Results 501 - 520 of 558
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | World English Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6940 | ||
I personally think it is better than the NASB because it is based on the MT instead of the CT, which I FEEL is more accurate. The WEB Bible is also public domain as the KJV is. The WEB Bible is complete Gen-Rev in electronic form and is available as a free download for the excellent free Bible program called e-Sword @ e-sword.net. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
502 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6847 | ||
This is an issue I struggled with for years, because I knew God only wrote one Bible. Let me explain why I came to the conclusion that the received text is closest to God’s original inspired words than the critical text. We often pray to God to be greatly concerned about things we ourselves do not seem to care so much about. The received text addresses that in Mat 17:21, the critical text does not. John 7:8 would seem to indicate deception on the part of Jesus if the word “yet” is missing, as in the CT. John 8:1-11 in not included in the CT. Many sermons have been preached on John 8:1-11, with much good fruit brought forth. I don’t think that would have been possible unless it was God’s inspired Word. The last part of Mark is missing in the CT, but it is included with brackets in all CT Bibles. I think this is important, inspired, scripture because it contains direct commands from Jesus, and unless one misinterprets verse 18a, it causes no doctrinal differences among believers. The belief that baptism is meant for believers only is not dependant on one verse, but there is none stronger than Acts 8:37, which is missing in the CT. The longer ending of Romans 8:1, in the RT, would seem to be correct in context with Romans 8:2 and the rest of the chapter that speaks of walking according to the Spirit, not the flesh. The CT text puts much weight on the Alexandrian (Egypt) text. The RT is based on the Byzantine (Antioch) text. The Alexandrian text is closer, date wise, to the originals than the Byzantine text. However, Byzantine manuscript fragments and Byzantine quote’s of church fathers exist that are just as ancient as the Alexandrian text. The church and the Word spread quickly with Antioch as the hub. Consider the fact that the Alexandrian text was in control by only one group of people in Egypt, where Christianity fell quickly. This, to me, this would be a greater risk of corruption than scribble additions. Scribble deletions, to me, would seem more likely than additions anyway, because a deletion would probably be an unintentional mistake whereas an addition would almost have to be done intentionally. Knowing all the above, I was still not convinced until I saw Acts 6:7 (also 12:24, 13:49, 19:20) in the following light. All these verses describe the Word as spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. Heb 4:12 also describes the Word as living and active. This convinces me that the Byzantine text is closer to God’s original than the Alexandrian text. History tells us that the Byzantine seemed to have God’s blessing by spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. The Alexandrian text did not spread, grow, multiply, or prevail; it remained in Egypt. Consider it. As Nolan and Tim have already said, the doctrinal differences that exist among believers are never based on a CT/RT difference. (Unless one misinterprets Mar 16:18a!). God bless you both. retxar |
||||||
503 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6816 | ||
"We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions". Those are good words, Joe. Do you believe you are not using a few "unscriptural notions" here to try to defend something you took as an attack on your theology? There is nothing wrong with you defending your theology, but it was not under attack. Believe it are not, I believe the reformation of the Church was of God, and I believe Calvin was used by God to help bring it about. We can follow a mans theology, but we need not think all he does is anointed by God. They are flesh and blood as you and I. There is no way around the fact that the killing of Servetus was ugly. There is no way to dress it up as anything else. David’s murder of Uriah was ugly. Paul’s persecution of Christians was ugly. The Bible does not try to paint either as anything else. They both received forgiveness, and God used them in a mighty way. We don’t throw out there writings because of there actions. Did I paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty monster? I sure did not mean to. I say again, what I said, I said as a wisecrack. Not very thought out, I might add. I did not, at the time, think I was out of line. I realize now, I was. I hit a nerve on a subject that was much too touchy for a Calvinist to take as such. What I said was actually a prod. For that, I apologize. I accept your admonishment. I do not go along with ALL Calvin’s teachings, as you, but I would hope you would treat those who disagree with you a little better than Calvin did. retxar |
||||||
504 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6750 | ||
??????????? Where did this come from? Are you talking to me bro? If so, what is your definition of omniscient? | ||||||
505 | Why did Jesus not answer charges? | Matt 26:62 | retxar | 6706 | ||
To fulfill prophesy. Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. |
||||||
506 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | retxar | 6636 | ||
Hi Tim. I agree. 1 John 2:2, in content and context, is proof text, to me, that salvation is whosoever will. The text clearly states, to me, that Christ died for the believer and the nonbelieiver. I have trouble seeing at other places in scripture that “world” does not mean “world,” that “all” does not mean “all,” and that “whosoever”, does not mean “whosoever.” It seems a stretch, to me, at these places to believe anything else other that what the Word says plainly to my heart. I have read Romans 9 and understand the sovereignty of God. I have also read Romans 10 and understand the responsibility of man. I have read Ezekiel 33:11 and know, without doubt, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. I have also read John 6:44 and know, without doubt, that no one comes to Jesus unless God draws him. I believe God, who desires that a sinner turn and not burn, will save a sinner being convicted and draw to repentance by the Holy Spirit (2Cor 7:10). However, I also believe that a convicted sinner can resist the Holy Spirit and walk away (John 8:9). Jesus offered salvation to the rich young ruler (Mar 10:21), and he walked away. I believe this was a legitimate offer from Jesus. We must know he would have been saved if he had not resisted Jesus’s offer. Jesus offered forgiveness to the ones who crucified Him (Luke 23:34). Was this a token gesture or a genuine offer? I think it was a genuine offer. Did they all accept? I don’t think they did. Jesus Lives! |
||||||
507 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6624 | ||
Thank you Radioman for the kind words. Let me spell it out to you, pay attention. I said, we could burn "THEM" at the stake. "Them" would indicate more than one. That got a rise out of Joe. Joe very wittingly asked "name two" people Calvin burned at the stake. Can't get much past Joe! Notice the word "two" (2). Two means means more than one. Joe and I only know one person Calvin burned at the stake. That would be Michael Servetus, if you really need to know. I thought I was being a wise guy not a senseless babbler! Thanks Radioman for setting me straight! retxar (the babbler) |
||||||
508 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6471 | ||
Is harsh language appropriate? According to Joe, YES! Two people that Calvin burned at the stake? I give up, who were they? | ||||||
509 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6458 | ||
If we use Calvin's example of proper teatment of those we disagree with, we could not only use harsh language, we could also burn them at the stake! | ||||||
510 | How can a Christian overcome a bad habit | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6244 | ||
I have used Mat 12:43-45 before to illustrate how, in order to stop a bad habit, it must be replace with a good habit that honors God. | ||||||
511 | Judgment of Infants? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6205 | ||
Jesus said many times of children, "such is the kingdom of heaven." Since Jesus did not sin, we can also be sure Jesus never showed partiality (James 2:9) between children of believers and children of non-believers. As far as the "children of wrath" statement in Eph 2:3, that is speaking of our nature before salvation, not God's judgement on children. Eph 2:4 speaks of God's rich mercy. Please consider Mat 18:10; "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Heb 1:14 says angels are sent forth to minister to those who will inherit salvation. In light of Mat 18:2, I think Jesus was using the little child He called to Him as the example when He said, "one of these little ones". Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
512 | homosexuality | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6204 | ||
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; |
||||||
513 | "Born-again Christian" redundant? | John 3:3 | retxar | 6203 | ||
Yes, all true Christians must be born again (John 3:3). I think the problem is the worlds view of what a Christian is. The world confuses religion with Christianity. The world has the idea that if someone goes to a Christian church, that makes them a Christian. | ||||||
514 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | retxar | 5879 | ||
Sorry Joe, forgive me for offending you. Please allow me to explain. First of all, the “scripture weaving” I was referring to, was the attempts of those trying to prove the doctrine of limited atonement. That was what the discussion was about, right? You apparently were “questioning my motives” when you falsely assumed I was speaking of the doctrine of election. I was not. The doctrine of election is clear. The question is what election means; the before knowledge of God, or the before choosing of God. Those with the before choosing viewpoint must, somehow, make the doctrine of limited atonement stick also. I have read all the post, so I will not rehash what has already been said. For me, the scripture evidence to “make it stick”, is not there. Second of all, my choice of the word “slant” was not a good one. This is my fault. Forgive me again. You probably assumed the adjective definition, not the noun definition I meant. Slant as an adjective means “to distort so as to present a particular point of view.” Slant as a noun means “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view.” Could your view of limited atonement be defined as “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view”? My “slant” of un-limited atonement could certainly be defined as such. Last of all, I forgive you for your accusation of calling me a blasphemer. I feel you thought I was saying something other than what I indicated. Please don’t think I’m saying this in sarcasm. Jesus knows I am not. This is something that is required from me, not you. (Mark 11:25-26). See you in heaven brother! Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
515 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | retxar | 5761 | ||
Good word Bro!! Yes we do, thru the Holy Spirit, have the power to choose Jesus! Praise Jesus for an honest heart that is more concerned with the truth, than trying to weave scripture around a doctrinal slant. God Bless! |
||||||
516 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5671 | ||
You said "my views on justification will not allow me to support rebaptism." What are your views based on? Scripture please. Do you know something Paul did not (Acts 19)? Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
517 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5662 | ||
You should seek to be rebaptized if that is what the Holy Spirit is telling you to do. We can hear and know God's voice (John 10:27). Paul rebaptized the disciples in Corinth in Acts 19. They were NOT new believers, but were already believing (vs 2). If rebaptizing was wrong, Paul would not have done so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
518 | Need to find a scripture | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5635 | ||
How about Micah 5:15? (KJV) And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard. | ||||||
519 | Jesus Himself said, I AM | John 8:58 | retxar | 5067 | ||
In John 8:58 Jesus refers to Himself as the great I AM. This is certainly a powerful statement by Jesus Himself of His deity, not that He just existed before Abraham. No one that calls Jesus Christ Lord would want this verse “watered down” to imply anything else. But what about other verses in the NASB, KJV, and NKJV where this statement is just as powerful, but is lost because of the addition of un-inspired words by the translators. Italicized words are supposed to add clarity, but do they always?. Please DO NOT answer before trying this. Read John 8:24, 8:28, 13:19, 18:5-8. Now read Exodus 3:13-14. Now go back and read the verses in John again, but this time don’t read the italicized words. Take special note of John 8:24. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins." Does the addition of the (He) here make since now? Not to me. If the (He) is implied by Jesus here, who is Jesus saying (He) is, other than I AM? I have asked this question before, without much response. I will ask again. Do the italicized words clarify who Jesus is, or do they it take away from the very words Jesus spoke Himself, about who He is? Jesus is Lord!!!!!!!!! |
||||||
520 | Holy Ghost Baptism subsequent to salvati | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 4826 | ||
Hi JVH0212. I’m finally getting a chance to get back to you. Thank you for your references. They help me know where you are coming from. I really enjoyed you’re personal sharing, as it helped me realize we believe a lot closer than I originally thought. Please consider, if you will, a couple of differing views, on John 20:22, and Acts 2:4. Please consider my thoughts on Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” I guess this is a repeat of what I have already said, but I will expound. You quote the MacArthur Study Bible here which says Acts 2:4 is NOT the “baptism with the Holy Spirit”, rather it is the “filling with the Holy Spirit”. I agree, all were filled with the Holy Spirit. This cannot be disputed, as this is what Acts 2:4 says. However, how can one possibly say this is not the baptism with the Holy Spirit, as this is exactly what Jesus called it? Acts 1:5 "for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Was Jesus talking about receiving the Holy Spirit upon baptism into the body of Christ at salvation as in 1 Cor 12:13? No! Jesus explained what He meant by “baptized with the Holy Spirit” in Act 1:8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." I can say “filled with the Holy Spirit” instead of “baptized with the Holy Spirit” till Jesus comes back, if I need to. I would rather have someone understand exactly what I am talking about, rather than having to guess. However, if someone says “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, instead of “baptized into the body of Christ”, I am going to think of “baptized with the Holy Spirit” as Jesus identified in Acts 1:5 and described in Acts 1:8. Please consider my thoughts on John 20:22. “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” You quote the MacArthur Study Bible again here. It says the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. If we interpret scripture with scripture here, I see no way the disciples COULD NOT have received the Holy Spirit when Jesus spoke the words "Receive the Holy Spirit.” Romans 10:9 says that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. This is the very first time the disciples were able to believe in their heart “that God has raised Him from the dead”. If we look down at verse 28 we see Thomas saying to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Thomas certainly “believed in his heart” and also “confessed with his mouth” that Jesus is Lord. Jesus confirms Thomas’s belief in verse 29; "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.” I feel the disciples HAD to “Receive the Holy Spirit”, just as Jesus said to them, in order to be true believers, which Jesus said they were. One more thought on John 20:22. Notice the words “He breathed on them”. If we determine that the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit here, that statement whould have to be brushed off as in-significant. I think this is very significant and cannot be looked over. Every place in scripture I know of (Gen2:7, Job33:4, Ps33:6, Eze37:9 for example), that speaks of the breath of God, signifies life. I think, just as God breathed the breath of life in Adam as the first man, Jesus breathed the breath of eternal life into these first believers under grace, by giving them the seal of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Thanks Bro, and God Bless! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [28] >> |