Results 41 - 60 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | In what ways? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 142666 | ||
Greetings Angel3! In what ways to 'we' "start with oursleves and work 'up' to God"? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
42 | What Cities are Refered to in Jer. 4:26? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8257 | ||
Greetings Heir of God! Let me state up front that I am not an admirer of Benny Hinn, so you know where I am coming from. To me, Benny Hinn's teaching is a good example of how wild speculation becomes accepted without regard to the context of Scripture. Look at Jer. 4:23-26: "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone. 24 I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. 25 I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. 26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger." The questions that must be answered in looking at a passage like this are: 1) What is the context? 2) What is the time frame? 3) What cities are mentioned? The context of Jer. 4 is clear. The Babylonians are coming in from the north to attack Judah (Jer. 4:4-6). This attack is part of God's punishment for Judah's sin and rebellion. The time frame of Jer. 4:23-26 is the near future, not the distant past. The cities mentioned in Jer. 4:26 refer to the cities of Judah, not ancient Demon cities. Jer. 4:23-26 is simply a passage (in an apocalyptic style) describing the near future destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. I would lovingly urge you to avoid Benny Hinn. His doctrine and theology are dangerously flawed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
43 | Cities of Judah or Cities of Demons? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8347 | ||
Greetings Heir of God! Thank you for such a polite response! If I may, allow me to deal with two of your points (the context of Jer. 4 and Benny Hinn's ministry.) 1) The context of Jer. 4. The word town is used 3 times in Jer. 4 (.vv. 7, 26, and 29.) The context makes it very clear that the towns refered to our in Judah. Verse 5 talks about warning Judah and Jerusalem. The warning is about destruction coming from the north (v. 6) in the form of a destroyer of nations who will lay waste to their land and ruin their cities (v. 7). Verse 8 tells them to lament God's wrath on them. Verses 9-10 talk about the false prophets who said that Judah would have peace when even now the sword is at their throats. Verse 16 talks about a besieging army from the north which is raising a war cry against the cities of Judah. Verse 20 talks about the land lying in ruins. Why or how, in light of this context, would Jer. 4:23-26 suddenly change meaning and refer to cities in exitistance long before Adam? Jer. 4:23-26 is clearly an apocolyptic description of God's judgement upon Judah. There is no mention of demons. There is no mention of a time before Adam. However, there is constant mention throughout Jer. 4 of Judah and her cities. The problem I have with Benny Hinn is exactly this kind of teaching. There is not a shred of evidence to support what he is saying. But the problem even goes beyond this one issue. His theology is constantly this messed up. I wouldn't trust anything he says on any issue. 2) Concerning messengers of God: There are many "messengers" with whom I don't agree on every point, but they are solid in their theology and ministry. However, I believe that Benny Hinn is a complete fraud. I don't say that lightly. If you are interested, we can examine his theology point by point. I only say this to you (and to others reading on this forum) because I believe this man is dangerous to the faith. Even if we don't agree about the man, I appreciate your positive attitude. I look forward to your response. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
44 | How far would you go in a translation? | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 32782 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! In light of the recent discussion about the new TNIV, I thought it would be interesting to get everyone's feedback on this question. Is it best to be woodenly literal when traslating or is it best to attempt to put the original language into it's English equivalent? There are many passage where even very literal translations will disagree, simply because the original language leaves out words, implies words, or uses constructions which are extremely difficult to understand. These are not the issue of my question. I am simply curious as to where we draw the line. For example: Example 1: Matt. 1:18 literally says of Mary, "...she was found in belly having of the Holy Spirit". Most translations say that "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit". Would it be better or worse to simply say: "...It was discovered that she was pregnant." Example 2: John 6:47 literally says, "Amen Amen, I say to you, 'He who believes has life eternal'". The "he who" is the literal translation of the masculine pronoun associated with the participle "believing". Clearly this is a universal passage, which does not refer to only those of a masculine gender. So, would it be better to translate this passage as: "Everyone who believes" or "All who believe" rather than "He who"? My reason for questioning is simply to get your thoughts on how far we should go in our attempts to make a translation understandable. I am not defending or condemning the TNIV at this point, since I haven't read any of it yet - and may not! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
45 | Son or son? Holy Spirit or holy spirit? | Gen 1:26 | Morant61 | 65389 | ||
Greetings Zerotheory! Did you intentially write 'son' and 'holy spirit'? Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God? Your answer to these questions would help us to understand where you are coming from with your questions. The fact that the other members of the Godhead have not yet been mentioned does not mean that they did not exist. Much of God's revelation to man is progressive in nature. For example, those in the Old Testament did not fully understand the sacrifical system. They did not know that ultimately, the 2nd Person of the Trinity would be the perfect sacrifice. God revealed this to mankind over thousands of years. In the same way, the nature of the Godhead has never been fully understood. God revealed Himself first as Father. Later, He reveals Himself in the 2nd Person as the Son. Finally, He reveals Himself in the 3rd Person as the indwelling Holy Spirit. We still don't fully understand, and probably never will :-), the nature of the Godhead. Yet, Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about events for which he was not present, uses a plural pronoun in reference to God. Is this a full revelation of the Trinity? Of course it is not, but it is a first hint. In combination with the rest of the teachings of Scripture, we discover that Jesus was also present at creation. In fact, John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, that Christ was the active agent in creation. So, if you can clarify your position and/or understanding, it would help us to understand how to answer your questions. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
46 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | Morant61 | 115910 | ||
Greetings Bstudent! Exactly how does God's knowledge of future events preclude freewill? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
47 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | Morant61 | 115911 | ||
Greetings Bstudent! Exactly how does God's knowledge of future events preclude freewill? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
48 | Can we change eternity after death? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 11037 | ||
Greetings Good Samaritan! Thanks for the response! I still do not believe that Scripture teaches that people can accept or reject Christ after death. This seems to be what you are saying! If I have misunderstood you please let me know! The evidence from Scripture seems very strong that a persons "fate" is set at death. Consider the following evidence. 1) Heb. 9:27 says, "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," 2) The thief on the cross was told by Jesus "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43). 3) Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - Phil. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:8. 4) Finally, in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man desperately wanted relief from his suffering but was told, "And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’" This would definitely indicate that upon death, a person's eternal destiny is sealed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
49 | Pologomy Allowed? | Ex 21:10 | Morant61 | 102398 | ||
Greetings Michael! Where exactly does the Bible say that pologomy is allowed? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
50 | Was God morally wrong? | Lev 26:6 | Morant61 | 16072 | ||
Greetings Sir! I asked you some questions later in the thread, but I did want to deal with your last statement. You said: "I understand where EdB and many others are comming from on this issue, but I believe that no matter how "right" our motivation is, it is still "wrong" to kill another human being whom God has created." As I understand your position, you believe that the God did command the death penalty in the OT, but that system has changed. If this is the case, how could it be "wrong" to kill another human being if God did at one time command it? Was it wrong then? Is it just wrong now? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
51 | Question of Context? | 2 Chr 7:14 | Morant61 | 17527 | ||
Greetings John! I just came across your discussion with Steve a few minutes ago. May I interject at this point (funny question since I will already done so by the time you read this)? :-) I agree with you (see my response to Steve and Lionstrong higher up on this thread) that the Old Testament is inspired and relevant. However, I would question your second point in your post to Steve. You wrote: "Context is determinative of word meaning. But I submit that you do not use the "rules" of language in everyday conversation in the way you are trying to apply it to your Bible. For example, when you talk about "praying" you do not attempt to distinguish between its meaning today and prayer 3 millennia ago." Let me give you an example. Suppose I overheard you telling Steve that you would give him a million dollars! (By the way, if you have that kind of money, I could use some!) Would it be appropriate for me to believe that your statement also applied to me? As I pointed out to Steve and Lionstrong, I think they both have valid points which can be carried too far. Steve is correct that context is vital. This promise was addressed to Solomon about Israel in a specific time and circumstance. Thus, we cannot take it as a direct promise for anyone else under any circumstances. The danger though is to take this position to the extreme that the Old Testament means nothing to us today. However, I think you and Lionstrong are correct in that there is a principle here. Nations that seek God will be blessed. But, the danger here is that we take every promise in the Old Testament as being directly applicable to us today. There is a distinction between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament points forward to the cross. The New Testament points back to the cross. The Law has been fulfilled and we are no longer bound by it. But, there is a host of witnesses in the Old Testament who have much to say to us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
52 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115700 | ||
Greetings Ischus! You said in a previous post that you believed that the Bible is God's Word. If you do not believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, then in exactly what way is the Bible the Word of God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
53 | KJV or Greek Manuscripts? | Ps 4:1 | Morant61 | 124403 | ||
Greetings Bruce! Nice try! :-) However, I am not the one making the claim. You are, hence you need to defend it. So, if you would cite a couple of examples that you think demonstrate that the KJV is more reliable than the NKJV, we can then look at the manuscript evidence to see if they back up the claim or not. Now, since you have finally identifed the KJV as the standard, allow me to ask you this question. If the manuscript evidence differs from the KJV, which should the translators today base their decisions upon - the KJV or the original manuscripts? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
54 | Is there a v. that mandates prostration? | Ps 63:4 | Morant61 | 14336 | ||
Greetings Steve! I understand that "proskuneo" refers to prostrating oneself before someone or something. However, where is there any Scripture that commands this to be the only position for worship? I don't recall any, but I could be wrong! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
55 | Where does Scripture say this? | Ps 102:16 | Morant61 | 100319 | ||
Greetings Candy Lee! Exactly where does the Bible say that Jesus is Michael? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
56 | Evidence for Aramaic? | Prov 5:1 | Morant61 | 178777 | ||
Greetings Edwin! Do you have any evidence that all of the NT, with the possible exceptions of Luke and Acts were written in Aramaic? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
57 | Isn't Prophecy a Spiritual Gift? | Isaiah | Morant61 | 20742 | ||
Question....................................... Greetings Casiv! You said in your posts that there are no more prophets! How do you justify that statement in the light of 1 Cor. 14:1-6 (and other Scriptures)? 1 Cor. 14:1-6 says, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?" In this passage, Paul command that we eagerly desire the gift of prophecy, prophecy is listed as one of the spiritual gifts (in chap. 12), and Paul details how the gift of prophecy should be used within a church service. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
58 | Scriptural Support? | Is 7:16 | Morant61 | 127620 | ||
Greetings DBR! You wrote: "This seems to speak of and earthly judgment to me and as the scriptures clearly state the unrighteous will be brought back they cannot go into heaven as they are unrighteous so in would appear that the only place left would be this earth and as ignorance can be a defence with the Loving God of the Bible then it would seem that further opportunities must be available other why not leave the unrighteous dead dead, why else bring them back, it seem logical to me." Where does the Bible say that the unrighteous will be 'brought back'? Where does the Bible say that 'ignorance can be a defence'? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
59 | Almighty and Mighty God | Is 9:6 | Morant61 | 77096 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! First of all, since Scripture tells us that there is only one God, then there cannot be an 'Almighty God' and a 'Mighty God'. Secondly, where is there any support in the Old Testament for 'Almighty God' being a higher level of God than a 'Mighty God'? Jehovah is described as a 'Mighty God'. He is also described as 'Almighty God'. He is also described with a lot of other adjectives as well. However, there isn't any evidence in the Old Testament that the two terms indicate different degrees. In fact, the two terms are not even used together. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
60 | Another Counselor? | Is 9:6 | Morant61 | 113159 | ||
Greetings Punkiedo! I asked a question of someone the other day who shared your theological background, but he/she did not respond. May I ask you the same question? In John 14:16, Jesus says, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—" Now, the word 'another' is the English translation of the Greek word 'allos'. The Enhanced Strongs says that this word indicates 'numerical distinction' or 'one besides'. Based upon the Oneness view, how can the Holy Spirit be 'another' Counselor? Yet, God's Word specifically says that this 'other' Counselor would be 'numerically distinct' from the Father. If I gave you a Snickers (my favorite) candy bar and then said that I would give you another one, would I being giving you another one if I simply took back the Snickers, called it a Mars Bar and gave it back to you? 'Another' indicates an actual numerical distinction. So, in your understanding, how do you explain that the Holy Spirit is 'another' Counselor? Thanks for your patience my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |