Results 381 - 400 of 3591
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Are Reason and Obedience opposites? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82105 | ||
Earnest, Possibly I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems that you're advocating experience over the infallible Word of God? If you're not, I apologize. You state,"Reason is the cause for the chaos in Word Study" How so? Certainly we as Christians are not to "check our brains at the door" and toss reason to the wind? Further more you say "Any number of persons can sit in a congregation and receive different tailor-made messages from the heart of God personally to them." Could you possibly clarify with a scriptural basis or elaborate? Lastly, I'm not clear on your definition of Truth. You write "TRUTH is always received in our spirit first, and then revealed to our heart (head/ reason/ thinking)! It is what we KNOW/ HEAR, etc. that brings truth and unity!" Jesus said in John 14:6 the He is the way, the truth, and the life" and in John 17:17 He said "Sanctify them with truth, Thy Word is truth." How is it that what we know/hear, etc. brings truth and unity? Are you referring to the written Word or our interpretation/understanding of it? I don't quite follow. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
382 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82117 | ||
Dear Graceful, I for one would not say of Mark 16 "it's presence in scripture is an error." I believe it a matter of Biblical interpretation. We must certainly understand the context of the passage, and note who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and what is being spoken about. That Mark 16 is scripture is not in question, but rather is its' application today valid? I would not hold that its' command is still binding and therefore relevant today. We do not see as "normative"( and I emphasize this term)the casting out of demons, tongues, drinking of deadly poison, and miraculous healings. The problem with resurecting the dead (or resuscitations) is that we find few examples in scripture. Again, it's not normative! In the OT we have 1 Kings 17:17-23, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 13:21. In the NT we have Jesus Ministry of Matt. 9:24-25, Luke 7:12-15, John 11:43, and the apostles in Acts 9:36-41, 20:9-12. A total of 8 recorded instances. I would expect it to be in every book of the Bible ( and at that several times) for us to develop a doctrine. Would you not agree? Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
383 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82195 | ||
graceful, I'd like to offer comment on your "Authority OF BELIEVER PART 2". The Ephesians 6 passage is one of my favorite portions of scripture and a significant one at that. While you are correct to say that YOU is the implied subject of these verses, nowhere is it claimed or implied that WE are in authority. Where does that leave the sovereignty of God? We are "commanded" via the use of imperatives in Eph. 6, five times to do something. This is not an "authority" we are given, rather this is our expected action.These are: 1. To BE STRONG in the Lord and the power of His might; 2. PUT ON the whole armour of God; 3. TAKE UNTO you the whole armour of God; 4. STAND therefore, having your loins girt about with truth; 5. TAKE the helmet of salvation What I see is the initial focus on the Lord in vs. 10 to "be strong IN THE LORD and the power of HIS MIGHT!" I don't see these verses implying that WE have any authority outside of Him. To force this type of interpretation is to go beyond the intended meaning and focus of this passage! Further, the only "offensive" weapon indicated is in vs. 17 where we are commanded to TAKE the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is THE WORD OF GOD-not "authority". The Word of God is our weapon for doing battle with Satan along with prayer as indicated in vs. 18. It is not my attempt to "nit-pick" your interpretation given our obvious disagreements on this matter. Rather, it is an appeal to sound exegesis and fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation which I see sorely lacking here. This amounts to "eisegesis"- the reading into of scripture. Of this passage, Oswald Chambers has said "Paul takes the illustration of battle and applies it at once to what goes on in a saint's life; the whole meaning of taking the armour of God is for prayer. Prayer is the position the devil is struggling for; the struggle is around the position of prayer and the simplicity of prayer." May we be "Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." Speaking the truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
384 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82267 | ||
Hi Earnest, I appreciate your response, even knowing that we may not agree on this matter:-) "Is it really junkfood?" Again, in my humble, but studied opinion, I believe the majority of it is! "But if you are talking about results, ...fruit and works, I don't think you have anything on them. At least if you do, it would be good for public testimony to edify the brethren" I don't have the ostentacious success that they have, but I'm not promoting serious doctrinal error, either! I'm also not comparing myself. Monetary success and public appeal and popularity are not the sole measurement of fruit and works. Not all fruit or works are necessarily good or will withstand testing by fire (1 Cor. 3:12-15). Earnest, I can't and won't "edify" brethren that I believe to be apostate or heretical! "If the preaching is generally not to your liking... then do something about it." One thing I'm doing about it is to be part of the solution and not the problem by my "no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;" (Eph.4:14). I'm also mentoring others within my influence to be students of the Word through sound teaching and exegesis. I seek out and learn from other expositional teachers of the Word. Some are right here on this Forum! Television, though an extremely powerful medium, is not in my mind, the best source for teaching, studying, or learning the Word of God. We must still seek Him on our own through personal Bible study and prayer. Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
385 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82275 | ||
Earnest, Brother, I appreciate your spirit too:-) If your only issue is with my not edifying certain individuals, I can live with that:-) I believe that there is a difference between edification and judging. Also, I'm not so sure 1 Cor. 4:5 is dealing with that matter? I'm simply saying that I personally will not do such for these type of individuals. I don't think scripture speaks against this. Also, I didn't say Television is not a good idea! Rather, that I don't believe it's the best source of info vs. personal study. Hopefully that clarifies my views. Thanks again for your comments. Speaking The truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
386 | Are Reason and Obedience opposites? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82346 | ||
Earnest, I think we would be in agreement, brother! Communication is having both parties understanding each other. That's why I asked the questions I did. Misunderstanding occurs when we assume we know or hear what the other one is saying, when in fact we haven't. Blessings to you. BradK |
||||||
387 | Whose Son is He? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 82998 | ||
Bernie, What is your definition of a "reasonable" answer? I think, Ray, Hank, and Tim have given ample and reasonable evidence from scripture. "in what way is Jesus David’s son if Jesus is God?" Consider the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David in Matthew 1:1-17. Also note Luke 2:4 "Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David," "How does an immortal being come to the earth and become mortal?" The Incarnation! John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16. "That means he was not immortal in the first place!" The Gospel of John portrays the Diety of Christ. John 8:58, 20:28. It's been said, when the student is ready, the teacher appears! Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
388 | what verse in the bible has a 33 yr gap | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 84440 | ||
jap, These verses may be of help to you: Gn 46:15 Ex 6:18 Lv 12:4 2Sa 5:5 1Ki 2:11 1Ch 3:4 1Ch 29:27 Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
389 | Stokey or Stokeyhk? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 86794 | ||
Hank, If we're referring to the same individual, Stokeyhk was a JW I dialoged with last year- albeit unsuccessfully. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
390 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 87565 | ||
Dear Hank and Forum: To those of us who rightly question the validity of the NWT and the veracity of it's so-called translators( who remain unamed). Who exactly are they? Well, here is some rather interesting information. "Translators of the New World Translation The following list of translators of the New World Translation is a compilation from a variety of sources: Frederick W. Franz: Main translator. Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled "The New Testament--A course in grammar and translation." Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year. Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920. Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99. Franz writes in his autobiography: "What a blessing it was to study Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kensella! Under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek works, I also studied the classical Greek. I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades" (The Watchtower, May 1, 1987, p. 24). Franz gives the impression that the bulk of his Greek studies were "Bible Greek" under "Professor Kensella" and that classical Greek was secondary under "Dr. Joseph Harry." The opposite is true. As mentioned above, Franz only took one 2-hour credit class of "Bible Greek" but 21 hours of classical Greek. According to the course catalog of 1911, Arthur Kensella was not a professor of Greek, as Franz wrote, but an "instructor in Greek." Kensella did not have a Ph.D. and he therefore taught entry-level courses. Nathan H. Knorr: No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72. Milton G. Henschel: No training in biblical languages. Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Still living, age mid-80s. Albert D. Schroeder: No training in biblical languages. Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of "Gilead School" from 1942 to 1959. Still living, age 90. Karl Klein: No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96. George D. Gangas: No training in biblical languages. Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98. Franz was the only man capable of doing translation work. Gangas was a native Greek speaker, knew little of Koine Greek, and apparently helped out with a variety of non-translation tasks including reviewing the English grammar for continuity of expression. From all information published about him personally, one readily concludes that Knorr was the business administrator for the Translation Committee. Henschel might have been on it to take care of legal/secretarial matters. Schroeder and Klein did the copious footnotes (which included textual sources) and cross references and marginal notes, which in the original six volumes of the NWT were more extensive than in the 1984 edition. The NWT Committee has always been extremely secretive, and so information about who was on it has only trickled out of the Brooklyn headquarters as various staff members have left and revealed what they knew. Scant information has been published, other information has leaked by word of mouth." Source: www.freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
391 | What is Atonement Expiation? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 90134 | ||
Mel, Here are the answers to your question regarding Atonement and Expiation: "Atonement — This word does not occur in the Authorized Version of the New Testament except in Rom. 5:11, where in the Revised Version the word “reconciliation” is used. In the Old Testament it is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf. By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected. When speaking of Christ’s saving work, the word “satisfaction,” the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word “atonement.” Christ’s satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God. Christ’s work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by the punishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors. Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about. Christ’s mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fulness of blessing to men. The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred. It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence of God’s love to guilty men (John 3:16; Rom. 3:24, 25; Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9). The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Ex. 34:7; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2, 6; Rom. 3:5). This is God’s plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know. Expiation — Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be “covered” by vicarious satisfaction. The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God’s people, whereby he became “propitious” to them. The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (See PROPITIATION.)" Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996. You might want to also check bible.org or crosswalk.com as they have many additional resources that may be of help. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
392 | Can anyone give me more reasons? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 166557 | ||
Dear nijjhar, Your reply makes no sense! What are you referring to? BradK |
||||||
393 | So then, what is Hades? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 176439 | ||
Bibleteacher, Are you a JW? BradK |
||||||
394 | So then, what is Hades? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 176458 | ||
Dear Bibleteacher, Yes, it does matter. This Forum has specific guidelines- and a Doctrinal statement. JW doctrine is cultic and at odds with orthodoxy! BradK |
||||||
395 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 185406 | ||
Hello gkidder, Welcome to the Forum. You were responding to a post that is almost 6 years old. It's unlikely that the original poster is still active:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
396 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | BradK | 185460 | ||
Hello Tony, No need to apologize, my friend.You can repost your response as a question if you'd like to get feedback on it. This was a recent topic as of a couple of weeks ago. You can also use the "Search" function to view the threads on a particular topic. As an FYI- the SBF may differ from other "discussion forums", so it might be beneficial to review the Terms of Use and About Forum- if you haven't done so already:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
397 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | BradK | 115973 | ||
ischus, While I realise that the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy has been attacked by critics, there is solid evidence, both Externally and Internally that he alone is the author. Externally,The OT attributes Deuteronomy and the rest of the Pentateuch to Moses (Josh. 1:7, Judg. 3:4, 1 Kin. 2:3, 2 Kin. 14:6, Ezra 3:2, Neh. 1:7, Ps. 103:7, Dan. 9:11. Mal. 4:4). Internally, Deuteronomy includes about 40 claims that Moses wrote it. Read Deut. 31:24-26. And, Deuteronomy fits the time of Moses, not Josiah. It is generally agreed that Moses obituary in Chap. 34 was probably written by Joshua. The last 3 verses of the Pentateuch (34:10-12) can be properly viewed as an appropriate epitaph for this great man. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
398 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | BradK | 115985 | ||
ischus, I'll leave my response to these 2 points: 1. I never said anything about Welhaussen's Views, etc. ( I don't even know who he is); 2. So YOU say! What internal and external evidence has been ignored? Would you care to provide us with some? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
399 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | BradK | 116006 | ||
ischus, Well, no I didn't know what you already believed about the bible, that it is God's Word. But, you've clarified that point, and on that we can agree. Your "why" questions have been answered as far as I'm concerned. You still have not provided any conclusive Biblical evidence or support of scholars who would say otherwise. I'm only asking- reasonably- that if you truly believe what you're stating, then back it up with something other than your opinion:-) Is that fair? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
400 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | BradK | 116012 | ||
ischus, Let me say this: It's strictly YOUR choice to persue this topic or not! I'm not in agreement with you on debating the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy- or for that matter any other Canonical Books. As to the reference to religioustoerance.org. Don't waste my time, please! This is very liberal site that disputes essentially ALL of the Cardinal Doctrines of the Christian faith, Biblical Authority, the Diety of Christ, etc. This will be my final question and response to you, ischus: why would someone who claims to be "evangelical" and "conservative" hold to such views? Answer if you wish, but I have better persuits of my time:-) God Bless, and best wishes, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [180] >> |