Results 3421 - 3440 of 3447
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Searcher56 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3421 | Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? | Dan 2:47 | Searcher56 | 6217 | ||
I am saying that whoever put that footnote in is incorrect. Who quoted Dan. 4:8. To me it is very clear in the NASB, Belteshazzar was Daniel's name. As I pointed out, he was given that name in Dan. 1:7. Since it is his heathen name, the passage cannot read 'the Spirit of the holy God.' It is not from studying the original, but, from letting the Scripture prove itself, by the context of the entire book. Acts 17:11 lets me check whatever is said. |
||||||
3422 | Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? | Dan 2:47 | Searcher56 | 6211 | ||
Ray ... resd my post to Hank. Also, I think your Daniel 4:8 marginal note is incorrect. Belteshazzar was Daniel's heathen name (Dan. 1:7). We see the reason he got his name. Steve |
||||||
3423 | How was Samuel called from the grave? | 1 Sam 28:7 | Searcher56 | 5970 | ||
The most prevalent view among orthodox commentators is that there was a genuine appearance of Samuel brought about by God himself. The main piece of evidence favoring this interpretation is 1 Chronicles 10:13-14: "Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD." The Septuagint reading of this text adds: "Saul asked counsel of her that had a familiar spirit to inquire of her, and Samuel made answer to him." Moreover, the medium must not have been accustomed to having her necromancies work, for when she saw Samuel, she cried out in a scream that let Saul know that something new and different was happening. That night her so-called arts were working beyond her usual expectations. Is Samuel's statement to Saul in 1 Samuel 28:15 proof that the witch had brought Samuel back from the dead? The message de-livered by this shade or apparition sounds as if it could well have been from Samuel and from God. Therefore, it is entirely possi-ble that this was a real apparition of Samuel. As to whether Samuel appeared physically, in a body, we conclude that the text does not suggest that he did, nor does Christian theology accord with such a view. But there can be little doubt that there was an ap-pearance of Samuel's spirit or ghost. The witch herself, in her startled condition, claimed that what she saw was a "god" ( loh m, 1 Sam 28:13) coming up out of the earth. The most probable interpretation of this term loh m is the "spirit" of a deceased person. This implies an authentic appearance of the dead, but one that did not result from her witchcraft. Instead, it was God's final means of bringing a word to a king who insisted on going his own way. Those who have argued for a psychological impression face two objections. The first is the woman's shriek of horror in 1 Samuel 28:12. She would not have screamed if the spirit had been merely Saul's hallucination, produced by psychological excitement. The second objection is that the text implies that both the woman and Saul talked with Samuel. Even more convincing is the fact that what Samuel is purported to have said turned out to be true! As for the demon impersonation theory, some of the same objections apply. The text represents this as a real happening, not an impersonation. Of course Satan does appear as "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14), but there is no reason to suppose that this is what is going on here. The conclusion is that God allowed Samuel's spirit to appear to give Saul one more warning about the evil of his ways. Source: Kaiser, Walter C. Jr, et. al. Hard Sayings of the Bible |
||||||
3424 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5960 | ||
You said, "Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience." There are examples of interpetation, like Daniel 8. But, in the previous chapter, the four beasts were not explained. Daniel was wondering about the 10 horns. Dis it mean something to him ... or his readers until the Roman Empire was divided into 10 sections? Steve |
||||||
3425 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | Searcher56 | 5957 | ||
Sorry for the confusion. Notice I say "IF" ... which means I do not believe the passage refers to the US / UK. I would want to know what those who say it does would say to the wings being plucked, etc. |
||||||
3426 | Difference between exegesis/eisogesis?i | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5894 | ||
Eisogesis reading into the text, rather than approaching the text with inductive principles. This is probably the most common (and dangerous) error of casual Bible students. It is even the error of many well-known evangelists. This means that a person approaches the Scripture with a pre-conceived idea and uses the Scripture to prove their point, even if the Scriptures have to be "bent" to make them fit. The exegesis of Scripture, which means allowing the truth to come out of the text without the filter of our own ideas. This means we approach to the Scriptures to learn what they say and mean, not to prove our own point. Steve |
||||||
3427 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5714 | ||
I did know the Church Of God says no music at all, or any church. Their emphasis is on singing the Psalms and other hymns based on the Scriptures. | ||||||
3428 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5711 | ||
To them it is a matter of principle rather than of expediency. They have sought out the correct answer to the all-important question: "Does Jesus Christ authorize the use of instruments of music in the worship of God?" From their investigation of the divine word, they have concluded that there is neither command, percept, nor example for this practice. See: Matthew 17:5; 28:18; John 14:26; 1 John 4:6. Every single New Testament reference to music in divine worship pertains to singing only: Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; 1Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12; James 5:13. |
||||||
3429 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5710 | ||
The Church of Christ does not have musical instruments ... To them it is a matter of principle rather than of expediency. They have sought out the correct answer to the all-important question: "Does Jesus Christ authorize the use of instruments of music in the worship of God?" From their investigation of the divine word, they have concluded that there is neither command, percept, nor example for this practice. See: Matthew 17:5; 28:18; John 14:26; 1 John 4:6. Every single New Testament reference to music in divine worship pertains to singing only: Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; 1Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12; James 5:13. |
||||||
3430 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5693 | ||
Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:38-39 do not mean immersion. Did John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River because there was much water there? The Bible speaks of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. Does this verse teach without question that Jesus went up out of the water, and, therefore, He must have been immersed? This verse does not speak of immersion. This verse says He went up out of the water. How must we understand this phrase? The Biblical rule is that we are to seek help from the Bible. Doing so, we come to Acts 8:38-39, where the Bible describes the water baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. We read there: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Notice that verse 39 speaks of coming up out of the water which is the very same phrase that describes Jesus going up out of the water. What does verse 38 say? It says, "they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." Whatever action the eunuch took was an exact duplicate of that which Philip took. They both went down into the water. To make sure that we have not misunderstood, the emphasis is added, both Philip and the eunuch. Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch. Such a conclusion, of course, makes no sense. God is simply teaching that there was a body of water, and that Philip and the eunuch both went down the bank into the water. There they stood ankle deep or knee deep (how deep is altogether unimportant), and Philip baptized the eunuch. Later in our study, we will see that the Bible suggests the mode of baptism, and it will not be immersion. Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch. Jesus had to be ceremonially washed before He could do the work of the High Priest. He was not only the Lamb that was offered, but He was also the High Priest. Do you recall that the priests were ceremonially washed before they ministered at the altar. Exodus 30:18-21: Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations. The priests hands and feet were washed. That was the washing Jesus had to experience before ministering at the altar of sacrifice. Thus, we would not in any way expect that Jesus was immersed when He was baptized. Read my Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10 post. BTW this is a minor point. |
||||||
3431 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5692 | ||
Read Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10 ... I'll go over these points again. As you study the Bible, forget waht man has taught you, study the Bible and pray that God will teach you the truth. Mark 7:4 translates baptizo into wash. "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables." Moreover, in Luke 11:38 we read: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner." In this passage, the word "wash" is the Greek word baptizo which also ordinarily is translated as "baptize." Likewise, in Hebrews 9:10 we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Verses clearly shows that the word "washing" is a correct translation. Furthermore, there is no implication of dipping or immersion. For example, "tables" (Mark 7:4) are not dipped or immersed to clean them. These passages, therefore, show us that in the Bible the word "baptize" means to wash or cleanse or purify. These washings of the Pharisees before dinner and the washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables are all related to the ceremonial cleansings of the Old Testament. This is intimated by the language of Luke 11:39-40, which immediately follows the verse dealing with Pharisees washing before dinner. Jesus says: And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? This agrees with what we read in Hebrews 9:10, which declares that these Old Testament washings (and the Pharisees were attempting to keep as perfectly as possible the Old Testament ceremonial laws), stood only as carnal ordinances. |
||||||
3432 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5624 | ||
Clearing up what I said ... Baptism does not mean immersion ... it means to wash or cleanse. I think it as our sins were washed away within us, we need to show the example on the outside. PS I am classified as a "Baptist" ... and have changed my mind on what I've been taught. I was limited to 5000 words and have a lot more. |
||||||
3433 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5622 | ||
I'll explain my post to Nolan as a reply, as well as here. Baptism does not mean immersion ... it means to wash or cleanse. There are non-English translations that say washings. The translater who insisted on saying that baptizo and its kin wash baptism got to leave the country. Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 do not refer to phyiscal water baptism. These refer to when we become Christians. Look at the context. Did we die to sin (Romans), or put off sin (Colossians) at the moment of salvation or later? |
||||||
3434 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5608 | ||
Hank read my post to Nolan ... the passages in Romans and Colossians do not refer to phyiscal baptism. | ||||||
3435 | What was Eve's sin? | Gen 3:6 | Searcher56 | 5355 | ||
We have a free will to chose, Paul told of the struggle in Romans 7:7ff. Sin and evil were around when Adam and Even sinned - Satan had a choice and chose evil. He wanted to be like God. Sin is a lethal influence ... Eve, then Adam did not have to fall. It was more letha for them, for they were perfect. We are born sinners. Is it any harder, or easier, to resist temptation today than it was for Adam and Eve? I think it is the same. Tho, we do have the written Word and all they had was walks with the Lord, and very few rules ... we have many more. Steve Butler |
||||||
3436 | Chosen by what method? | Acts 1:26 | Searcher56 | 5258 | ||
I am not saying we should to do ... but, we are not prevented for doing it. If a church chose to do it that way, it would be interesting. | ||||||
3437 | Is being "slain in the spirit" biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5247 | ||
I do not think being "slain in the spirit" is biblical. Were Daniel, John and maybe even Saul (Paul) slain? There were others like Moses, Joshua and Isaiah who experienced God, yet did not fall to the ground as a dead man, which apply to Daniel and John only. These two got up when the Lord touched them. | ||||||
3438 | How should be interpret Joshua 10:12-14? | Josh 10:12 | Searcher56 | 5117 | ||
Verse 13 says the sun stood still and the moon stopped. That is all the proof I need. | ||||||
3439 | Is speaking in tongues for today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5002 | ||
It is a sign for unbelievers, not us The tongues gift is speaking in a known language It did start in Acts 2 ... verse 6 says they heard them speak in their own tongue. 1 Cor. 14 is a great passage. Prophesy is a better gift. . |
||||||
3440 | Is speaking in tongues for today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5001 | ||
The tongues gift is speaking in a known language It did start in Acts 2 ... verse 6 says they heard them speak in their own tongue. Yes, 1 Cor. 14 is a great passage. Prophesy is a better gift. It is a sign for unbelievers, not us. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 ] Next > Last [173] >> |