Results 4301 - 4320 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4301 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Hank | 3325 | ||
Dear Chris: Wherein have I hurt you, or is this a joke that I'm too dense to get? And what does Jumping Joe have to do with it? Again, I plead mental dullness. The only possible way I can tie my remarks to yours so that you might be prompted to say "Hank, you have truy hurt me!" is that you took my remark about an oft-misquoted verse to mean that I believed the mis-quotation to be, in fact, the correct one. Is that it? And could "hurt" therefore be construed to mean "disappointed"? Chris, you have posted a good response to the question under consideration. That is in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the Forum, I believe. As for your closing statement, if you are serious and something did in fact truly hurt you, please let me know and I will make every effort to effect reparation. It serves no purpose and achieves no worthy end for anyone on this Forum to foster ill-will by deliberate remarks whose clear intent is to put another person down or in some way attempt to demean him. I have not, nor do I ever intend to, post anything on this Forum with those base motives in mind. We can disagree if we must, but by the grace of God, we can do so agreeably. Hank. | ||||||
4302 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Hank | 3290 | ||
Thank you, Mel (if I may so shorten your user name). My question about money being the root of all evil was posed more as rhetorical to invite discussion than as a personal quest for a correct reading of the verse which I've known for half a century. I'm sure you didn't mean for your response to be considered by me in the imperative, i.e., Hank, read the verse correctly! and I don't so consider your intent. To your good answer I would suggest that his vast wealth may have led King Solomon, at least to some degree, to his "all is vanity" conclusion with which he begins but happily does not end the book of Ecclesiastes. Hank | ||||||
4303 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3129 | ||
Paul, I've read with great interest your question concerning Lockman's wisdom or lack thereof in provideing this Forum. Additionally I've read the responses posted by EdB and JVH. I am a man well over fifty years old. I have been a Christian and an active church member for most of my life thus far. I have read and studied the Bible far less than I should but considerably nontheless. As a consequence of my many years of experience and study, it is quite true that I see questions posed on the Forum that strike me as so easy that any child in a Sunday School class should be able to give a ready answer. But the questioner may not have had the advantage that I enjoyed of being raised and nurtured by Christian parents. He may not, in fact, have ever been in a Bible study group in his life. Let's consider one of the very questions that has been mentioned, the question of where Cain got his wife. I attempted to answer it as best I could. I did not consider it flippant or off the wall, and the reason I didn't is this: Some time ago a friend, a prominent member of my city approached me and wanted to talk. He admitted he was embarrassed to bring the matter up with his pastor for fear of appearing dense. So he came to me, his friend. What did he want to talk about? Who in the world was Cain's wife! Now you see why I attempted to answer the user's question. I think we err when we think certain categories of questions should be proscribed on the Forum. That is not to say that questions that are quite clearly and unquestionably posed to trick, to be cute, to incite divisiveness, to promote a pet doctrine or refute one -- questions of this sort should not be asked, and if asked, ignored or answered courteously but curtly. The answer may simply be that there is no answer in light of Scripture. And that becomes a good answer indeed. I see no harm in debate, for what else could we call some of Jesus' discourses with the Jewish leaders? It should not, and need not, lead to invectiveness. One of you mentioned theology, that it should not be discussed. If by "theology" you mean narrow and quite often controversial doctrinal issues or dogma, I agree in toto. But a broader definition of theology is the study of God and His relation to the world. Doesn't that come close to describing what the Bible is all about? We don't want to ban that, do we? ... When I read a question posed on the Forum I try hard to envisage the questioner -- by the question itself, by the language (yes, even grammatical correctness), by any sense of urgency that might or might not be conveyed. This is far from being an exact science, but it helps. I think it fair to assume that the question is an honest one unless one can produce cogent reasons to think otherwise. Lockman provide a moderator? Not a good move. Suppose, for example, someone with an honest question, a real seeker of truth if I may so characterize it, attempted to post a question but had not the facility of writing skills necessary to pose his question in clear, standard English. The moderator might well filter his question out, to the detriment of the poor fellow who sought help in his quest to understand God's word.Besides that, who would want the job? Not I. If you have stayed with me thus far, thank you for your indulgence. Let us pray that this medium, this Forum, will be a blessing to Christians and a source of encouragement to those who may know of the Lord but don't yet know Him. This is, after all, the Web. What we say here literally encircles the globe. Isn't it intriguing to ponder on what the apostle Paul might have done with the opportunities that are literally at our fingertips? Hank. | ||||||
4304 | One religion as good as another? | John 14:6 | Hank | 3096 | ||
Sarge, it was the sentence toward the end of your answer that puzzled me. You said, "I pray that your heart and mind are opened." This lead me to wonder whether there might be some element in my question, or even the question itself, that would suggest to you and perhaps others that I view one religion as being as good as the next. And, as you know, I've attempted previously to establish that this is by no means the case. By the way, I liked your answer. Grace to you. Hank | ||||||
4305 | One religion as good as another? | John 14:6 | Hank | 3062 | ||
Thank you, Sarge, for your response. Let me hasten to assure you and everyone on the Forum that my question reflects neither my view nor my stand on the issue in question. If you or anyone else drew any inference that I hold all religions on an equal plane, please by all means erase your drawing! I am a Christian and believe John 14:6 with every fiber of my being. Having thus cleared the decks, I will add the observation of an interesting fact that I discovered some years ago when I lead a seminar in the study of world religions. The founders of the world's major religions except Christianity all wrote of their journey to find truth. Jesus stands alone in this. At no time and in no place did he ever, ever speak of his journey to find the truth. He, and He alone, said, "I AM the truth." Grace to you. Hank. | ||||||
4306 | does bible teach eternal security? | Phil 1:6 | Hank | 3006 | ||
mgdj7 - Sir or Madam: This is your first post. May it be assumed you are new to the Forum? Then, welcome! There is, as JVH pointed out, a sizeable accumulation of material here on the Forum having to do with this very important yet somewhat disputed doctrine. One of the prerequisities I think in being able to grasp the concept of the eternal security of the believer is in having a real understanding of what grace really is. As a boy in Sunday School I remember its having been defined as "unmerited favor" and even that simple definition was a bit murky to me then. But that's really what the grace of God is. It's God's unconditional love (agape) for humankind. Our love by and large is conditional (eros). We love with a hook, as it were. We give love, but attach a hook to it in order to catch love, to bring love back to us, to be requitted. We say, "I love Mary now, but if she acts up and does things in the future that I don't like, I may stop loving her." Conditional (eros). God says, "I love you now and even if you act up and do things in the future that I don't like, I will love you still." Unconditional (agape). God is a transcendent God. There is nothing to compare him with. His love is agape love, utterly unconditional. Ours is based more on eros, conditonal love, love with a hook. Our minds come to the end of their tether; we simply cannot fully understand the transcendent God and the depth and nature of His love. So we try to re-image God, to make Him anthropomorphic in the mistaken hope that we will be able to understand Him better. So what kind of love would an anthropomorphic (having human attributes) God have? The same as ours. conditional love, love with a hook, love that requires something of the one loved in order to keep it going. Our natural proclivity is to compare the nature of God's love with the nature of ours. That's why we balk at the concept that God can reach out to us with a love so profound and so utterly selfless that He will save us eternally without any works or deeds or conditions whatever. We are saved by grace, by God's grace alone, through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Does it then become easier to see why we wrestle so hard in trying to come to terms with the concept of the eternal security of the believer? By way of reference, in addition to what JVH has suggested, you might want to consult the MacArthur Study Bible if you have a copy or can lay hands on one. In the very back of the volume right before the maps you will find an appendix called "Overview of Theology." Go to the sub-section under Salvation titled Security. There you will find a string of Biblical references on the subject which will provide you with much material for study and reflection. If you are unable to locate this resource, post a note on the Forum and JVH or I can provide you with them. I pray that God will guide you in your search for His eternal truth. Hank. | ||||||
4307 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2915 | ||
In all candor, I believe the question, "Where do blacks come from?" is an anthropological, not a Biblical, question. The obvious non-technical answer, of course, is that all life comes from God, the God of all creation. We human beings tend to be infinitely more curious about race and color than we have any evidence of God ever being.Things that are vital to our spiritual life are amply addressed in Scripture. Race isn't. | ||||||
4308 | Does God hear a sinner's prayer? | Prov 15:29 | Hank | 2821 | ||
Thank you for your response, Inerrant Word. Welcome as an active participant in the Forum.References to prayer in the Bible are numerous indeed, leading one to draw with ease the inference that God places it high on His list of priorities. In Romans 10:13 Paul, quoting Joel (2:32) says, "for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Verse 9 of this chapter says, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Combining the two, then, we arrive at what has been called the "sinner's prayer." We have the assurance of His word that He will hear and answer a prayer like that. Of course I'm referring to the "unsaved sinner" here. We are, all of us who are Christian, only sinners saved by grace, as the hymn has it. Christians can be denied answer to prayer for a number of reasons cited in Scripture. For example,they can ask with the wrong motives (James 4:3), or with wickedness in their heart (Psalm 66:18) Scripture lists a number of other things that cause us to become out of fellowship with God. We can be a child of God (saved) but live in such a manner that we fall out of fellowship with Him. The Bible teaches that our prayers fall on deaf ears until we confess our sins and ask forgiveness, thus restoring our fellowship, our intimacy if you will, with God. Few of us perhaps have not, at some time in our Christian walk, fallen out of fellowship with God. In his lovingkindness He reached out to us and brought us back. John Henry Newman writes about such an experience in his book, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, and recapitulates it beautifully in the lyrics which he wrote to the stirring hymn, Lead, Kindly Light. | ||||||
4309 | The Prayer Jesus Never Prayed | Matt 6:9 | Hank | 2795 | ||
The passages from Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 are commonly known as the Lord's Prayer. This is a misnomer. Our Lord could never have prayed this prayer. Look at verse 12 of Matthew 6 and verse 4 of Luke 11 wherein are the words, "forgive us our sins."How then could He who never sinned pray for forgiveness? The idea is untenable. Jesus Himself prayed often and clearly taught His disciples to pray, but what we know as the "Lord's Prayer" he never prayed except within the context of teaching. It was given by the Teacher as a pattern to his disciples in response to their request for instruction in how to pray. One of the finest examples of a prayer that Jesus did pray is what has been called the High Priestly Prayer recorded in John 17. I have no qualms about reciting the pattern prayer, except that a repeated recitation is vulnerable to becoming a mindless, sing-song mantra. Mumbling mere words in parrot-like fashion is something other than true prayer. Jesus in his instructive model showed his disciples what the elements of a prayer should be. This model merits a lifetime of study and reflection and ought ever be our guide to prayer. | ||||||
4310 | Use Info Update? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2785 | ||
Hank's dull statistics are now posted, charis. Chris and JVH twisted my arm! Now let everyone rejoice. God be with all during this special week -- the week so meaningful to believers everywhere -- the week our Lord suffered on the cross and died for our sins -- the week in which He was gloriously resurrected! Glory and honor and praise to His name! | ||||||
4311 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2784 | ||
My heart-felt response, PNLamb, is that all bodies of believers, be they Southern Baptist or anything else, dare not lose sight of their Christ-commissioned mission which is to preach the gospel to everyone on earth. To the extent that this primary mission is pre-empted by various other agenda, we as the church grievously dilute our strength and influence in the world and wax derelict in our duty. Not only in Tennessee (I was born in Chattanooga) but all across the land the pressures of the secular world are being exerted upon the church. It is imperative upon us perhaps as never before in history to stand firm -- not militantly, but lovingly -- for the faith that we hold so dearly. God be with you, my brother, in all things. | ||||||
4312 | For Hank and everybody else!! | John 11:25 | Hank | 2781 | ||
OK, Chris and JVH, you have me convinced that, clam though I am, I must relinquish my prized anonymity and promise to do so anon. This brings to mind a cartoon my son recently brought to my attention. Two dogs were sitting before a computer screen and one of them was typing furiously on his keyboard. The caption read, "You know, the great thing about the Web is that no one ever need know that I'm a dog." Do you now see the reason for my reluctance? | ||||||
4313 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2693 | ||
Beg to differ with jg8ball on his statemenet (reference John 1:12) which reads "When you believe in His name, you will receive him. The New Testament cites instances in which someone believed but did not receive Jesus, i.e. did not receive Him as the Savior and Lord of their lives. Satan is the premier example. The rich ruler of Luke 18. King Agrippa came close in Acts 26. The sense of the passage is that he believed, came close to receiving, but didn't. One can taste without swallowing. One can believe without receiving. Belief in Jesus is the first step toward receiving him, but it does not necessarily lead to receiving him as the Lord and Savior of our lives. Ask a hundred people, "Do you believe in Jesus?" Chances are you will get some form of "yes" in the majority of cases. Ask the same one hundred, "Have you received Jesus in your heart as your Savior?" The number of positive responses will likely dwindle -- unless, of course, your sampling is made up solely of pastors or Baptist deacons! If I'm all wet on this point, please do feel free to enlighten me. Even though I am past the half-century mark, I have yet to attain either infinite wisdom or infallibility. | ||||||
4314 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2687 | ||
A further comment on your question, load, and JVH's note. Readers of a number of modern translations and paraphrases will find no such italicized words. Because they, many of them at least, make no pretext of having followed the ancient texts with the same precision as the NASB translators have done, the usage of italics by them would be both moot and decidedly voluminous. I can think of a couple of versions offhand that would be printed largely in italics. One would not go far afield to say that the presence of an occasional italicized word or phrase in the text is virtually one of the hallmarks of a reliable translation! | ||||||
4315 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2671 | ||
Good point! Your being a Southern Baptist affirms that we, you and I, are birds of a feather. In all candor, I'm hard pressed to come up with cogent reasons for yet another translation. Have Bible publishers joined ranks with soap and cereal producers, ever searching for a new brand with which to saturate an already glutted market? It seems so. In reference to your proposal to use this tidy sum for missionary or other endeavors instead of another translation of the Bible, I would posit that in the publication of this new Bible they hope to recoup a part, if not all, of their cash outlay. Such would not be their fortune, of course, in missionary enterprises. | ||||||
4316 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2667 | ||
Agreed. KJV for four centuries has been, and continues to be, a beautiful work. Its words have music in them. Hailed by John Livingston Lowes "the noblest monument of English prose" it has long been regarded a paradigm of English usage. When I hear someone decry the old KJV I cannot help but think they are allowing their ignorance to ooze out. But, on balance, the English language of our time is considerably different from the Jacobean language of 1611. While no translation of the Bible since the King James translators set pen to paper in 1611 quite reaches the lofty linguistic heights they reached, we must in our efforts to seek the truth of God's beloved Word, look first for clarity of meaning at the expense of, if it must be, literary excellence. I cannot resist adding in defense of the Authorized Version, that for all its archaic vocabulary and turns of phrase, is far and away to be preferred over some of the modern renditions that masquerade as Holy Writ. | ||||||
4317 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2609 | ||
I return with egg on my face! The textual base for the Amplified New Testament is indeed Westcott-Hort, which was the standard of the time in which Mrs. Siewert did her work. This fact was not in the introduction to the Amplified, but I did further research on-line and found it. In your question you also raised the issue of Westcott-Hort's reliability. There is ample variety of opinion among Bible scholars on this point. This much appears certain: The Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament of 1881 represented the signal departure from the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which formed the textual base for the Authorized, or King James Version. Understandably this departure creatured quite a stir, particularly among dedicated adherents to the King James Version. This debate is alive and well today, especially in the camp of those who hold that the KJV is the only truly reliable Bible extant. I am emphatically not a bird of this feather, but neither do I wish to engage in any debate on the subject. On the other hand, there are those who are more benign toward Westcott-Hort, among whom is Bruce Metzger, deemed by his peers one of the most influential of modern textual critics. By the way, if you'd like more on the Westcott and Hort subject, go to one of the search engines (I used Yahoo) and type in "Westcott and Hort." You'll probably get more information than you really wanted to know! | ||||||
4318 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2493 | ||
Thanks, LB Lamb, for your response. Your points of view on translations are interesting, although I must confess I'd never really thought much along the paths that your views lead me except your rejection for obvious reasons some of the less-than-orthodox versions. Holman is listed as a non-profit organization and would hardly come under the category of commerical publishers. The translation team of this Bible, some 80 in number, are half of them Baptists and half of various other communions. It seems to me, with all respect, that your criterion of rejecting a transalation that is "developed and editorially controlled primarily by denominations" would leave the Authorized Version out, because it was most assuredly a product of and for the Anglican (Church of England) communion. The name of the publication is Holman Christian Standard Bible, not Holman Baptist Bible. As with any new translation, I opt to reserve my vote until I've had ample opportunity to examine it thoroughly and carefully. For a project of this magnitude which is projected to cost some 10 to 12 million dollars, I believe it only fair to give them a chance to prove their stuff. Public acceptance of a new translation has historically been a slow process, and that's good. It took the King James Version fifty years to find its place in the sun. | ||||||
4319 | Was the wine alcoholic or not | John 2:10 | Hank | 2473 | ||
Kathy, opinions are somewhat divided on this one. I searched four study Bibles and one commentary for any light they might offer on John 2:10. Without exception, they grappled with the issue by skipping to the next verse! The wine may well have been alcoholic, inasmuch as wine diluted with three parts water was a common table beverage in Jesus' time. While drunkenness is roundly condemned in Scripture, Paul prescribed for Timothy "a little wine for the sake of your stomach" in 1 Tim. 5:23. (We don't know whether Dr. Luke concurred!) But earlier in the same letter (3:3) Paul in laying down the qualifications for overseers of the church says they be "not addicted to wine." God gives us some interesting vignettes in Scripture of foolish things people do while under the influence, e.g., Noah and Lot. So, what inference can we draw from John 2:10. That Jesus forbids using wine as a beverage? Hardly. That He condones drunkenness? No. That the choice is ours to make? This may be a viable option. However, we know today that alcohol, among other things, can be addictive. I discovered this early in life and, thanks be to God, found the strength to walk away from it. Others I have known have not been so fortunate. One would be hard pressed to cite chapter and verse in the Bible to prove that traveling 80 miles an hour in a 30-mile zone is foolish and outright hazardous, or that smoking a pack or two of cigarettes a day will sooner or later help the undertaker pay for his new Mercedes. God lays down eternal principles to guide us in our walk with Him. Many detais he leaves to our discretion. But in His goodness and infinite wisdom, He chose to equip us with sense and reason. Since He never does anything by caprice, I believe he expects us to use it not only for His glory, but also for our own good. I think the issue of whether a Christian should drink anything alcoholic may be likened to the issue of eating meat in Paul's time: Will it cause my brother to stumble? A good friend of mine happens to be a circuit court judge and a Christian. He told me one time that he chose not to drink because he was concerned that drink might dilute his Christian witness. "So," he added with a sly grin, "I remain sober as a judge." | ||||||
4320 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2411 | ||
From a wet-eared neophyte to a (assumed) veteran, thank you for the steerings. I'll get around to making a profile. I must make the crucial decision of whether to be literal and dull (nothing to do with Bible versions!) or to gussy it up liberally with flowery paraphrase. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ] Next > Last [217] >> |