Results 4121 - 4140 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4121 | NASB,Amplified version of Ruth | Ruth | Hank | 9349 | ||
Two brief comments, Favor, on this lovely little book, the book of Ruth. Theologically, many see Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer, as a type of Christ. As literature this small book has been widely lauded as one of the supreme masterpieces of all time. Of similar literary excellence is the book of Job. For a wonderful reading experience, try reading Ruth and Job aloud from the King James Bible. --Hank | ||||||
4122 | WELCOME, NEWCOMERS | Rev 22:17 | Hank | 9295 | ||
WELCOME, NEWCOMERS ...... It's so good to see a number of new users on the forum and the return of some seasoned veterans also. Welcome aboard and please join us in prayer that God will lead and direct our paths as we gather here to study and learn more about His precious Word. --Hank | ||||||
4123 | On the use of Study Bibles | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 9266 | ||
Agreed, my esteemed friend and brother Nolan. There is every reason, the Bible being the complex book that it is, to avail oneself of whatever standard supplementary background and exegetical resources are at hand. My point, which may well be indicated for my own tendency to quote extra-biblical "authorities" rather generously, is not meant to suggest the proscription from all posts of any and all quotations of what sound biblical scholars have had to say on this issue or that..... An illustration of the intended point comes to mind: A glass of cool water on a hot summer's day will refresh and invigorate us; a gallon consumed at one time will over-saturate us. Measured moderation. That is the point to which the post was addressed and by which it begs to be considered. If one finger was pointed at anyone else, three were pointed at the author of that post! Press on, my faithful friend, in the path the Lord is leading. You have established yourself as a valuable member of the forum and render it a selfless and beneficial service. Your zeal is both apparent and contagious. --Hank | ||||||
4124 | An Appeal: 2 Corinthians 12:20 | 2 Cor 12:20 | Hank | 9258 | ||
Dear Friends of the Forum -- There is every indication of the loomings of another dark cloud of bitter debate not unlike the one that enshrouded the forum day-upon-day some few weeks ago: The issue of Oneness. The forum survived but was neither edified nor strengthened by it. Both sides to the issue, each entrenched snugly in its own bunker, fired salvo after salvo of invectives at the other. No one from either side was persuaded to join the other. There were no real winners but there were losers -- the forum lost balance and a sense of unity; its users lost by having this tirade dominate all other issues day after day. There are well over 100 posts available for review that may easily be called up by using the Search feature. It is highly improbable that anthing new would be added to what has already been said. In view of this, please examine your hearts before attempting to add fuel to the dying embers of a fire that lately engulfed the forum and which, in retrospect it is evident, did far more harm than good. --Hank | ||||||
4125 | Does God "sleep"? | Ps 121:4 | Hank | 9244 | ||
Steve, I've been admiring your good posts of late. You dealt with this issue of whether God sleeps particularly well. It was a singularly timely post to me since we at our Wednesday evening Bible class last evening studied the passage in 1 Kings 18 about Elijah and the prophets of Baal...... Your recent posts have been characterized by balance, clarity, and solid Scriptural foundation. That makes for a good spiritual diet. Keep feeding us! --Hank | ||||||
4126 | On the use of Study Bibles | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 9208 | ||
Quotations from one's favorite study Bible are common on the forum. We've seen posts that contain little, if anything, more than direct quotations, many quite long and often tedious, from study Bibles, commentaries, or excerpts from "authorities" copied directly from various web sites. While it may be fitting, on occasion, to cite this or that Bible scholar as a point of reference or background, it can easily be overdone. Long, multi-paragraphed quotations generally make for singularly laborious and unconvincing reading; a summary statement of the view of, say, John MacArthur on an issue might well suffice. A short, pithy excerpt from his writing may be all that is necesary. The reader may, if he so desires, go to MacArthur and read the rest of what he has to say about a given subject. But why bore the reader with the entire passage merely in an effort to nail down some point or another?...... If, in the rush to respond to a question or note, one can't quite provide enough Scripture upon which to base a sound response, it is hardly the proper thing to resort to a quotation from this or that study Bible that "appears" to answer a question. It would be far better in this instance, to let the question pass. Perhaps someone else is better equipped to answer it..... In summary, there can be found little fault in the sparse and occasional use of quotations from study Bibles, commentaries, or favorite web sites. But, do we accomplish anything of much value when we make the forum little more than, as one user has observed, a medium for comparing study Bibles? Our final authority for faith and practice is the Bible itself. --Hank | ||||||
4127 | Paul had no co-authors, only secretaries | Rom 16:22 | Hank | 9196 | ||
Nolan, first off, I'd beg to quibble a bit about the terminology of "co-author" because that, it seems to me, comes close to saying, for example, that Paul and someone else (Tertius in Romans) had an equal hand in the composition of the material being presented. But of course this view would hardly bear the weight of evidence that we have that it was Paul the apostle whose inspired words were being recorded. And I am without any doubt that you intended to attach no such interpretation as this to your question..... If we may, let's replace "co-author" with the word "amanuensis." This omnious-sounding word simply means secretary, or in modern times, we'd call this person a stenographer, or steno for short, and it means someone who in ancient times was employed as a secretary. The author would dictate and the amanuensis would write. This practice is clearly reflected in Rom.16:22, 1 Cor.16:21, Gal.6:11, and 2 Thess.3:17. Since the amanuensis merely wrote down what the apostle dictated to him to be written, it would hardly seem necessary that he, the amanuensis, would himself be inspired. The inspiration of the Spirit was given to the apostle, not the stenographer. --Hank | ||||||
4128 | Why? | Matt 7:13 | Hank | 9156 | ||
Ezekiel, Hello! I've just completed a reading of all your posts and you, from all appearances, strike me as a sincere and honest person, by no means someone who wishes to cause disunity or strife among this group of people that gather here from time to time on the forum with the intent and purpose to study the Book that we Christians prize above every other book ever written. It is vital, and I believe you will agree, that we introduce no topics for discussion that are highly charged with controversy or denominational bias. This is not my dictum, but Lockman's, our generous host of whom we are really guests...... In this context I now come, Ezekiel, to address the Oneness issue, and I do in view of your recent post to Nolan in which you mentioned your aim to return to give more reasons for your Oneness views. I appeal to you in the spirit of Christian charity, Ezekiel, to refrain from further discussion of this topic, and here's why. A few weeks ago this topic of Oneness versus Triunity dominated the forum for days on end. In fact, I have just run a search using the single word, oneness, and it produced no fewer than 106 posts. Frankly, Ezekiel, it is my honest opinion that so pervasively did this bitter debate rage that we lost some good people who became so sickened by the divisiveness and rancor generated by it that they logged out for good. And I don't for a moment believe that you, Ezekiel, in view of how explosive a controversial subject such as this can become, want to be the person who detonates the fuse..... So then, having stated your view on Oneness, can we just simply let it go at that? I'm quite certain that the reasons you have for your position are all contained in the 106 or more posts that have already become a part of the record of the forum proceedings..... I pray that you will accept my suggestions and request in the same spirit in which I make them, and I look forward with alacrity to "visiting" with you on the forum for days to come. God be with you and with me and with us all as we bond together on the forum to study and learn more of His eternal truth as we journey together toward our eternal home. --Hank | ||||||
4129 | Should a Christian be a Mason? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 9128 | ||
Hiram, my sense of your post is that you gave it for informational purposes only, and that you are not advocating the position of the Masonic Lodge as regarding the Bible being "only as a symbol." Would you be so kind as clarify this a bit for the benefit of some who may have misgiving about whether this is meant to be an advocacy of the Masonic position on the Bible? Thank you, Hiram, in advance. --Hank | ||||||
4130 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 9077 | ||
Brandi, indeed you're right in assuming that my original question regarding evolution really pertained to macro-, not microevolution. And I certainly concur that "horizontal" adaptions, i.e., so-called microevolution, are scientifically substantiated and consistent with the creation account of Genesis. Some creationists are perhaps conditioned to respond negatively to any process of nature that contains the word "evolution." But breeds of dogs, for example, represent variations within the species, or microevolution. But a dog remains a dog nonetheless, be it Great Dane or Toy Poodle. If a German Shepherd is mated to a Collie, the offspring is neither a German Shepherd nor a Collie, but a mixed breed of dog and still very much a dog, not some other animal. You made an interesting post and I appreciate your calling attention to the significant differences between the evolution that is called macroevolution, which I believe no strict creationist can accept with comfort, and microevolution, which most can. An interesting website that offers much information on this subject is icr.org (Institute for Creation Reseearch) --Hank | ||||||
4131 | Re: Ex 33:19 | Ex 7:3 | Hank | 8977 | ||
Mark, had you not pulled my sentence out of context and posted your comments on it with apparent haste, which I honestly and candidly consider both brash and unfair, you would (or should) have been able to see that the remarks I made bear not the slightest kinship with Moses' intercession for Israel in Numbers 14, nor with the laments of the Psalms. I stand by what I posted and consider no defense necessary. --Hank | ||||||
4132 | Re: Ex 33:19 | Ex 7:3 | Hank | 8962 | ||
Hiram, my friend, I assure you that my post was no attempt to resurrect the election vs. free-will debate that raged on and on some time ago on the forum. My point is that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is a sovereign God and as such can do, and does, what He pleases. Frankly, Hiram, I couldn't agree with you more. God's sovereign election is above my head, too. And, as for that matter, slightly above the heads of both Calvinists and Arminians and everyone in between who presume to understand it completely. No one can presume to understand all there is to understand, or to know all there is to know, about the transcendent God. Some things, if not most of them, God reserved for His province alone. It is therefore fatuous and inane, if indeed not blasphemous, of us created beings to question God or to appear to offer our paltry schemes and suggestions to Him for doing things in a better way than He does. We find ourselves at times engaged in some vain attempt to extract from the Bible things that simply aren't there, to ask "biblical" questions about things on which the Bible is silent, and to ignore things about which the Bible shouts. It is, in my estimation Hiram, a mark of wisdom, not ignorance, when one has the courage and honesty to admit, as you have, that certain things are way over our heads. And I love your statement: "It is enough to know that He saved me regardless of whether He chose me or I came to Him of my own free will." No debate here; there is neither reason nor room for it! Blessings to you, Hiram Abiff. --Hank | ||||||
4133 | Mark, Couldn't of been God.... | Gen 18:2 | Hank | 8957 | ||
Mark, it is clear to me that you totally missed my point. Perhaps I failed to make it clear and acknowledge my shortcomings, but have neither the ability nor inclination to attempt to expand on the subject. --Hank | ||||||
4134 | Mark, Couldn't of been God.... | Gen 18:2 | Hank | 8951 | ||
This is a complex issue, to be sure. What does it mean when the biblical writers speak of "seeing God"? We tread in deep waters and on shaky ground when we attempt a definition. We know that God is spirit (John 4:24; is it then possible to see "the essence of God" with eyes of clay? Perhaps -- and I venture with great caution -- we attach a meaning to "see" that is more limited in scope than that which the biblical writers meant for it to be. We can "see" in the mind's eye what cannot be seen by our physical eyes. Perhaps something of this sort came about in connection with the Christphanies or Theophanies of the Old Testament. One thing stands out as being abundantly clear: Whatever the method God used to reveal himself, He left no doubt in the minds of the beholders Who He is. God chose to reveal Himself in a special, supernatural way, but the exact means by which He did this remain, for this writer, one of God's mysteries. Similarly, the details of Christ's transfiguration and His post-ascension appearance to Saul of Tarsus are, to some degree, shrouded in mystery. The apostle, in his John 1:18 verse, may have been speaking of another kind of "seeing God" than were the Old Testament writers. This may not be a very intelligent exegesis, or the right one, but it's the best I can manage on this side of heaven. --Hank | ||||||
4135 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Hank | 8948 | ||
Very true, Steve, one cannot build a system of theology on an isolated verse or passage. And here we mean, of course, a genuinely orthodox theology. But cults do it all the time. They build a cultic "non-theology" -- a scheme tailored made to suit their pre-conceived notions. If they can twist a verse here and there that seems to lend credence to their beliefs, fine, they'll use it. If not, they fly without it. And in the process they manage to delude and deceive an incredible number of people. --Hank | ||||||
4136 | Cities of Judah or Cities of Demons? | Genesis | Hank | 8913 | ||
Another great post, Tim. I think we can all see that you have demonstrated that it is possible to be objective and firm in what you say, yet kind and patient. We can point out possible errors in thinking or interpretation without having to slap our questioner in the face. The Bible is to be read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested as someone once noted. But it serves it ill, and us as well, to engage in heated controversy. I commend you for your handling with coolness and dignity the challenges that have been put before you on the forum. I truly feel you have rightfully earned the thanks and respect of us all. Yours is a pattern we should do ourselves the favor of attempting to emulate. --Hank | ||||||
4137 | Repentence or remorse? | Matt 27:5 | Hank | 8908 | ||
Well, prayon, Jesus certainly will forgive your "big oops!" And more than likely everyone on the forum too; we've all "ooped it up" a few times ourselves :-) You do consistently fine work on the forum. May God richly bless your efforts. --Hank | ||||||
4138 | Where have all those good guys gone? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8905 | ||
TO: Charis, EdB, JVH, Reformer Joe......I woke up this morning and asked myself...... Where have all these good guys gone?...long time posting! Where have all these good guys gone?...We miss them so! --Hank | ||||||
4139 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Hank | 8904 | ||
Dear Melchizedekau -- What I hear you saying is that baptism is not essential to salvation. That, I hold, is quite truly taught in Scripture. But on the other hand you seem to intimate that one doesn't need baptism if he is saved today and dies tomorrow. You then pose this puzzling question, "But what about the day after, and the day after that?"....... Well, what about it?..... I interpret that to mean you are supporting some noton that salvation without bapism is a temporary matter -- somewhat analogous to granting a new driver a learner's permit until he has had sufficient time to fulfill the requirements for a permanent license..... You equate salvation to baptism with a baby being born naked and hungry. A naked and hungry baby is no less a baby, and his birth is no less a birth. If a baby is to grow and develop he will need food and care, to be sure, but his food and care, or the lack of it, do no alter the fact of his being born. In like manner, baptism and spiritual nourishment, or the lack of it, do not alter the fact that the sinner was saved through belief in Christ Jesus. --Hank | ||||||
4140 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Hank | 8876 | ||
Joseph, while I confess that I'm not entirely sure I understand you, I'll venture to say this: The passage in 1 Thess.4:16 says "the Lord....with the voice of the archangel." Of course, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse not only affirms the pre-existence of Christ, but says unequivocally that Christ (the Word) was with God -- in communion with yet distinct from God -- and was God -- identical in essence with God; hence, of the Triunity. Saying that "in the beginning was the Word" is not the same thing as saying, "with the voice of an archangel." Having "the voice of an archangel" is not being an archangel." A vocalist may sing like a bird (have the voice of a bird) but does not become a bird. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 ] Next > Last [217] >> |