that there are so many possessive modifiers applied to God in the King James Bible. ...... Of course, terms like 'my Bible' and 'my church' are also in common usage in contemporary English. I suppose they pass muster if one applies the same meaning to them as I have noted here concerning 'my God.' Still and all, I have trouble with 'my Bible' and 'my church' -- particularly the latter. Only Christ who gave Himself for the church has earned the right to say, "My church." I feel honored far beyond my ability to express it to be a member of His body, the church, of which He and He alone has sole and exclusive ownership. Aixen, thanks for your post. Soli Deo gloria! --Hank | ||||||
334 | 2 belivers 1 M, 1 F, being in same home | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 149942 | ||
Please say what you mean by "stay together." --Hank | ||||||
335 | anwer please | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 149946 | ||
KMG: Your question still lacks specificity. Since you show apparent reluctance to being specific, I'll risk being presumptuous by asking you whether you are alluding to having intimate sexual relations outside of marriage? If that's it, it's wrong. It's among the carnal sins that the Bible calls sexual immorality or fornication. You asked for Scripture and here's some: Read Acts 15:20; Romans 1:28-32; 1 Corinthians 6:13,18 and 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3. ..... When a single female and a single male spend week-ends together in the privacy of an apartment, it is possible, I suppose, that no intimacy will occur -- but is it likely? And is it prudent and wise for a Christian man and woman to expose themselves to this sort of temptation? Even if no immoral conduct is involved, does this not open up the possibility of diluting your witness to others? Review the words about temption in the prayer the Lord taught His disciples in Matthew 6, the prayer commonly called the Lord's Prayer. If you are looking for scriptural sanction for your behavior, you will not find it. --Hank | ||||||
336 | Does God have wings? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150192 | ||
MoreThanUseless: Does God have wings. Yes, the Bible does picture God as having wings in several passages, e.g. Ruth 2:12, Ps. 36:7 and Ps. 57:1, but we must never give a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms. .... The Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physcial features like His human or animal creation -- in spite of what Kenneth Copeland teaches about God: that He is about 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. ..... John Calvin said that God talks to us in baby talk, and anthropomorphic descriptions were part of that baby talk meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus taught that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). God is not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deut. 4:12). God is God and not a man (see Hosea 11:9). ...... God is anthromorphised in a number of ways in various passages of Scripture. In Exodus 33:24, for example, God himself speaks of His hand, back, and face. In Ezekiel 16:8, God uses the descriptive term, "I spread my wing over you." Is God anthropomorphising Himself in this way so that Jersalem will think He is a chicken? No, He is clothing His language in human terms so that human beings will be able better to understand Him and His message. A wise mother would not think of speaking to her toddler in a complex speech pattern or using an advanced vocabulary that she might use in speaking to an educated adult. She speaks to her toddler in language that he is capable of understanding. She talks to him in baby talk. And that, as Calvin has said, is how God talks to His children. --Hank | ||||||
337 | How many times is love in the bible. | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150194 | ||
Jacquie: Now that we know, thanks to Tim Moran's research, the number of TIMES that the Bible uses the word 'love,' why don't we assign ourselves the task of discovering the number of different WAYS it uses 'love'? Good starting points might be these: (1) the love of Christ, (2) the love of God, (3) the command to love one another, (4) the command to love the Lord your God, (5) the command to love your neighbor as yourself, (6) the command to love your enemies, (7) and the command to love not the world or the things in the world. And in our materialistic culture, the saints should never allow themselves to forget that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (2 Tim. 6:10). --Hank | ||||||
338 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150225 | ||
Cannon45: __BEST BIBLE VERSION: PART 1__ It always thrills my heart to hear anyone make any serious inquiry about any aspect of Scripture, because it indicates an interest in God's word -- and this is good! .... In regard to your question about Bible translations (versions), it might be helpful to state at the beginning that, objectively, there is no "best" version. There are, to be sure, good versions and bad versions. And there are favorite versions. But just because one man favors a certain version over all others does not mean that the one he favors is necessarily the best or the most accurate or even the most readable. All it means is that the one he chooses as his favorite is his favorite, and human beings tend to pick favorites for any number of reasons; and often they are subjective ones, whether one is willing to admit it or not. .... If one is looking for a perfect translation, he will not be able to find it. The only perfect record of Scripture existed in the original manuscripts, called autographs, none of which is extant today. So what we have are ancient manuscripts, some older than others, which are copies of copies that were made of the autographs, and these manuscripts do not always agree to the letter with one another. But the differences, minor and comparatively insignificant, do not affect to a degree worthy of serious concern the wondrous God-breathed message of the Scriptures. It has been observed that it is probably just as well that the original autographs -- the actual, physical documents which were written by the hand of some 40 men of God under the inspiration of His Spirit -- have not been preserved, for it they were, they could themselves become objects of worship leading to idolatry. ..... So, let's explore versions briefly. Not many years ago (certainly within my lifetime) no one ever asked "Which version is best?" There was a perfectly good reason for this. The King James Version was, for all intents and purposes, the only version in town for English-speaking Protestants. There were a few other versions around back then, in the 1930's and '40's, but none of them attained anything approaching the popularity and acceptance of the KJV. The King James was "the" Bible that preachers preached from, teachers taught from, and Protestants at large read from and memorized. For most, anything but the KJV was not really God's word. And a remnant of this sentiment exists still among a relatively small but highly vocal segment of Bible readers who have come to be called King James Onlyists. The King James is still the excellent translation that it has been for nearly 400 years, but for reasons other than the King James Onlyists usually give. ..... So how does one go about choosing a translation? While there are no hard and fast rules to which everyone would agree, I would like to set down here a few criteria in question form which far more scholarly people that I am hold to be of value. (1) Is the version faithful to the best of the ancient Bible manuscripts: does it render into English a transparency of the ancient documents, i.e., so far as is practicable, does it mirror in English the actual words of the original, or does it attempt to restate in English what the translators interpret as the meaning of the original? (2) Is the version translated into English that is reasonably clear and unambiguous: can I understand the language? (3) Was the version translated by a team of conservative scholars who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or is it the work of one person, or by a cult group that perverts Scripture through deliberate mistranslation? (4) Is it a loose paraphrase that takes huge liberties with the Bible text? ..... You observed that what you hear quoted most frequently is the KJV. I don't find this true in my neck of the woods. More and more I'm hearing quotations from other versions as well, and as time goes by I believe we may expect to see more of this. The KJV is nearly 400 years old and even though it is showing clear signs of linguistic obsolescence, it remains still a revered and trusted translation. I would be least among those who would toss it aside. Still and all, the purpose of any translation is, or should be, to make God's word available and understandable to a reader in his own language, the contemporary language that he speaks and understands. All living languages are in a constant state of change. Locutions that were perfectly clear to English-speaking peoples in 1611 are, many of them, foreign and significantly obscure in our time. There is an array of good translations available today. One should never limit himself to one translation. As beautiful and poetic, as revered and time-honored, as the KJV is, one should not adopt it exclusively for any reason, least of all for the false and inane notion that it is, as a translation, "inspired and inerrant." (More to follow in Part 2). --Hank | ||||||
339 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150227 | ||
Cannon45: __BEST BIBLE VERSION, PART 2__ For what it's worth, here's an alphabetical listing of the versions I use most frequently: Amplified Bible; English Standard Version (ESV); King James Version (KJV); New American Standard Bible (NASB); New International Vesion (NIV); and New King James Version (NKJV). My list is by no means exhaustive. There are other good versions. And there are is a growing number of of bad translations too. Before I purchase or use a translation, I always make it a point to read as widely as possible about it, asking such questions as, Who are the translators and what views do they have about the God-breathed inerrancy of Scripture? What is their translation philosophy: word-for-word, loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between (dynamic equivalency)? What do conservative Bible scholars and evangelical preachers and teachers think of this version? Do I like the style and am I confortable with the overall quality of this version? Do I find it generally clear or are some passages hopelessly obscure or ambiguous? Do it avoid slangy, folksy syntax? Does it make extensive use of ephemeral colloquialisms that may seem chic and faddish today but are not nearly as likely to endure as long as standard English. The "Cotton Patch" version is the best archetype of this kind of assault on both Scripture and the English language that I know of. And the "New World Translation" stands alone in its deliberate efforts to distort and pervert Scripture in order to promote and attempt to justify cultic heresies. ..... Finally, while I believe it an excellent idea to avail oneself of serveral good translations, I also recommend highly the choosing of one version as a "home base" with which one becomes most familiar and from which one memorizes Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
340 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150360 | ||
NYP: Yes, it is. By the way, if you'd like to read more about the TNIV from all points of view, go to Google and type in the two words, TNIV criticism ..... The battle over the TNIV rages on. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [114] >> |