Results 41 - 60 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Radioman2 | 79760 | ||
Here is another question we might ask: Often a verse or passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, yet it is left in a particular translation. Is it dishonest or unethical not to let the reader know that such a passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts? |
||||||
42 | Do you try to find what a verse means? | Luke 10:26 | Radioman2 | 104065 | ||
Do you try to find what it actually means? What Does That Verse Mean To You? '...There are times when certain scriptures are difficult to understand and that our opinions on these verses might be equally valid. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be valid. Furthermore, I pointed out that we must not subject God's word to our opinions. It is a mistake to have a group of people look at a Scripture and offer varying opinions on what it means as though God's word means only what it means to us at that time and that we can contradict each other and that's fine. Instead, we should ask ourselves "what does a text SAY?" We should work hard at trying to discover what the best single possible meaning to the text is -- if that is applicable. We should not view God's word as a well from which we draw whatever feeling, sensation, or opinion that suits us for the time. Instead, we must do our best to find out what the word actually says to the best of our ability instead of "feeling" our way through the scriptures using relativism as a guide. Otherwise, we would be saying that God does not actually mean anything specific when He inspired the writers of the Bible. If we were to say that God's word can mean different things, then the word of God doesn't mean anything at all. The problem here is that relativism [is] creeping into the Bible study. (...) So I ask you. When you study God's word devotionally, or otherwise, do you hope to find what it actually means so you can subject yourself to what it says, or do you try and find a meaning for Scripture that suits your needs, your feelings, and your desires? (http://www.carm.org/newsletter/2002/08-23-02.htm) (Emphasis added.) |
||||||
43 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | Radioman2 | 81643 | ||
Are parables alone sufficient to prove a doctrine? Many verses used to support the notion that a true believer can lose his salvation are taken from parables. This, in spite of the fact that clear verses of Scripture directly teach otherwise. I would not base a doctrine on parables (alone or primarily) -- not when there are so many clear passages of Scripture that support and establish doctrine. Although they have their place in Scripture, parables are easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. Too often people assign to parables meanings that simply are not there. Which of the following essentials of the historic Christian faith (basic Bible doctrines) are built PRIMARILY or ONLY on parables? None of them, not one. Rather they are based upon clear passages of Scripture taken at their face value. The essentials of the historic Christian faith include: the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; the triune Godhead composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the virgin birth and Deity of Christ, the necessity and efficacy of His atoning work; Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension; His imminent coming for His Church and His visible return to the earth; the everlasting felicity of the redeemed; and the everlasting punishment of the lost. Although there may be parables that teach or apply some truth(s) concerning the above basics, all of the above doctrinal truths are established in Scripture without depending primarily upon parables alone. |
||||||
44 | Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? | Luke 24:27 | Radioman2 | 86731 | ||
Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? Can one be a skeptic and a believer at the same time? Can an individual accept the Son of God but reject the written Word of God? Edb, Emmaus, Hank, Justme, Mommapbs, Morant61, Reformer Joe and anyone else who wishes to reply: I have a question for you. I sincerely would like to know: Here on the forum we often read postings written by people who claim to be Christians, who profess faith in Christ for salvation. Then they go on to say they have many strong doubts about the Bible -- its inspiration, authority and reliability in the various English translations. Often they cite verses by Paul that they question -- ones they don't agree with or that anger them. Or they may cite passages in Genesis that they have a hard time accepting as inspired, accurate and literal. Some do not trust any English translation, as if all were perverted versions produced as a result of some conspiracy to deceive. You get the picture. My question is: Is it likely that the person who continues to reject part(s) of the Bible, to question the inspiration or authority of the Bible, to have no confidence in any English translation, etc. -- is it likely that such a person is really a Christian? Especially if this doubt and mistrust of the Bible continues for years and years with no change, no growth, and no resolution? (In my question I am not suggesting that we pick certain individuals by name and judge whether they are saved.) My question is a general one. In short, people who have a low view of the Bible and who question every other verse they read -- how likely is it that they have really come to know Christ, with the result that they are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If one's faith in the written Word is so uncertain, precarious and fragile and remains that way for years and years, is it likely that this person truly believes that Jesus is everything the Bible says he is? Is it likely that their salvation is real? Again, this is not to judge any given individual(s) as to their salvation. But, it just seems a contradiction to me that although what we know of God and Christ is contained in the Bible, there are people who have little or no trust in the written Word of God and still claim to be Christians. Is this possible, impossible, the normal Christian experience, abnormal or what? What do you all think? Why do you believe what you do regarding this question? Can you give scripture and sound reasoning to back up your view of this matter? Sincerely, Radioman2 |
||||||
45 | Under the Law but not under water? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103268 | ||
AO: You write: "Also, note that the thief on the cross did not die in the Christian age, but under the Law of Moses." My question is: Does this mean that under the Law there was no legal requirement to be baptized, but now that we are no longer under law there is such a legal requirement? If this were the case, then it would seem to be a contradiction. If we are no longer under Law, then why this new and additional legal requirement? --Radioman2 |
||||||
46 | What are the greater works in John 14:12 | John 14:12 | Radioman2 | 81128 | ||
What are the greater deeds (works) that Jesus speaks of in John 14:12, and how is this related to his going to the Father? NASB John 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." |
||||||
47 | How are we to view "The Message"? | Acts 17:11 | Radioman2 | 97860 | ||
MEASURING "THE MESSAGE" (Eugene Peterson's The Message (NavPress)) ____________________ '...while the phrase "the Message" is Eugene Peterson's translation of "the Gospel," not everything in The Message should be treated as gospel.' ____________________ 'So how are we to view The Message? It is an expansive paraphrase that is not so labeled, as is The Living Bible. Beset with inconsistencies, its idiom is not always "street language"; its terminology is often idiosyncratic to its author. Compared by noted literary figures to the groundbreaking translation of J. B. Phillips, I believe The Message often lacks Phillips's creativity and conciseness. 'In the introduction, Eugene Peterson compares his pastoral ministry to his work as a translator: "I stood at the border between two languages, biblical Greek and everyday English, acting as a translator, providing the right phrases, getting the right words so that the men and women to whom I was pastor could find their way around and get along in this world" (p. 7). Much of The Message reads like a sermon: text plus interpretation and application. Unlike a sermon, however, the reader does not know where the text ends and the sermon begins. 'Because of its interpretive and idiosyncratic nature, The Message should not be used for study. If read for enlightenment or entertainment, the reader should follow the advice of Saint Augustine, as quoted in the original preface to the KJV, "Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures." Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for evaluating Paul's teaching with the Old Testament Scriptures. In the same spirit, The Message needs to be evaluated against more consistent and traditional translations, especially when its renderings evoke a response such as, "I didn't know the Bible said that!" or, "Now I understand what it means." 'In sum: while the phrase "the Message" is Eugene Peterson's translation of "the Gospel," not everything in The Message should be treated as gospel.' — Reviewed by John R. Kohlenberger III John R. Kohlenberger III is the author or co-editor of 25 biblical reference books, including Words about the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible (Zondervan), All about Bibles (Oxford University Press), The NIV Exhaustive Concordance and The Greek New Testament: UBS4 With NRSV and NIV (Zondervan). ____________________ STATEMENT DB130, BOOK REVIEW, A SUMMARY CRITIQUE: The Message by Eugene Peterson (www.equip.org/free/DB130.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
48 | Praying or Saying? | Rom 1:8 | Radioman2 | 94091 | ||
I have never said that we should not pray in the name of Jesus. What I said is: 'PRAYING in the name of Jesus doesn't mean SAYING, "In the name of Jesus." ' Radioman2 ____________________ See also "In the Name of Jesus" by Gregory Koukl at the following website: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/nameofje.htm) |
||||||
49 | What does "being a homosexual" mean? | Rom 1:19 | Radioman2 | 91515 | ||
What does being a homosexual mean? Megiddo: You write: "I'm saying that it is possible for a homosexual to be a Christian, to praise her/her creator, and to carry out God's will while being a homosexual." I think what is at issue here is: what do you mean when you say "being a homosexual?" If being a homosexual means merely to have homosexual desires without acting on those desires, that is one thing. But if being a homosexual means performing homosexual acts, then the answer is: No, it is not possible for a homosexual to carry out God's will. It is not my intent here to bash or attack. I merely wish to understand what you mean when you say "being a homosexual." Unless and until you give your definition of "being a homosexual", further discussion of the subject is meaningless. Radioman2 |
||||||
50 | What does "being a homosexual" mean? | Rom 1:19 | Radioman2 | 91752 | ||
Unless and until you give your definition of "being a homosexual", further discussion of the subject is meaningless. ____________________ What does "being a homosexual" mean? Megiddo: You write: "I'm saying that it is possible for a homosexual to be a Christian, to praise her/her creator, and to carry out God's will while being a homosexual." I think what is at issue here is: what do you mean when you say "being a homosexual?" If being a homosexual means merely to have homosexual desires without acting on those desires, that is one thing. But if being a homosexual means performing homosexual acts, then the answer is: No, it is not possible for a homosexual to carry out God's will. It is not my intent here to bash or attack. I merely wish to understand what you mean when you say "being a homosexual." Unless and until you give your definition of "being a homosexual", further discussion of the subject is meaningless. Radioman2 |
||||||
51 | Are all interpretations equal? | Rom 3:4 | Radioman2 | 81704 | ||
Some Things Are True - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'It is impossible to know the meaning of any written text. If this is true, log off the web now. If not, read this commentary to find out about self-refuting arguments.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Let me give you a picture of my world, by and large, at least as it touches this particular issue. My world is a world in which thinking matters, in which there is such a thing as truth, in which truth can be known and in which we use thinking to assess ideas to determine whether they are true or not. There's really not much room in my thinking system for comments like, Well, that's just your interpretation, or just your opinion, when the emphasis is on "just." Of course it's my interpretation. Of course it's my opinion, but it's not just those things in that I'm not simply sharing my point of view, I'm sharing my reasons why I have a point of view. 'Now it could be that my opinion or my interpretation is mistaken, but the only way for me to find out whether it's mistaken or not is to get at the reasons I draw the conclusions which form either my opinion or my interpretation. I don't believe that all opinions are equal. I don't believe that all interpretations are equal . . .' To read more go to: (www.str.org/cgi-bin/daily_commentary.pl) (Some Things are True by Gregory Koukl) |
||||||
52 | Ques. re the Carnal Christian Teaching | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 92042 | ||
Questions re Carnal Christian Teaching ____________________ "Since all Christians have remaining sin in them and since they sin every day, how much sin, or, what particular sins classify a person as a carnal Christian?" ____________________ 'Questions Raised by the Carnal Christian Teaching' '1. Are we sanctified passively, that is, by faith without the deeds of the law? (Note: I did not say justified but sanctified.) If sanctification is passive--a kind of "let go and let God"--then where do we place the apostolic admonitions in the New Testament such as, "I fight," "I run," "I keep under my body," "let us cleanse ourselves," "let us labour," "let us lay aside every weight"? None of these are passive expressions nor do they express some single act as the experience of victory or some single experience as the means of becoming more spiritual and mature. '2. Does not appealing to the so-called carnal Christian to become a spiritual Christian depreciate the real conversion experience by over-appreciating the second experience by whatever name it may be called (which is variously designated higher life, deeper life, spirit filled life, triumphant living, making Christ Lord not just Savior, etc.)? "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). This passage is not talking about a second experience but rather about what happens in a real conversion experience. 'Has the spiritual Christian finished growing in grace? If not, what is he to be called, as he continues to grow in grace? Do we make still more unbiblical categories, such as, "spiritual, spiritual Christian" or "super spiritual Christian"? '3. Who is to decide who the carnal Christians are and exactly what standard is to be used in determining this? Do the spiritual Christians decide who the carnal Christians are? Does a church or preacher decide where the line is to be drawn that divides the two classes or categories? Would you like the responsibility of dividing the members of your church into unsaved, carnal Christian, spiritual? Since all Christians have remaining sin in them and since they sin every day, how much sin, or, what particular sins classify a person as a carnal Christian? '4. Do not all Christians act like natural men at times in some area of their lives? '5. Do not the inward sins, such as, envy, malice, covetousness, lasciviousness (which included immorality on the mental level) prove that a person is carnal just as much as some outward manifestation of external sins? '6. How much sin can a spiritual Christian commit and still be in the spiritual category? '7. Does the Christian go back and forth from spiritual to carnal and carnal to spiritual? How often can this changing of categories take place? '8. When and how does a carnal Christian become a spiritual Christian? '9. Are there different degrees of carnality and different degrees of sanctification in the so-called spiritual Christians? 'If some of these questions seem a bit ridiculous it is because they are raised by an unbiblical, ridiculous teaching.' ____________________ The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching (Part 2) Ernest Reisinger (To whom it may concern: Please do not ask me to explain what Reisinger means. Let Reisinger explain what Reisinger means. To read more go to: (http://www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html)) |
||||||
53 | Problems w/ Carnal Christian Teaching? | Rom 7:14 | Radioman2 | 92052 | ||
'The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching (Part 2)' 'Ernest Reisinger' 'Let me give a short review of our last study on the Carnal Christian teaching: '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching is primarily based on an erroneous interpretation of a single passage of Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-4). '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching perverts many other doctrines of the Christian faith. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching separates the two main doctrines of the Christian faith--justification and sanctification. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching separates the new covenant by making the act of submission to Christ optional--what God has joined together let no man or teaching put asunder. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching makes holiness, obedience and discipleship optional. See John 10:26-28; 14:21-23; 15:10; 1 Pet. 1:155,16; Heb. 12:14; Titus 2:10-14. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching breeds antinomianism and gives a false standard of what a Christian really is. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching is the mother of many of the second-work-of-grace errors. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching actually teaches two ways to heaven: one, the carnal-Christian way and two, the spiritual-Christian way--whichever your prefer. '. The "Carnal Christian" teachers ignore the biblical distinction between the grounds of salvation and the grounds of assurance. '. The "Carnal Christian" teaching breeds a false spirituality and Pharisaism in the so-called "spiritual Christians" who have measured up to some man-made standard of spirituality. There ought to be no professed "spiritual Christians," much less "super-spiritual" ones! George Whitefield, a man who lived very close to his Savior, prayed all his days, "Let me begin to be a Christian." And another Christian has truly said, "In the life of the most perfect Christian there is every day renewed occasion for self-abhorrence, for repentance, for renewed application to the blood of Christ, for application of the rekindling of the Holy Spirit." 'Many are comfortable living sinful lives while hiding behind a teaching that is not biblical, comfortably going to hell on a false teaching.' ____________________ The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching (Part 2) Ernest Reisinger (To whom it may concern: Please do not ask me to explain what Reisinger means. Let Reisinger explain what Reisinger means. To read more go to: (http://www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html)) |
||||||
54 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77726 | ||
Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? My question is not: Can you find the *concept* of backsliding in the NT? (The word Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, yet the concept is Biblical. By contrast, we cannot say the word backslide is not found in the Bible. It is in the Bible! Backslide is found in the OT, but not in the New.) My question is not: CAN YOU FIND *SYNONYMS* FOR 'BACKSLIDING' IN THE NT? My question remains: Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? Can you find the English word 'backsliding' (b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g) or any of its forms (e.g., backslide, backslidden, backslider) in the NT? If you can, show me the book, show me the chapter, and show me the verse where any form of the word backsliding appears in the NT. |
||||||
55 | Christians living in unbroken carnality? | Rom 8:7 | Radioman2 | 86994 | ||
What does the Bible teach concerning the notion that millions of Christians live in a state of unbroken carnality? Is such a notion biblical? In your answer, please include specific Scripture references. |
||||||
56 | Who is God over all? | Rom 9:5 | Radioman2 | 76931 | ||
"Christ, who is God over all." . Romans 9:5 NIV Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. "Christ, who is God over all." . Romans 9:5 NLT Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. "Christ himself was a Jew...And he is God." . Romans 9:5 HCSB The forefathers are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. "Messiah, who is God over all." . Romans 9:5 NET Bible To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen. "Christ, who is God over all" |
||||||
57 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Radioman2 | 81524 | ||
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." Do creeds cause division? Or do they deal with the fact that division already exists? One could argue that pre-existing division is the reason for -- not the result of -- statements of belief. EdB, Reformer Joe, John Reformed and whosoever will join this discussion: What do you think? Division and creeds -- which is cause and which is effect? Consider what John Reformed said in his recent post: "I believe it is important to remember that our creeds arose in answer to those who were attemting to pervert sound doctrine." The intent of the creeds was not to pervert sound doctrine, but rather to preserve it. Radioman2 |
||||||
58 | TV or not TV? | 1 Cor 10:31 | Radioman2 | 102013 | ||
What should we do as parents? Turn off the TV? 'Kids’ TV use may impact reading 'ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Very young children who live in homes where the television is on most of the time may have more trouble learning how to read than other kids their age, according to a study of media habits of children up to 6 years old... '“Watching TV is far inferior to playing with toys, being read to or playing with adults or talking with parents,” said Dr. Henry Shapiro, chairman of developmental and behavior pediatrics at the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Watching TV without a parent is a junk experience, especially for young children.”... '...so much time in front of TVs can cause kids to become fat, eat junk foods and not get enough sleep or adult interaction.' (www.msnbc.com) --Radioman2 |
||||||
59 | Posting is a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82738 | ||
Did you know...? Posting is a privilege, not a right. [A friendly reminder to us all: Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. Following are Lockman's guidelines for posting.] 'About Postings 'Postings should be biblically based and whenever possible include supporting Bible references. 'Postings are not to be intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 'They are not to be submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum. 'Pushing ones own personal and denominational views 'Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. 'Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. 'If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary.' (http://www.studybibleforum.com/about.php) Have a nice day! :-) |
||||||
60 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83169 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |