Results 41 - 60 of 420
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Radioman2 | 98628 | ||
Is the KJV the Bible of the Apostle Paul? Are we back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles? Many people, such as the KJV-Only advocates, are scared to death that someone might get hold of a so-called corrupt Bible translation that will somehow deceive them into committing apostasy or heresy. The inspiration of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, God's plan of salvation, the Second Coming of Christ, etc. can be proven using the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB, or any number of other translations. The idea that the same passage in one version will be translated to have an opposite meaning in another verison is pure nonsense. I see no need for people to become hysterical in their fierce opposition to this translation or their fanatical defense of that translation. Moreover, the differences in the wording of various translations is due more to the aim of the translators (to produce a word-for-word or thought-for thought translation) than to differences in the underlying Greek texts, which are minor. --Radioman2 |
||||||
42 | But I Ain't No Roman! | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 98299 | ||
Hank: You have did a write good job of summarizing the Theolowjee of the latest Lone Ranger Internet Bible Expert. I 'preciate what you writ when you said: "..some of the Apostles that the Epistles wrote has done got lost. God don't seem able to keep up with His books somehow..." To quote kalos, the oft heard about, but seldom seen sage of the Forum: "There are no lost books of the Bible. God is the author of the Bible and He doesn't lose His books. --kalos" --Radioman2 |
||||||
43 | What family planning method is good? | Ps 127:3 | Radioman2 | 97859 | ||
Repost of ID# 1047 by charis 'I don't think that the Bible expressly prohibits the use of contraceptives, BUT, it is the attitude of the user that is in question. If used for the purpose of 'safe sex' because you are not sure of your partner, God cannot be pleased with the attitude. This includes promiscuous sex, adultery, harlotry, homosexuality, pre-marital (trial) sex, etc. Another abuse would be selfish, such as, "kids would detract from my plans, my career, or even my ministry." The key word is 'MY.' 'If, however, you have a normal, healthy, natural Christian life, and decide that your family is complete, and that (to a certain degree, and led by the Holy Spirit) age, finances, marital unity, logic, etc. lead you to want to stop proliferation, I cannot see God saying either, "Take a chance on another child," or "Stop having sex with your mate." 'Another factor,of course,is your gender. A man seems to be able to be more legalistic about this than a woman. He doesn't have to bear the child, nor does he have (usually) as much responsibility in rearing them. The only 'pro-choice' (in this matter) that is Biblical is that a woman should have a say in how many. I belong to the former gender, but can see the latter's point of view. 'Finally the method of contraception is also important. Abortion is absolutely out! Some drugs are potentially dangerous, and operations are permanent. Great caution is necessary, as well as spiritual and medical counsel. 'As to Biblical support for my thinking, I don't think that it was an issue, as there were not many forms available. As abortion and some very dangerous concoctions were the only real options, it is no wonder that God did not speak in favor of these methods. 'I would be interested to hear, in the light of these comments, views from the 'other side.' I am sure there are some who would say the Bible forbids contraception, but I suspect that the view is a bit legalistic or assumptive. I pray that this portrays, if nothing else, a good argument based on my understanding of the intent of God toward us. 'Blessings in Jesus' name.' ____________________ Repost of ID# 1047 originally submitted by charis Reposted by Radioman2 |
||||||
44 | Eastern Orthodoxy Interest | 1 Thess 1:1 | Radioman2 | 97850 | ||
Eastern Orthodoxy Summary 'Recent years have witnessed a surge of Western Christians joining the Orthodox Church. With its emphasis on mystical union with God, its rich history, and its beautiful icons (sacred images) and liturgies, Orthodoxy appeals to those who long for a deeper sense of wonder in their worship and faith. Yet behind the appeal lie some hard realities. The Orthodox world is not monolithic, and one cannot become Orthodox in general. The Orthodox tradition is not entirely apostolic, and consequently the claim to represent the true church of Christ is triumphalistic. Orthodoxy follows a different theological paradigm; for example, within Orthodoxy the doctrine of salvation has a different meaning than within Catholicism or Protestantism. Protestant evangelicals who have joined the Orthodox church often display an inadequate understanding of the faith they have embraced. (...) 'The Orthodox view that Adam was a child and that his sin is to be understood merely as missing the road diminishes the gravity of sin and its consequences. Accordingly, Adam’s descendants inherited corruption and mortality, but not guilt. Each child remains innocent until he or she personally sins. According to Orthodox belief, baptism imparts new and immortal life, and since Orthodoxy practices infant baptism it follows that repentance and faith are not essential. Salvation understood mystically as deification and not as forensic justification by faith obscures the biblical records about Christ’s vicarious death. 'Although it is clear from Peter Gillquist’s writings that he and his colleagues do not have a clear understanding of the Orthodox faith in its complexity, their claims to have discovered the true apostolic faith can mislead others, whose search for religious experience is influenced by limited knowledge and the current American hunger for mystical realities. A close look at Orthodoxy can help both the sincere searchers and the Orthodox churches themselves to avoid adding members to a romanticized, idealized church of the Western imagination rather than the real Orthodox churches.' ____________________ To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/DE177.htm) STATEMENT DE177 SEARCHING FOR THE TRUE APOSTOLIC CHURCH: What Evangelicals Should Know about Eastern Orthodoxy by Paul Negrut --Radioman2 |
||||||
45 | Genesis serpent and Satan? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 97001 | ||
What kind of anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Bible, pro-Satan rubbish is this? | ||||||
46 | What does the third day mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 96617 | ||
Perhaps it would be better if you asked the person from whom you were given the "word." Let him or her tell you what they meant when they said "the third day." Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
47 | How many Jesus name baptisms? | Eph 4:5 | Radioman2 | 96601 | ||
There is ONE baptism. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:5 |
||||||
48 | OUR PRIORITY TO EVANGELIZE. | OT general | Radioman2 | 96313 | ||
LET GOD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. | ||||||
49 | WHY DON'T WE TEACH THE CROSS? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 96312 | ||
LET GOD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. | ||||||
50 | Jesus Created or Creator??? | Rev 3:14 | Radioman2 | 95945 | ||
"...the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation" AMPLIFIED Revelation 3:14 And to the angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation: [Isa. 55:4; Prov. 8:22.] |
||||||
51 | Jesus Created or Creator??? | Rev 3:14 | Radioman2 | 95943 | ||
"Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here." 'The Jehovah's Witnesses and Col. 1:15 '"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the NWT’s addition of “other” into the text four times. This is discussed here (col1_16-17.htm).) 'The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here. 'Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence. 'Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable: '- Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB) '- Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)." 'Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them in their thinking and believing.' ____________________ http://www.carm.org/jw/col1_15.htm - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Radioman2 |
||||||
52 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman2 | 95899 | ||
I challenge anyone on or off this forum to show me one denomination whose published statement of faith includes the phrase "Once saved, always saved." I mean show me EXACTLY where you find it. Give me the title, author, publisher, copyright year or the website where it says that. Please put up or do the other thing. |
||||||
53 | FAITH? | 1 Pet 1:7 | Radioman2 | 95780 | ||
NASB Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. AMPLIFIED Romans 10:17 So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself). |
||||||
54 | Matthew 16:28 | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 95770 | ||
"...it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration..." Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. New King James Version (NKJV) 16:28 '"some standing" In all 3 of the synoptic gospels, this promise is made immediately prior to the Transfiguration. Furthermore the word for "kingdom" can be translated "royal splendor." Therefore, it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration, which "some" of the disciples--Peter, James, and John, would witness only 6 days later.' 17:1 '"after six days" The precise reference to the amount of time elapsed is unusual for Matthew. It seems he is carefully drawing the connection between Jesus' promise in 16:28 and the event that immediately follows. Mark agrees on the figure of 6 days (Mark 9:2), but Luke, probably counting the day of Peter's confession and the day of Christ's Transfiguration separately at the start and end of this time period, says it was "about eight days" (Luke 9:28).' (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) ____________________ To Ngop: I'm not saying this is absolutely the one and only right answer to your question. Yet it seems most natural to interpret this promise as a reference to the Transfiguration. --Radioman2 __________ To all others: I am not interested in debating my answer. Furthermore, I will not attempt to defend John MacArthur. Let him defend himself. For further information, go to MacArthur's website (www.gty.org), check out his Study Bible, or see his book, "The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23." --Radioman2 |
||||||
55 | Why didn't Noah stop tower of Babel? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 95753 | ||
Why? Primarily because God never instructed Noah to stop them from building the tower of Babel. That is not what He told Noah to do. Noah had a God-given mission and stopping the building of the tower was not it. --Radioman2 |
||||||
56 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 95710 | ||
Part 2 'Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'If the Rapture "has already taken place", then the resurrection has already taken place. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 writes of the day when the final "trumpet" for believers will be blown and mortality will put on immortality. In this passage, he links the Rapture with the resurrection of believers. In other words, when the Rapture takes place, the resurrection occurs. 'Those who insist that the events of Matthew 24 are history and say that the "generation that sees these things" was the generation concurrent with Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago, must of necessity show that the resurrection has also taken place. The only way that is possible is to spiritualize the text by saying that the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a physical one. 'Moderate (or partial) preterist, R.C. Sproul recognizes this when he says, To maintain that these events [the Olivet teaching] were indeed fulfilled in the first century, one must interpret the relevant passages in a way that makes early fulfillment possible. The most severe obstacle [to that] is the absence of any historical record that the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead occurred. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 161) 'There are two serious problems with understanding the resurrection as a "spiritual" event. R.C. Sproul says, The first difficulty is that it [Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15] involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically. ... if one announces or predicts things that will take place in the arena of real history involving physical reality, then empirical verification becomes relevant and crucial...It is unfortunate that the apostle failed to alert the Corinthians-and us, by extension-that he was speaking of a secret, hidden, spiritual resurrection. His language certainly suggests something else, particularly as Paul so clearly conjoins the resurrection of our bodies with the resurrection of Christ's body. The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of all who will be raised. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 162) 'And what was the resurrected body of Jesus like? First, the tomb was empty. In other words, there was a physical body in it but on the day of His resurrection, it became empty. A body had departed from it. Second, he had a glorified body. It was different from His previous mortal body, but it was the same body. Third, Jesus was visible to the disciples until the time He ascended and was touched by them and ate with them. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body, not a spiritualized one. 'A theological problem with a spiritualized understanding of the resurrection is likewise addressed by R.C. Sproul - If a spiritual body cannot be seen, touched, or handled, is it a body at all? It is one thing to say that our resurrected bodies will be spiritiual bodies, but quite another to imply that our resurrected bodies will be merely spirits. The Bible speaks of spiritual bodies. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 164) 'A common problem among interpreters of the Bible is that of "shifting gears". If a person approaches his interpretation of the Bible with, for example, a face value hermeneutic, then it is critical that he remain consistent with his approach. However, many often "flip flop" in their interpretation approach to maintain a preconceived understanding of a text. An example of this is the above. Preterists interpret "this generation" in the simple sense as meaning the generation concurrent with Christ and then suddenly "shift gears" and apply a figurative approach to arrive at a spiritualized understanding of the Rapture and the resurrection. That is an inconsistent hermeneutic and leads to error. 'When spiritualization is introduced into one's interpretation, Pandora's box is opened and various meanings can be understood. The only way the integrity of the Author/author's wording and meaning can be preserved is by taking Scripture at face value. Taking Scripture at face value means that the student of Scripture recognizes the difference between what can be called the "simple sense" of a passage and what is understood as a literal understanding. A literal understanding includes the examination of the historical/cultural and lexical/syntactical considerations. It also recognizes symbols and figures of speech and realizes there is a referent for them. For further information on hermeneutical principles, see the "links" section of this website for an explanation. (Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
57 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 95706 | ||
Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner '"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24:34 'The above passage is found in what is referred to as the Olivet Discourse of Jesus given a few days before Christ's crucifixion. The context for Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' response to the questions of the disciples regarding His return and the end of the age. There are those in the church of Jesus Christ who understand "this generation" to refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking the day He gave the discourse. 'The apostle Paul recognized this error and warned Timothy of it when he wrote, "But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and...spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-18) 'Today, there is a resurgence of this teaching known as preterism. The term preterism comes from the Latin word praeterism and means "past" or already gone by. The basic teaching of preterism is that the great tribulation has already occured in the distant past, principally at AD 70. Those who hold to this teaching are known specifically as full preterists. There is another subgroup of preterists known as partial or moderate preterists. This latter group sees parts of the Olivet Discourse, or Jesus' teaching on end times, as partially fulfilled in AD 70 but other parts as yet to be fulfilled at the second parousia of Christ. Several efforts have been made to establish preterism as historically sound and biblical but the clear warning of Paul reminds us that it is an heretical and false teaching. The following reasons are offered to the student of Scripture and prophecy for consideration. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and examine the Word to "see if these things are so."' ____________________ To read the rest of this article and find out what "the following reasons" are, go to (www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
58 | WHy four gospels not one? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 95355 | ||
Why ask why? One could just as easily ask why four gospels and not 12? Why 66 books of the Bible and not 12 or 20 or 40? I don't mean to make light of your question. My only point is that God is not much in the business of answering questions that begin with the word "Why." Welcome to the Forum. Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
59 | how do I know if God is speaking to me | John | Radioman2 | 95127 | ||
'How can I make decisions... consistent with God's will for my life?' 'Decision-making can be a daunting task for anyone, but Christians have the unique advantage of making decisions that are informed by God's Word. To do so, there are at least three factors to consider. 'First, you must obey the moral will of God as it is revealed in Scripture. If Scripture prohibits the action in question, your decision is easy: don't do it. ( . . . ) 'Second, good decision making requires that you exercise biblical wisdom. Such wisdom comes from a diligent study of God's Word, coupled with God's generous provision. James encourages those who lack wisdom to "ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5). ( . . . ) 'Finally, you need to consider your own desire. If the Bible is silent about your decision, and if one choice is not clearly wiser than the other, then do what you want. You have the freedom to do so, and God sovereignly works out His plan through your desires (Psalm 37:4; Philippians 2:13). 'The above process presupposes that you are submitted to Christ and filled with the Spirit. Otherwise you won't be able to make biblical decisions, as sin blinds your ability to understand and apply God's Word to your life. However, if you do have a vital relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and are walking in the Spirit-as opposed to the flesh-you are free to make decisions so long as they don't violate God's revealed (moral) will. You shouldn't be concerned that your decisions will somehow derail God's sovereign will for you life, because He routinely works through your decisions to accomplish what He purposes.' ____________________ To read the entire article, go to: (www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/godswill2.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
60 | how do I know if God is speaking to me | John | Radioman2 | 95126 | ||
kbus: The following is a quote from the website (www.str.org): 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: ID# 85421 at this website (StudyBibleForum) and/or: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). ____________________ I agree with the above quote. (I do not post quotes that I do not believe or agree with and try to pass them off as the truth.) On the other hand, I also agree that God will lead, guide and direct us. Here's what the Bible says and what I believe: New Living Translation James 1:5 If you need wisdom – if you want to know what God wants you to do – ask him, and he will gladly tell you. He will not resent your asking. ____________________ Also, I strongly recommend the article, "How can I make decisions consistent with God's will for my life?" which you can read at (www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/godswill2.htm) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [21] >> |