Results 4281 - 4300 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4281 | DOES THE BIBLE TALK ABOUT CHRISTMAS TREE | Judg 4:4 | Hank | 4070 | ||
Very true, and thank you JVH, for adding depth and specificity to my original answer to Cheri's good question. The results of your careful research have been reflected in abundance on this Forum and we are in your debt. You set a splendid example for all of us to post with care after, not before, we have done our homework. I salute you, my brother! --Hank | ||||||
4282 | Were Jesus' disciples baptized? | Acts 9:18 | Hank | 4058 | ||
Doesn't Acts 1:5 point to the event at Pentecost recorded in Acts 2:1-4? In my question about the disciples' baptism, the phrase "in any manner" refers to both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Can we not conclude then that all of Jesus' original twelve disciples were baptized in some manner? [Judas Iscariot, of course, was no longer among them at Pentecost]. Is it possible that the twelve were also baptized with water? Does anyone know? --Hank | ||||||
4283 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | Hank | 3995 | ||
reformedreader, granted that the term "church age" is not found in Scripture in exactly those two words, but neither is the word "trinity." Are both terms therefore man-made contrivances and, being such, should be considered as having no validity? Are we to conclude that there is no such reality as God's progressive revelation to humankind? Are we further to conclude that Judaism and Christianity are one and the same? I'm having all manner of troubles in trying to tie up all these loose threads in light of my understanding of what the Bible teaches. --Hank | ||||||
4284 | Who's sinning? | Col 3:9 | Hank | 3966 | ||
Lifer 1J511: Here is an excerpt from your answer ..."The only sin that Christ did'nt pay for is the sin of unbelief. That is the one sin that must be repented of -- what do you say about Jesus Christ. Is He who He says He is? That sin, unbelief in Christ, cannot be forgiven. It must be repented of. You must change your mind about who Christ is. This is the illusive 'unpardonable sin'" Now I have a few questions. From what Biblical passage or passages did you draw your conclusion that Christ's death on the cross paid for all sins but one? Where does the Bible teach that Christ can do nothing for unbelief; it must be repented of? Then to whom do we confess it and who absolves our guilt once we repent of it? How does one go about repenting for unbelief? Is it saying, "I'm sorry, Jesus, I just don't believe in you?" You say we must change our minds about who Christ is: Who changed Paul's mind? Was it Paul? Who convicts us of sin. Ourselves? The final point I want to address is this: You say that one must change one's mind about who Christ is, that this is the illusive (your word) 'unpardonable sin' (your quotation marks) I cannot let this go by with merely a question. Read Matthew 12:22-32. In the discourse recorded in these verses Jesus healed a demon-possessed blind mute and the Pharisees ascribed his power, not to the power of Holy Spirit working through Jesus, but to Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons. It was then that Jesus said, "Therefore I say to you any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." --Matt. 12:31. That is exactly what the unpardonable sin is. There is nothing illusive about it. It is satanic, demonic blasphemy. It is saying that the power of Christ resides in Satan. That's a quantum leap from being merely a lack of faith. I don't intend to sound mean or harsh. I believe you are sincere. But I do ask that you reconsider your answer in light of the questions I've posed, but far more importantly, in light of what the Scriptures actually teach about the issues. --Hank | ||||||
4285 | Were Jesus' disciples baptized? | Acts 9:18 | Hank | 3963 | ||
Were there others? Note the phrase "in any manner" in the question. --Hank | ||||||
4286 | Calling on the Lord is a heart issue. | Acts 2:47 | Hank | 3913 | ||
Your note, Cherub21, was beautiful and inspiring; it speaks to the heart. It served me well as a springboard for my morning devotional and meditation. We do speak with diverse tongues but the music is the same, isn't it? -- the music of love for our Beautiful Savior. A paraphrase of that magnificent verse from the Love Chapter, 1 Cor. 13: If we speak in the tongues of men and of angels but have not [the music of] love, we are nothing. In your ministry of music you must have sung that lovely hymn of Charles Wesley, "O for a thousand tongues to sing/My dear Redeemer's praise,/The glories of my God and King,/The triumphs of His grace! Thank you for your contribution and may the Lord richly bless you and your husband in your ministries. --Hank | ||||||
4287 | Sons of God cannot be angels in Gen 6:4 | Gen 6:4 | Hank | 3876 | ||
JVH, I agree. There is such a thing as sawing sawdust or beating a dead horse. Many of the questions and likewise the responses have been good and solid and instructive and spiritually uplifting. But a fair number have not. Some have been way out there. I even wonder sometimes how we've escaped the "Who made God?" question. Questions should be of the type that can be properly answered in light of Scripture and answers should always be founded on Scripture. This forum should encourage and enhance Bible study, not drown in the murky waters of bias, bickering, and wild conjecture. --Hank | ||||||
4288 | 1Corinthians questions: Gifts and women | 1 Corinthians | Hank | 3872 | ||
Johnny-Ray, I've mulled over your answer and a number of questions come to mind. For sake of brevity I'll reduce them to two. (1) You say that you spoke in tongues some 25 years ago but have since abandoned the practice when you came to believe that "what was going on in the New Testament Church (I assume the early, apostolic church is meant) was not to continue throughout church history." How then did you have the experience? By whose authority? You say further that you don't see speakng in tongues to be evidence that one is a Christian? What then is it evidence of? Can non-Christians also speak in tongues if they are of a mind to do so? (2) The Bible clearly teaches, you say, that women are to be silent during worship services on Sunday but can talk freely on Wednesdays? Really? Frankly, unless I missed the mark by a mile, I find no Scripture references in your answer; only opinion, and upon what it is based I am at sea to understand. Will you be kind enough to follow up with a more Biblically-oriented answer? --Hank | ||||||
4289 | But the older NASB did. Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3861 | ||
The possible reason cited by retxar is excellent. Another, and possibly additional, reason may well be that the use of the old forms of pronouns in the second person are no longer used in contemporary English and thus appear odd in what claims to be a modern translation. The claim is alive among some that the old pronoun forms are more reverential than modern ones. This is a matter of opinion and taste, nothing else. Jesus addressed the Father as Abba, tantamount to calling Him "Daddy." The autographs of our New Testament were written in the Koine Greek of the people, not in the Attic Greek of the academe. Do prayers prayed in "King James" English have any special advantage? The question merits no response. Everyone who has thought much about it could probably come up with a definition of their ideal translation of the Bible. Mine would be one in which the sacred texts are given in as clear and understandable standard contemporary English as possible without altering their meaning. In my view, the New American Standard Bible 1995 Update comes close. --Hank. | ||||||
4290 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 3839 | ||
Mark, welcome to the Forum! I don't know who you are or what your background is, but I have read with relish your postings this evening, all five of them at this writing, and I am impressed. You give every indication that you have a solid grasp of your subject matter and express it with clarity and felicity. I would venture to guess that you are conversant of the work and mission of the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, CA founded by Henry Morris and now presided over by his son, John. In your excerpt from American Atheist magazine it is easy enough to spot, if not flawed reasoning, a false premise. --Hank | ||||||
4291 | who did cain marry? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 3825 | ||
I heartily agree, JVH. There is more evidence to support the notion that the Apostle Paul was Cain's father because he raised cain with the Christians before he became one himself. In order to arrive at the idea of a pre-Adamic race, we'd have the burden of re-writing Genesis, wouldn't we? But don't laugh. Many have tried. --Hank | ||||||
4292 | How may faith be made stronger? | Prov 3:5 | Hank | 3823 | ||
Nolan, your answer is inspiring, your faith is laudable, and your spiritual insights are keen for so young a man. God-speed to you and as Paul said to young Timothy so echo I to you, "Let none look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." (1 Tim.4:12) Now, some more of you, share your faith with us! --Hank. | ||||||
4293 | Question Number Two? | Matt 24:44 | Hank | 3819 | ||
charis, my own experiences with death, particularly the sudden death of our 20-year-old son in an automobile crash, convince me that we should ever be ready to meet our Lord, whether He returns to meet us or calls us home to meet Him. Insofar as our eternal destiny is concerned there is no discernable difference. It is not only a futile, fatuous and inane human enterprise to postulate theories about end times and the Lord's return, it is highly presumptuous to the point of bordering on outright blasphemy to attempt to second-guess God. The Scriptures surely teach that the time of the second coming of His Son is within the province of the Father alone. The Revelation of John gives us a glimpse of things to come but it does not equip us with a time table. --Hank | ||||||
4294 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 3766 | ||
Bravo, reformedreader (Sam), Bravo! If Jesus were nothing more than a starry-eyed young Jew seeking to cure the ills of the religious establishment of his day and, failing that, deciding to start a new religious organization -- then He would surely be an interloper, a fake, and a sham, not to mention the greatest liar in history. We must accept Jesus for who He said He was -- the Messiah -- or reject Him altogether. He leaves no room for any middle-of-the-roaders. I liked your answer: firm, unequivocal, and solidly grounded in Scriptural truth. --Hank | ||||||
4295 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 3760 | ||
Good, Ron, I'm glad to know you are a creationist! As you no doubt discovered, I tend to come down hard on the unbiblical theory of evolution. I think it is shameful that evolution is taught as a well-established fact in most of our schools today while the Bible cannot be read nor prayers prayed. There is a Website that can be of invaluable help to any Christian grappling with evolution and I cannot recommend it too highly. It's icr.org. The "icr" stands for Institute for Creation Research, a sound Christian organization based in El Cajon, CA. I have met and had several conversations with its president, Dr. John Morris. I also own a fine study Bible called the Defender's Study Bible, edited by John's father, Dr. Henry Morris. I appreciate your very prompt response, and don't forget to log on to icr.org. --Hank | ||||||
4296 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 3757 | ||
Dear Sir or Madam: While I respectfully agree with virtually nothing in your note, I defend your right to say it. Your use of the word "species" is not scientific. What is meant is varieties within species that make individual adaptions to environmental demands. The assertion that totally new species have evolved since creation has no valid scientific proof. It is theory. May I submit that the business of the Christian is not to attempt to defend the unfounded assertions postulated in the Darwinian theory, nor try to reconcile them with the Biblical account of creation, but rather to accept God at His word to the exclusion of man's futile guesses. Hank | ||||||
4297 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Hank | 3620 | ||
Sam, I appreciate your comment. Let me attempt to make my point clearer by recasting the sentence. Given the situation in which one translation stands in opposition to all the others on some crucial issue, wouldn't you agree that that particular translation might well be suspect? My point is that it seems to me highly unlikely that all the other scholars of all the other translations would have erred so miserably. Doesn't that make sense to you? If all history books but one say that George Washington was the first U.S. President, and the one refuted them by saying Abraham Lincoln was, what are we to beleve? Hank | ||||||
4298 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Hank | 3613 | ||
I've been following this line of dialogue with some interest. I offer two brief observations. When one translation differs materially from all other accepted translations, should not the one rather than the many be suspect? And, as a caveat to us all, should not we make every effort to make doubly sure our facts are indeed facts before we publish them for all the world to see? It is all too easy and perhaps tempting to air opinion or heavily skewed sectarian bias as irrefutable fact. Hank | ||||||
4299 | Favorite Bible study tools? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3374 | ||
The Thompson Chain Reference Bible has been in print a long time, which is attestation enough to its usefulness. I believe it is available only in the King James Version. Am I right? As a follow up to something you said about using no keys for study but the reference system and the Bible text itself. There is, of course, no substitute for reading the Bible itself in as pure and accurate a translation as one can lay hands on. The NASB, in the view of many, is as good as they come. But if you are troubled by study Bibles and commentaries for reasons you outlined, your stand is not without merit. But there are rich and instructive alternate routes one can pursue. I'm thinking about a good, responsible Bible dictionary or other books that give you enlightening, factual background information about Bible lands, customs, people, government, laws and the like. These resource materials are relatively free of doctrinal or intrepretive bias and can, like cross references and maps, be an invaluable aid to the modern reader who finds himself frequently puzzled by the way things were done centuries ago and miles away from our time and place. The Lord be with you in all things. Hank. | ||||||
4300 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Hank | 3372 | ||
Thank you, Chris, for your kind response. May you and yours experience in abundance the riches of Christ's love during this time of celebrating His glorious resurrection. Hank. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ] Next > Last [217] >> |