Results 41 - 60 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What should be the focus... | Ps 100:1 | kalos | 138092 | ||
What should be the focus of Christians on Thanksgiving? | ||||||
42 | Is the Bible Alone Sufficient? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137309 | ||
Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth? 'According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?" 'The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below. 'In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made: '1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen His example? 'The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.' (...) 'Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater. 'Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn’t, then I will trust the Bible alone.' ____________________ To read more go to: www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm |
||||||
43 | Scripture, Tradition - Are They Equal? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137282 | ||
Scripture, Tradition - Are They Equal? 'Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal? ____________________ "Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite." ____________________ 'To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not. 'When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6. '"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." 'Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not. 'Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive ‘to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114). 'It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6. 'Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. 'But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. 'My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation. 'If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.' ____________________ http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm |
||||||
44 | Tradition Or The Bible? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137281 | ||
Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition "My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs." The Douay-Rheims Bible Matthew 15:3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? The Douay-Rheims Bible Mark 7:8-9 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. The Douay-Rheims Bible Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition 'One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism). 'The Catholic Church reasons thus: '1. "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.'" (Paragraph 77) '2. "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78) '3. "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (Par. 82). 'Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholicism in these additions. 'Tradition in the Bible 'The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. ... 'In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error. 'The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. 'Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition.' ____________________ http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm |
||||||
45 | The CLAIMING THINGS chat room | Is 53:5 | kalos | 136626 | ||
The CLAIMING THINGS chat room Chat room-If CLAIMING THINGS IN YOUR LIFE (the chat room formerly known as StudyBibleForum) returns to being STUDYBIBLEFORUM, would someone please notify me via a Note? Thank you. (The thread, "claiming things in your life", now contains more than 100 Questions, Answers, and Notes.) Kalos |
||||||
46 | When was the book of Revelation written? | Rev 1:9 | kalos | 134963 | ||
When was the book of Revelation written? About A.D.95, before A.D.70, other? Please include supporting evidence (scriptural, historical) when you reply. "I was always taught..." or "I believe..." doesn't prove anything. :-) |
||||||
47 | When was the book of Revelation written? | Rev 1:9 | kalos | 134957 | ||
When was the book of Revelation written? About A.D.95, before A.D.70, other? Please provide your evidence (scriptural, historical) when you reply. "I was always taught..." or "I believe..." doesn't prove anything. |
||||||
48 | Are we too dull to understand the Bible? | Heb 6:1 | kalos | 133658 | ||
Are we too dull to understand the Bible? Rowdy: The recurring theme of your posts seems to be that with any given Bible question, you and you alone have the one correct interpretation. You and you alone are always right. According to your Notes and Answers: Prayon is wrong. Tim Moran is wrong. Brad is wrong. Hank is wrong. EdB is wrong. Emmaus is wrong. CDBJ is wrong. Steve is wrong. The people who have translated the Bible into English from the original languages are wrong. People who have studied the Bible for more than 30 years IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES are wrong. BUT Rowdy and Rowdy alone is never wrong. How do you account for that? Does Rowdy have a direct hotline to God that no one else has? Are the rest of us so stupid or so carnal that we are incapable of understanding the Bible? How can you lightly dismiss the posts of anyone and everyone who doesn't see it your way? Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
49 | Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 130631 | ||
Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 DocTrinsograce, BradK, CDBJ, EdB, Emmaus, Hank, Makarios, Morant61, prayon, Searcher56, srbaegon and anyone else who wishes to reply: I recently received the following article in my email. I have been asked to evaluate it. I would appreciate the input of any and all of those named above as well as that of ANYONE ELSE who wishes to participate. In the following quoted article are the top reasons given by some to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and to prove that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. What I am asking for when you reply is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs, giving us the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence for your agreement or disagreement is what I am looking for. Give as much or as little detail as you wish. I am thanking in advance any and all who reply to this Question. Grace to you, kalos ____________________ [Following is the first of 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS and the RESPONSE to each. I will soon post the rest of the 10 REASONS and RESPONSES.] 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS 'Some have asked why the NT portion of the Hebraic Roots Version Bible is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek. Many have asked why we should the Hebrew and Aramaic is the original rather than the Greek? 'For more info on the Hebraic Roots Version, the first Messianic NT Version to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek see the HRV website at: (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account) '1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek. 'RESPONSE: 'Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E.. 'However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for. 'To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak. 'Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek. 'The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original. 'Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them. 'The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text. 'Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books. 'The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.' ____________________ (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) |
||||||
50 | Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 | Eph 3:19 | kalos | 130614 | ||
Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 DocTrinsograce, BradK, CDBJ, EdB, Emmaus, Hank, Makarios, Morant61, prayon, Searcher56, srbaegon and anyone else who wishes to reply: I recently received the following article in my email. I have been asked to evaluate it. I would appreciate the input of any and all of those named above as well as that of ANYONE ELSE who wishes to participate. In the following quoted article are the top reasons given by some to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and to prove that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. What I am asking for when you reply is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs, giving us the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence for your agreement or disagreement is what I am looking for. Give as much or as little detail as you wish. I am thanking in advance any and all who reply to this Question. Grace to you, kalos ____________________ [Following is the first of 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS and the RESPONSE to each. I will soon post the rest of the 10 REASONS and RESPONSES.] 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS 'Some have asked why the NT portion of the Hebraic Roots Version Bible is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek. Many have asked why we should the Hebrew and Aramaic is the original rather than the Greek? 'For more info on the Hebraic Roots Version, the first Messianic NT Version to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek see the HRV website at: (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) 'TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account) '1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek. 'RESPONSE: 'Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E.. 'However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for. 'To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak. 'Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek. 'The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original. 'Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them. 'The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text. 'Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books. 'The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.' ____________________ (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) |
||||||
51 | Born Again Christians - Why so weird? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 126797 | ||
Born Again Christians - Why so weird? Here at the forum if you would read 100 posts at random, you would see why people who call themselves Christians are perceived as they are by the world. You will see attitudes that give Christianity a bad name. How do they offend? Let me count the ways: Arrogance, ignorance, taking pride in ignorance, negativeness, smugness, defiance against authority, intolerance toward those who disagree, zeal without knowledge, tactlessness, authoritarian attitudes...and the list goes on and on and on. (A definition of a fanatic - one who, having lost sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.) I'm not saying that all, or even a majority of, professing Christians are like this. I'm merely saying the common perception of Christians as arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, etc. is well-deserved by many professing Christians. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
52 | Hank, have you been following this? | Matt 18:6 | kalos | 126458 | ||
Hank: Have you been following this thread? After today, in order to properly identify myself, I am tempted to change my username to: 'Torah believing, anti-antinomian, anti-idiocy believer' Grace to you, kalos (aka All Of The Above) |
||||||
53 | Do you not know...? | Matt 18:6 | kalos | 126453 | ||
Do you not know...? Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." 1 Cor. 6:16 (ESV) The unbiblical notion that whenever a man and a woman have sex with each other they then become married in the eyes of God is a blasphemous distortion of 1 Corinthians 6:16. Think it through. If this notion were true, then no one would ever be guilty of having sex outside of marriage because as soon as the act is done, the couple would be married -- in the eyes of God, according to the faulty logic of this absurd theory. |
||||||
54 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 126100 | ||
Why ask Why? Why ask Where? Tim: Why do you annoy users with questions about pesky details, such as "Where is the Scripture that makes this statement?" Didn't you know that this is the Freewill, Freethinking, Freewheeling Forum? At least, that is my perception of it. From my reading of the majority of posts, I thought this was the Op/Ed page of the NY Times. Now we have to back up our opinions with Scripture? How unfair! With tongue in cheek, kalos |
||||||
55 | Where does the Bible SAY that? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 125980 | ||
Country Girl: You ask: "what WAS to be accomplished and do away with the Law and the Prophets?" I ask you: Where in the Bible does it SAY that something (or anything) will do away with the Law and the Prophets? Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 (ESV), "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them...". ("but to fulfill them". Obviously, fulfill does not mean abolish. If it did, then Jesus would have been saying, "I have not come to abolish, but to abolish.) Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
56 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 125857 | ||
Which one are we not going to keep? Overall I agree with Got it!!! He writes: "I figure that if He came to fulfill it, then we should too." I agree. But then he goes on to say, "Not by observing the letter of the law..." Not by observing the letter of the law? Nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. Just which one of those nine were we planning on NOT keeping the letter of? |
||||||
57 | Borrowed money-neither income nor asset | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 125749 | ||
Borrowed money-neither income nor asset MARK LYNN: You write: "i believe we should pay tithe on any money that comes to us even if borrowed." May I ask: How did you come to that conclusion? Borrowed money is neither income nor asset. We are not required to pay income tax on borrowed money because it is not income. It is not an asset because it does not increase our net worth. Instead, it is a liability. The reason it is a liability is that we have to PAY IT BACK. The fact is we are not required to pay tithes on our liabilities. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
58 | What government ruled then? | Rom 13:1 | kalos | 124750 | ||
What government ruled the world at the time Romans chapter 13 was written? The only governments Christians must submit to are those whose authority is from God [by His permission, His sanction]. According to Romans 13:1, how many governments would that include? AMPLIFIED Romans 13:1 LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God's appointment. [Prov. 8:15.] |
||||||
59 | Are Christians to keep the Sabbath? | Ex 20:8 | kalos | 124265 | ||
Are Christians to keep the Sabbath? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8 (ESV) 1. Are Christians obligated to keep the Sabbath—the Sabbath of Old Testament Judaism? 2. Are Christians obligated to turn Sunday into a kind of a Sabbath with similar restrictions? 3. Are Christians to reject all Sabbath Law and enjoy freedom from that Sabbath Law and leave any other designated day alone, as to prescribing any specific restrictions? 4. What is the Lord's Day, as Sunday is called in the Scripture? Who instituted it, and to what degree are we obligated to it? Before you submit an answer to one or more of the above questions, make sure your post is biblically based and, whenever possible, you have included Bible references to support it. |
||||||
60 | More questions for the KJV-only cult (3) | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 124238 | ||
More questions for the KJV-only cult (3) '(31) Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe? '(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] '(33) Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] '(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek] '(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10] '(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol 27, 1881, page 485 — see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his and many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."] '(37) Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] 'Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation — the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]."? '(38) Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 — "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17] '(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6] '(40) Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |