Results 41 - 60 of 71
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Figurative vrs literal language? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13089 | ||
Me for one take the Bible literally, unless you are talking about the parables, symbols, or as I mentioned in another reply, "picture stories" that were used to aid in teaching. And it is my absolute and total belief that if one (Christian) reads a part that does not make sense to them, they should seek the Lord's instruction on that verse, chapter, subject. The Holy Spirit is not just something God gave us so we can say we are "born again" or to receive "gifts" from. He was given to us as surety for our salvation, but also as our leader, as our helper/comforter, and as our "teacher". He can easily explain which of His words are literal and which are figurative if we ask. surety (Ephesians 1:13,14) leader (Romans 8:14) helper/comforter (John 14:16) teacher (John 14:26) Please don't give up. Ask the Holy Spirit of God to give you understanding when you read the Word. What He tells you is far more valuable than anything anyone else can say. |
||||||
42 | Follow question to There and to Catholic | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13023 | ||
Johnny, As a person who was raised Catholic and having left that church some years ago, the only thing I can tell you is that most Catholics have been taught that it IS okay. The reasoning goes something like this. The Catholic Church is the highest authority here on earth, because it was set up by Jesus, who gave His full authority to the apostle Peter, and his successors. The popes can change God's Word if they want to because they are inspired by God in such things. So, if the church says it's right, then it is right. And in much innocence, most believe that because those in authority ARE the "church", they would never lie. For many years (and in some cases it is still true) the common person (laity) was told not to bother reading Bible because they would not be able to understand it. And that is the reason why they needed the priest -- to interpret the Bible for them. Without actually having the scripture in their hands, finding the truth was not an easy task. Today more and more priests are encouraging the laity to read Bible. But generally if the scriptues disagree with Catholic teachings and practice, the CHURCH is held as the "highest authority". The usual lingo in these situations is that the lay person just doesn't understand. So why do Catholics think it is okay to call someone "pope" or "father" when Jesus said not to? Because they have been taught a lie. |
||||||
43 | Follow up second time Peter first Pope | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12999 | ||
Hi Johnny, I'm not Brian, but I may be able to answer that for you. "The word "Pope" means "Papa", "Father". At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About A.D. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Church list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes. The idea that a Bishop of Rome should have authority over the whole church was a slow growth, bitterly contested at every step, and never has at any time, been universally recognized." Excerpt taken from Halley's Bible Handbook, pp.767-768. |
||||||
44 | Can we be baptised on behalf of the dead | 1 Cor 15:29 | There | 12962 | ||
If you don't mind I'm going to throw a couple of things out here because I don't believe there are any relevant scriptures to explain just what Paul meant. I may be wrong, and if someone has some I will be grateful to read them. 1) To begin with I want to copy something from Halley's Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, pp. 598-600, concerning chapter 15 in 1Corinthians. "The fact that some of the Corinthian Church Leaders were already denying the Resurrection (12), is an indication of the extent to which false teaching, of the very worst kind, had crept into the church." "Paul insists, in the strongest language of which he is capable, that except for the hope of Resurrection, there is no excuse for the existence of Christianity (13-19)." "The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the one unvarying refrain of the apostles. This 15th chapter of 1Corinthians is the fullest discussion of it in the New Testament. In the meaning it gives to human life it is the most significant and grandest single chapter in the Bible." (skipped some parts) "Baptized for the Dead (v.29). This seems to mean vicarious baptism, that is, baptism for a dead friend. But there is no other Bible reference to such a practice, and no evidence that it existed in the apostolic Church. Perhaps a better translation would be "Baptized in hope of the resurrection." 2) And I will give you another possibility since Paul sometimes went into "argument" mode. :) It disagrees with Mr. Halley's last statement. Possibly Paul was saying something like this, "Hey people, what do you mean they are saying that there is no resurrection?? Even those who are making these false claims get baptized for the dead. If they don't believe the dead rise at all, then why are they getting baptized for the dead?? They must believe in the resurrection if they're doing that!" And then in verse 34 Paul explains that "some do not have the knowledge of God". That "some" are those who do not believe in the resurrection, AND are getting "baptized for the dead". |
||||||
45 | What is the bottomless pit? | Rev 9:1 | There | 12949 | ||
It seems that the angel (messenger from God) sounded the 5th trumpet. And the apostle John saw the star that had fallen from heaven (Wormwood v. 10-11). And then the angel was given the key to unlock the bottomless pit (the infernal abyss). If we look at all of the Trumpets judgments, we can see that they seem to be things that are happening in rapid succession, as one thing would follow right on top of the other. It almost sounds like the heavens are falling apart and some of those things are hitting the earth. 1st- hail and fire and blood fell hard and destroyed 1/3 of the vegetation. 2nd- something like a burning mountain (meteorite?) fell into the sea, destroying 1/3 of the living creatures and ships. 3rd- Wormwood (asteroid?) fell ON 1/3 of the rivers and springs of water causing pollution so intense that many people died from consuming it. 4th- 1/3 of the sun, moon and stars were darkened. And at this point an angel said "Woe, woe, woe... to the inhabitants of the earth" because of what was yet to come. 5th- God gave the angel the key to open the bottomless pit (infernal abyss, i.e. bottomless hole in the ground), and the "broken" earth already damaged greatly by Wormwood, begins emitting smoke which darkened the sun and the air on the earth. Along with the smoke, "locusts" also come upon the earth to torment "unsealed" men for 5 months. |
||||||
46 | Who should bring the stray back? | James 5:19 | There | 12936 | ||
Since James is speaking to Christians, I'd say that verse is talking about Christians. Secondly, a person could not "wander from the truth" if he had never known the truth in the first place. Is it a loving act to allow someone to wallow in their sin? Did Christ, our example, allow those he had opportunity to address about their sin, leave them to dwell in it? Or did He tell them their wrong and encourage them to get the sin out of their life? Jesus' words say it this way in Matthew 18:15-17 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained a brother." "But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." "And if he still refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." Also Galatians 6:1; 2Thessalonians 3:13-15; 1Corinthians 5:1-13) |
||||||
47 | In context change literal to figurative? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12931 | ||
Hi Steve, Usually it seems fairly clear whether it is literal or figurative. As far as the Sermon on the Mount, could you be more specific? | ||||||
48 | Could one think anger got righteousness? | James 1:20 | There | 12928 | ||
Example: A man kills an abortionist. The man that did this thought his anger was righteous. Yet as you mentioned James 1:20 says "... the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Wrath, from "orge" means violent passion or justifiable abhorance. |
||||||
49 | Who is saving his soul from death? | James 5:20 | There | 12922 | ||
If a person sees another in sin and convinces them to change their mind about commiting that sin, then the person who did the convincing is saving the other person from coming under judgement in that area. Another example: Romans 11:14 "if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them..." Neither of the above persons are THE SAVIOR of the World, Jesus Christ, but the above persons can rescue or "save" someone from God's judgment by convincing them to change their thinking or behavior. As to the last part of that verse in James "... and cover a multitude of sins." Peter says it is an act of loving others that covers a multitude of sins (1Peter 4:8). Would it be a loving act to leave a brother drown in their sin, if we could convince them to change their mind? No, none of us would consider that love, but would prefer that someone would talk to us if they noticed sin in our life. |
||||||
50 | Explain "slept with his fathers" | 1 Kin 2:10 | There | 12919 | ||
In the KJV it is stated "So David rested with his fathers (died and joined his ancestors), and was buried in the City of David." | ||||||
51 | How can we return to our first love? | Rev 2:4 | There | 12917 | ||
Hi Steve, I've thought about this too a little bit. I'm not sure I have much of an answer, but those verses remind me of a person that begins with a fire for the Lord that is so great they desire to do everything and anything He leads them to do just because they love Him so much -- and then later that same person when the fire is diminished, doing the good works, but the fire is gone. Or another way of saying it maybe, is that they are going through the motions, but there is not a heart for the Lord there -- only works. Could that be what it's talking about? You said: Can we work hard for Him, yet not love Him? I'm going to rephrase that, in a way that makes the answer simple to me. Can we work hard for anyone (doing the best we can do), yet not love that other person? Is the hard work always the result of a commitment to someone else, or is it sometimes self-serving. Let's face it, it does make us feel good to do good things. |
||||||
52 | WAS THE ANGEL JESUS | Genesis | There | 12891 | ||
The "Angel" of the Lord in the OT comes from the word malak, meaning to dispatch as a deputy, a messenger; specifically of God, i.e. angel. So it would not necessarily mean that each reference to the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus in Spirit-form. |
||||||
53 | Was there any other human being in Node | Genesis | There | 12887 | ||
Genesis 4:16,17 doesn't state that Cain MET his wife in Nod, but that he "knew her" (had sexual relations with her) AFTER he began his wanderings in Nod. | ||||||
54 | Where there trees just after the deluge | Genesis | There | 12886 | ||
I've heard this explained in a variety of ways, but I am going to tell you what I understand about the account of Noah in Genesis. The flood waters began during Noah's 600th year, 2nd month, on the 17th day. It rained for 40 days and nights. God then stopped the water and for the next 150 days (5 months) the waters were in the process of receding because of a strong wind that God sent to pass over the earth. [approximately 6.5 months covered here] In the 7th month of Noah's 600th year (during that 150 days), on the 17th day, the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. The ark was about 45 feet high, but only a portion of that would have been underwater. So in the seventh month of Noah's 600th year, the water was shallow enough that the ark found a resting place somewhere in the mountains of Ararat. On the 1st day of the tenth month of Noah's 600th year, the tops of the mountains were visible (to Noah apparently). [7.5 months from day Flood started to here] The conditions after the Flood were more than likely quite different than they are today. The earth would have been very fertile after all that "stirring up by the waters", and the climate was much better than today. (All recognizable by the long life-spans for several hundred years after the Flood.) 40 days after the mountain tops were visible, Noah sent out a raven and a dove. The dove returned, finding no rest ("manowach" meaning a quiet, settled spot or 'home'). (This would have been in the middle of the 11th month of Noah's 600th year) 7days later, Noah sent out another dove which returned with an olive leaf. So if a seed germinated at the very end of the 9th month of Noah's 600th year (1st day of 10th month when Noah saw the mountain tops [dirt]), it would be very possible that in the 11.5 month of Noah's 600th year (1 and 1/2 months later) a "plant" would have grown from that seed, and had leaves on it's stalk, just as it would even today in that time-span. So could an olive tree grow and produced at least one leaf in a month and a half? Yes. I would think even a shorter time than that. |
||||||
55 | What was the total number of animals, | Genesis | There | 12833 | ||
One thing that is important to remember though is that God only needed to "send" Noah the animals that had the genes to produce a variety within it's own "kind". | ||||||
56 | who did cain marry | Genesis | There | 12832 | ||
His sister. Generally daughters are not mentioned in the generations. Only sons. Which is why I think daughters were probably born to Adam and Eve AFTER Cain and Abel were born, but BEFORE Seth was born. The genealogy of Genesis begins with Adam to Seth and continues from there. And the biblical genealogies seems to only follow a certain "line", from Adam to Noah, then to Abraham, then to David, then to Christ. Every "son's" line is not listed in Genesis or after. Only those that were applicable to the birth of the Messiah. And one thing that I overlooked when first reading Genesis 4:16,17 is that it doesn't state that Cain MET his wife while wandering east of Eden (which I used to think). Simply that he went wandering, and then "knew" her and she conceived. Cain quite probably was married before he killed Abel and was driven away by the Lord. |
||||||
57 | Authority of a narative? How to? | Genesis | There | 12812 | ||
I agree with JVH0212, it is the foundation that our faith is built upon. If one believes that God created, then it is easy to understand why God has the right to set rules and regulations for His creation. And also why God has the right to reward and punish those whom He has created. If we had only come from slime, then who is God to tell us anything. That is what I have heard most often from those who believe in evolution. Have you ever watched the videos "Understanding Genesis" by Ken Ham (and Gary Parker)? They are excellent. The tape series contains information about faith, history, archeology, and biology -- all in the context that "God created". Even your teens would enjoy these tapes I think. |
||||||
58 | Clones | Genesis | There | 12811 | ||
I believe they are human. And they are made very much like we each were made. From human cells containing DNA. If someone takes an egg and sperm, places them together outside the womb, what is produced is human, and will be born with a soul --- whether it is "born" from a womb or test tube. I don't think it matters HOW the embryro came into being in the first place. Do I think it is the way God intended for human reproduction? No. |
||||||
59 | The beast with seven heads | Revelation | There | 12723 | ||
A reference for that verse is Revelation 12:3 "... a great and fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems (crowns) on his heads." Revelation 17:9,10 "... The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen (at the time of John's writing), one is (Roman empire), and the other has not yet come... he must continue for a short time" These describe the seven beast empires that have today expired, but from which will come the 8th beast empire during the latter days. Revelation 17:12,13 "And the ten horns which you (John) saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast (antichrist) for one hour. These have one purpose and they give their power and authority to the beast". The 10 horns represent the eighth beast empire, which will consist of 10 kingdoms or "groupings". Daniel wrote "while I was contemplating the (ten) horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it, and behold this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth uttering great boasts" (7:8). And he later explains "As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise, and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings" (7:23,24). The little horn of verse 8 is the same as "another" king of verses 23,24. So although the 8th beast empire will begin with 10 horns, three are taken over by the "little horn". That leaves "seven" leaders (represented by the crowns or diadems). |
||||||
60 | Point of No Return | Revelation | There | 12708 | ||
SSprin mentioned 2Thes 2:9-12, and those who did not have a love for the truth (God is truth) are given "strong delusion to believe the lie", and they WILL be willing to accept the mark of the beast. In not having a love for the Lord, they had already rejected Him. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |