Results 41 - 60 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | kiv Grt Commission of JC, how we see it | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 205196 | ||
Dear chessshores, Please note that the last question of yours that I sent you a note on has been removed from the forum for reasons unknown to me. You need to be aware that the forum will quickly shut you down if you belong to a cult, or if you do not adhere to a literal intreptretation of scriptures. You wrote; Eugene Peterson, a Presbyterian scholar-Pastor who wrote a paraphrase of the Bible coined the Message and the Message Remix (as a second revised edition) seems to agree with charismatic Benny Hinn in application of this passage that even kings and rulers can become prophets. Yes King David was a king a ruler and a prophet, what has that got to do with false prophet Benny Hinn? That Bible you are referring to, the remix Bible is a paraphrase, and just like the Amplified Bible is not a literal intrepretation of the Bible and adds words to the Greek and Hebrew fundamentally changing the meanings of the texts. Though EugeneP may not be Charismatic, his writing interests Charismatics who quote him to the masses. eg Planetshakers n Hillsong Church. That the masses like him is absolutely no indication of him being accurate in his translation of the Bible, only popular to those who are seeking added meanins to the what the Bible is saying because they feel they are having trouble understanding and applying the Bible as it was intended to be understood, literally. Are you going to keep on propping up Benny Hinn the false prophet? Planetshakers n Hillsong Church is not known to be an expository Bible believing and teaching church. What point are you actually trying to make with repeated posts about Benny Hinn the false prophets and the world wide Charismatic movement? Make your intentions more clear please... God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
42 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204022 | ||
Ok Steve I hear you, but you got me wondering from looking at your texts there about this part; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him because we shall see Him a He is... And what does it mean to see Him as He is? Notice it does not say we will understand Him and be changed, it says we shall be like Him becaue we shall see Him as He is... What will we see then, is the question? Will we see Him in all His glory? Will that change us? This goes to another question I had about Moses seeing the glory of God and it changing him or was it a little talk(now I ask you, didn't Moses have a myriad other talks face to face with God without getting changed, what was the real difference between talking one time or another other than seeing the backside of God in all His glory?). The relationship with Jesus is already happening and we are already being changed from glory to glory, one day we will reach a final state of glory at the rapture. Yes we are going to put off the imperishable and put on immortality, but so will unbelievers get an immortal body capable of withstanding the awfull throes of eternal damnation instead of enjoying the eternal presence of God. We already understand Jesus to the extent that we are saved, as walk with Him we get closer and closer, but we won't actually finally be changed until we see Him with our eyes as He is. Maybe I got it wrong... God bless, Tamara | ||||||
43 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204056 | ||
Thanks Steve! tam | ||||||
44 | Order of books into the canon and when? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204204 | ||
Thanks alot Doc, once again you are a gold mine. By the way I went to the last link you gave me on this, just so you know I followed up. God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
45 | 3 main miracles performed | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204307 | ||
I am seeing four; Release from demon possession: Mathew 12:22,23 Luke 11:14 - salvation makes you holy. Resurrection from the dead: Luke 7:11-17, John 11:1-45 - salvation gives eternal life. Release from physical infirmity: Mathew 9:27-31, luke 17:11-21, John 5:1-9 - salvation cures the incurable, restores spiritual sight, restores one's spiritual abilities. Prophecy: Mathew 24:4-14,Mark 10:32-34, Mark 14:27-31 - salvation restores man to a right relationship with God. I like Sunday School Bible quizzes, they make me work, don't stop posting them please. God bless, Tamara |
||||||
46 | what does verse 4 chapter 18 mean | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205631 | ||
Dear Jim, I may have been wrong, I was going by the verse picked as Gen. 1:1 thinking that person meant Genesis 4:18! Good point, good point! Tam |
||||||
47 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205830 | ||
Dear lookinforacity, Thank you for understanding that my question was Biblicaly based! It was about a Biblical concept and therefore Biblicaly based... The forum says this; Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing the Bible's sole authority (sola Scriptura), Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Whenever possible, postings should include supporting Bible references. It says "whenever possible, posting should include supporting Bible references". I tried for all three things I posted last night to use the pick a book of the Bible feature, but the scripture did not appear in any of my posts evern though the page flipped like it should and originaly showed the book I had in mind. So, I guess there are no tenets, by which I mean the Biblical and third dictionary definition as being doctrines, that could be said to comprise Sola Scriptura... You have included a principle here as "to be the only infallible source and rule of faith, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, etc.". I get the infallible source and rule fo faith part, but not the private interpretation part, I thought we weren't suppossed to be doing that? All in all though I think you give a thorough explaination of what Sola Scriptura is not; the traditions of men as inculcating the church of Rome. I had a nother question that was hitting on a similar concept, that somehow the traditions of men seem to be held up in some Baptists churches as well crafted traditions of men as being as important as the Sola Scriptura! God's Day To You, Thanks Jim, Tamara |
||||||
48 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205831 | ||
... | ||||||
49 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205912 | ||
Dear Doctrinsograce, Thank you very much for that outline, the bar shows it was in answer to the original question I posted, however I never received it as a note via email, but stumbled on it by mistake... God Bless you have a wonderful Lord's Day, I plan to, Tamara |
||||||
50 | Thank you Lionheart but where is it? | Gen 1:21 | Tamara Brewington | 203794 | ||
Lionheart, I am thinking that the writers of the Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Hebrew Torah, from which we get our 5 books of the law in the Old Testament(as opposed to the Jews who do not use the Septuagint, but the Hebrew Torah) decided to translate the words make and likeness as, let Us make, and, in Our likeness, to fit their theology that Elohim is a triune God. But my God man, that is eisegesis isn't it? We are supposed to do exegesis, pulling out of the text the real meaning, not putting into the text our impression of what it should mean. The Hebrew Alphabet didn't change from then to now, it's still the same, the translation of the Ancient Torah says the exact same thing that the Strong's says it says and the Jews never changed the language of it to fit modern times, they speak other languages now, rather than Hebrew but kept the language of their holy books intact in writing and speech from then to now. My wonderment is if the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, which was written by first century Christians added Us and Our to jive with their beleifs in order to make the Bible conform to those beliefs... I get what you are saying about symbology and metaphors, but Genesis as narrative is historical literature in nature and does not employ the devices of symbolism like Daniel for instance and metaphors like in the Parables for instance (although some would disagree because they don't believe what it says happened word for word and say it is metaphorical myth with symbolic language to get people to understand that God created the world somehow or other, but not that way, they don't like talking serpents and trees that kill, or death from sin). I will keep trying to discover why this ambiguity exists... | ||||||
51 | Doc help me, textual criticism website? | Gen 1:21 | Tamara Brewington | 203811 | ||
I can see from going over my notes from class that my first question about wanting something on textual criticism was the right questions. I tried lookling at the Masoretic English transliteration and found it was the same as the Mamre text in its basic content. I will take your word for it that somehow the words Us and Our belong. I thank God I found someone (besides my pastor who is also one of my professors whom I bug to death, he says he doesn't mind)who is way way deeper in the word than I am... Thanks Doc God Bless, Tam | ||||||
52 | Serpent possesed by the devil? | Gen 3:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204585 | ||
Hi searcher, Can you direct me to a verse please? Thanks God Bless hat lady |
||||||
53 | Nephilim Angels or godly sons of Seth? | Gen 6:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203877 | ||
Thanks a bunch Azure! You answered two questions at once! | ||||||
54 | God has a backside or is it His anger? | Exodus | Tamara Brewington | 204023 | ||
Ok Steve thanks I agree, so in light of this response do you see why perhaps I think of both Moses and us getting changed into states of glory because of seeing God's glory? I keep thinking about the angels, who have spiritual bodies which have fronts, backs, sides and wings, although some of them have four front sides... Is it possible then, that God was not simply using anthropormorphisms, but that He actually has a front back etc.? God bless, Tamara | ||||||
55 | How human-like is God | Exodus | Tamara Brewington | 205186 | ||
Dear chessshores, Could you please be more clear as to how God is man like and not the other way around? How is it that God is human like in any way back in Exodus in your thinking? Please expound with scriptures that highlight what you are seeing there... God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
56 | Speaking to God not glory, Moses shines? | Ex 34:29 | Tamara Brewington | 204019 | ||
Thanks, Tamara | ||||||
57 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205719 | ||
Dear Doc, I will ask you to try to see that Gideon had no need to ask for a confirmation of something he shoud have just taken on faith... There was no need to ask for a confirmation of what he knew he heard was there? Here do you like this language better; Gideon asked for a confirmation of what he already was clearly told and should have known God would do, and that constitutes some lack on his part of a complete trust that God would deliver receiving a sign of confirmation. If that is still out of order please Doc take the time and :))))))) patience to teach my why it is out of order, or wrong thinking verbiage, verbiage, verbiage... I am trying to get at the reason why Gideon seemed to be needing confirmation - God is a solid promiser what is not clear about being told once? Gideon had that once being shown by fleece was not enough, and asked that God's anger not burn against him for asking twice - he was aware that there might be a problem between God that he was asking... We can say for sure that he had doubt about what God promised or he would not have asked for a sign of confirmation would he? That is where I started out from... God Bless, Tam |
||||||
58 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205727 | ||
Okay John God Bless You Dear.... So much for what I have witnessed... | ||||||
59 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205803 | ||
Dear Doc, Thank you for that insight there about what the church has generaly taught... I have noticed you have a propensity to refer to what the compendium of theologians and commentators in the church have taught. I would say it is good to do this, but I would not rely on it primarily myself before trying to see what the scripture is saying, not saying you are either. Of course we take into account that these great men have had the time to study these things for longer and more intesnly than we might ever hope to do. I like the idea of starting with the scriptures first as a starting point in order to arrive at a conclusion; Quote, What is Theology, by Tamara Brewington, excerpt; A Starting Point for the Study of Christian Doctrine The first question that has to be answered in doing theology is where to find the sources for composing a doctrine and the sources are as follows: 1.Natural Theology – general revelation of God, i.e., the parts of creation in the universe are examined in order to extract definite facts about God and human nature as empirical evidence. 2.Tradition – the teachings of the compendium of persons and institutions which comprise the church fathers, theologians, and the Universal Christian Church throughout history provide a foundation of beliefs as a basis for what ought to be believed as being normative. 3.The Scriptures – the Bible as a document is the authority for the Christian faith ruling what should be believed and acted upon. 4.Experience – the religious experience of the Christian provides authoritative divine information from which to provide a foundation of beliefs as a basis for what ought to be normative. The scriptures provide the best source as the divinely inspired word of God from which to gather materials for composing a doctrine because it is the highest authority out of the four sources from which to choose. I would go in order by 3, 2, 1, and 4 with great caution. I was unfamiliar with this example by John Gill that you gave, I have never, ever heard this take on this passage before... Quote, MacArthur Bible Commentary, by John MacArthur, pg. 277, par.6; Gideon's two requests for signs in the fleece should be viewed as weak faith; even Gideon recognized this when he said, "Do not be angry with me" (v.39) since God had already specifically promised His presence and victory (vv. 12,14,16). But they were also legitimate requests for confirmation of victory against seemingly impossible odds (6:5, 7:2, 12) God nowhere reprimande Gideon, but was very compassionate in giving what his inadequacy requested. In 7:10-15 God volunteered a sign to boost Gidneon's faith. He should have believed God's promises i n7:9, but he needed to bolstering, so God graciously gave it without chastisement. I am thinking about John Gill's statement there that; "and perhaps his view was more for the encuoragment of those that were with him than himself". I do not find that very credible because Gideon seemed to need a personal confirmation for himself because he says to God, "then I will know that You will deliver Israel throug me,". Perhaps you see why I came to the conclusion there that Gideon was seeking for God to confirm what God has already said and that it was a testament of the state of his faith or so. Thank you for the information... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
60 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | Tamara Brewington | 203981 | ||
I hear you Carlos, problem, Joab wasn't sinless, which is why it did not occur to me as a parallel. Although it seems right that God did desert him as he commited wrong, not a shadow of Christ who didn't and was deserted becuase he took on sin. But I see how you are making the parallel there... The blood was definetely shed with cause because Joab had killed men without just cause as Solomon relates. Trying to understand what you meant by 'blood being shed without cause'? God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |