Results 561 - 580 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
561 | What did they do? | Exodus | Sir Pent | 18600 | ||
Further Support .................................. Dear Prayon, I agree with Nolan and Steve. There are times when we suffer hardships in life that are not a direct result of any particular bad decisions we make or sins that we commit. An excellent Bible passage that deals with this is John 9:1-3. Sometimes God allows times of suffering in our lives, because they can bring about His ultimate purposes. As Christians, we can be confident that this ultimate plan is also in our own best interest (Rom 8:28), even if it doesn't appear like it in the short term. P.S. Welcome back Nolan. I missed you while you were on "forum vacation". |
||||||
562 | murder ok for david but not others why ? | 2 Samuel | Sir Pent | 18581 | ||
Different Opinion ................................ Drummer, I also would like to welcome you to the forum. One of the great things about this forum is that there are many people here with different ideas. Through sharing them we are able to get a more complete picture of many important concepts. For instance, although Steve and I agree on most things, we have different perspectives on this issue. This concept that you have brought up is one that has been brought up before. I would encourage you to use the search box at the top right of the screen to find many posts dealing with capital punishment. To start you might want to search for "old new fundamental". This will take you to a post of mine that talks about what was different about King David's time and today. |
||||||
563 | Just an intriguing topic | Rom 12:17 | Sir Pent | 18501 | ||
Dear KaLe, Welcome to the forum. I am glad that you have been blessed (as I have) through the thoughts that are shared here. Please feel free to add any insights that you have as you continue to fellowship with us. God bless! |
||||||
564 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18498 | ||
Charis, Hank, Kalos, and Nolan, I appreciate all of your answers with regard to this suggestion of deleting duplicate posts. It seems that all four of you voted "no" not because you are against the idea, but just because it would be too difficult. I understand your concern, but would you mind revoting based purely on the idea itself. Of course if it is not possible for Lockman to do this, I'm sure we would all understand. But I think that it would be helpful to at least have an accurate view of what the ideal desires of the forum members are. Also, I have a few ideas that might make it possible to accomplish without too much work. For old posts, they could probably just do a search for the word "search". This would pull up all the threads where someone asked a question that had already been asked and someone else responded by telling them to use the search box. For future posts, we could start using some sort of standardized comment like "this thread is a duplicate" to draw Lockman's attention to any threads that needed to be deleted. This would still be a time consuming task, because there could be some new material in responses to the duplicate question that would need to be added to the original post on that subject. However, I don't think that it would be impossible. In any case, I just would like a little clarification if you are all against the idea in general. Thanks again for all your help in making this a terriffic forum. |
||||||
565 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18283 | ||
Switch to Improvements #4....................... Dear Tim, the idea of the more descriptive headings was originally brought to my attention by Jensen. In fact there is currently an unanswered question about it (Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #4). For it to work though, you have to put a bunch of periods after your heading, like I did at the beginning of this post. |
||||||
566 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18280 | ||
Dear Tim Moran (may I just call you Tim?), I can definately appreciate your point that many issues discussed on this forum are very complex, and need to be explored in depth. At the same time, you mentioned that it is important for "both parties" to be involved ("agree"). This is exactly the point that I'm trying to get across. When a new person to our forum posts a question, and then 40 people respond, I think that is not something that the original poster would have agreed to (as evidenced by the fact that they no longer choose to be involved at all). One of the things that I really admire about Jesus was that He was able to give people exactly the answers that they needed to hear. He didn't leave out critical information, but He also didn't answer each question with every detail that the scriptures contained on the subject. When the rich, young ruler asked what was required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus gave a relatively simple answer to him. If a new person asked that question on this forum, I guarantee that the responses would not be anywhere near as limited. Obviously, Jesus had the advantage of being able to know the hearts of the people He interacted with. However, I still think that we could as Christians, at least try to follow His example a little more closely. My suggestion is only my humble attempt to do this. |
||||||
567 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #4 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18278 | ||
Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #4 In the ever continuing mission to make this Lockman Study Bible Forum the best it could possibly be, I have one more suggestion that has come to my attention. In case you are looking for a pattern, Improvement Posts #1 and #3 depended on changes that Lockman could make. Improvement Posts #2 and #4 depend upon changes that we members could make ourselves. This new sugestion is that we make the beginnings of posts to be more descriptive and standardized. This would make it possible to tell more clearly how ideas have been expressed, when looking at the thread as a whole. If you like this idea, do you have any ideas as to how it might be accomplished? What kinds of things could we use on a regular basis that would be helpful in this way? Possibly labels such as: Further Support Contrary View Personal Note Also possibly stating the basis of the idea: Bible Commentary Link Logic These could be combined: Contrary View, Bible Further Support, Logic These are just ideas, what do you all think? |
||||||
568 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #3 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18277 | ||
Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #3? As I have been trying to get an idea about everyone's thoughts about my own suggested improvements for the forum, there have been some ideas suggested by my esteemed colleagues. At this time I would like to get some feedback on some of these issues. #1 Would you like to be able to use symbols in your messages? This would be more efficient than writing out certain words like percent. #2 Would you like to have a spell checker built into the forum? Many email programs have this type of thing and it might be possible here. This could be especially helpful for those of us who are challenged in this area. #3 Would you like there to be a chat room added to supplement the forum itself. This could be a place for people to converse in real-time, and might help eliminate many of the "personal" posts that take up space in the threads. Thanks ahead of time for your help in determining whether these are ideas which most of us would find beneficial to our already wonderful Lockman Study Bible Forum :) |
||||||
569 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18276 | ||
Dear Norrie, Don't worry, I have not forgotten you or your suggestion. I am going to be starting a new thread which will include this idea. |
||||||
570 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18275 | ||
Dear Jensen, I think that it could be very helpful to have more descriptive beginings of our posts so that people could follow threads at a glance more accutately. I will start a new thread with this as one of the suggestions. |
||||||
571 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18274 | ||
Dear Reformer Joe and EdB, Thanks for your thoughts on these issues as well. If I understand correctly, you both agree with the second idea, that we should be more commited to staying focused on the topic of the original question in a thread. It also seems that you agree that we should be more selective in responding to "primary" questions. I completely agree with your ideas about how when we get to far away from the scripture itself, we move into very dangerous waters. The one disagreement that I picked up on was the idea of ending threads with a summary statement. I'm glad that you also see the value in this EdB, and would like to provoke a couple thoughts for you Reformer Joe. You mention that it is impossible to come to consensus when we have such different ideas about many subjects. However, let me give you an example of how it is possible. A recent thread asked whether one could lose their salvation. Those who agree mainly with Reformed theology said no, and those who agree mainly with the Arminian theology said yes. However, in the midst of all that there was a common idea held by both sides, and that was to not risk it. One poster said it best when they said, "This 'debate' is not about initial salvation it is about living after salvation. It comes down to a debate on what I can and can not do and still remain saved. All I'm saying is that is not how a Christian should approach salvation, A Christian should shoot for the best and let grace cover everything else." Therefore, if I was writing a consensus statement of that thread, I would focus on two things. The first would be the ideas that almost all of the posts agreed with (whether I agree with it or not). The second would be how that topic could be applied to our lives. Then as a final note, I would just mention any significant minority opinions. This would be in my opinion a fair, relatively unbiased (as much as possible), and most of all extremely helpful way to end a thread. The final point that I would like you to think about is that although you do not think there are many "seekers" who visit our forum, couldn't there be another explanation. Perhaps there are actually a large number of these visitors, who come, but because of the way that they observe us responding to people they decide to not post, or even leave completely. |
||||||
572 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18270 | ||
All votes count, including yours. Greetings There and Tim Moran. You both bring up valid points. I seem to have confused There and apologize for a lack of clarity about my first suggestion (limiting initial responses to 3). My intention was not to say that there could never be more than 3 responses to a question (so that our friends like There could not chime in unless they happened to get in at just the right time). Instead, I just meant that after the first 3 responses to a "primary" question begining a new thread, we would wait for the original questioner to respond before continuing to "pile on" so to speak. For instance, BillyK recently asked a question about where souls came from. There have been literally 40 responses, and none of these are from BillyK at all. This is exactly the type of thing that I wish we could avoid. I think it would be better for there to just be a few, relatively simple answers to "primary" questions. This way, new people to the forum would find it easier to read through and respond to them, instead of being confused and overwhelmed. Tim, you also brought up the point that you were uncomfortable with limiting debate beyond civility. I would hope that you would not see any of my suggestions as doing that. Adding a post at the end of a debate to summarize it does not seem to limit the debate, at least in my mind. Staying focused in a debate on the subject that the debate was supposed to be about in the beginning seems to be exactly what civility would demand. And as for limiting initial responses to primary questions, I admit that this is a limitation, however, as I tried to explain above, I think it is also the most civil and helpful way to respond to new posters. Also this limitation is not complete, if the original person elaborates after any of the three initial responses, then it becomes open season again to unload with both barrels and post as many times as wanted. I have a lot of respect for your opinions, and feel that both of you add significantly to this forum. I just hope that you can understand my heart on this issue. I feel like this forum is a phenomenal resource for the regular members, and I just want to improve it so that it can also be welcoming to "seekers" and "visitors" so that they too can benefit from it as we all have. |
||||||
573 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18269 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc - Yes - especially responses like "already answered, do search on ..." BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie - Yes - definately duplicate threads, maybe also similar threads EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank - No - too difficult, and repetition has its usefulness Kalos - No - it would be too difficult Lionstrong - No - the repetition is a safeguard Norrie - Yes Ray - Yes Sir Pent - Yes - it will assist clarity and searching Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran - No - it is unnecessary Still missing? Nolan Keck Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm There Total Yes 8 Total No 5 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
574 | Sinless perfection possible? | Deut 32:22 | Sir Pent | 18259 | ||
There is already a thread from a long time ago on this subject (Entire Sanctification), and it does not appear to be directly relevant to the original question of this thread. Would Reformer Joe and Lanny mind continuing this discussion on this other thread intstead? | ||||||
575 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18257 | ||
Dear Forum Coleagues, Since Lanny has recently asked about this subject, I believe it would be good to resurrect and add to this thread from long ago. I am curious how your study turned out Tim Moran. What did you end up deciding and why? |
||||||
576 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18161 | ||
Christianity in a Nutshell part 2 Here's the rest of the story: Faith - This is believing something even though there is not absolute proof of its truth (Heb 11:1). In Christianity, it is critical to have faith that the essentials of Christianity (ie. Apostle's Creed) are true. Apostle's Creed - A summary of beliefs that are essential to Christianity. It is the most famous of many creeds that were created by a council of church leaders with much prayer and discussion. I would encourage any introduction to Christianity to include reading this creed. Ministry - A way of life that is primarily focused on doing the will of God. The most commonly thought of way of doing this is as a Pastor of a church, but there are of course many other ways to "minister" to people. In fact, all Christians should be involved in some type of ministry (Eph 4:11-12). Baptism - A ceremony where an individual is either submerged with water or has water poured or sprinkled on their head. This ceremony is a symbolic representation of the complete change that has taken place in the person?s life. It shows to all who observe it that the person has chosen to have faith in Jesus Christ, has been cleansed of their sins, and has become a new creation (1 Pet 3:21). Bible - This is God's written message for mankind (Matt 5:18). God used many different people over hundreds of years to write, copy, compile, and even translate this message so that it could be read and trusted by the entire world (Rom 15:4). Old Testament - This is the record of the time before Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God used one chosen nation, Israel, to be an example to the world of how to relate to God (Jer 3:17). New Testament - This is the record of the time during and shortly after Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God Himself, through His own Son, Jesus, showed the ultimate example of how to relate to God (John 8:42). Prophecy - These are statements made about future events. Many of these are recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and of these, the vast majority have already been proved true (Isa 7:14). Some have not happened yet, and are anticipated by Christians (Acts 1:11). Heaven - The final destination of all persons who ultimately accept God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal joy both physically (no pain or tears) and most importantly spiritually (ultimate communion with God) (Rev 21:3-4). Hell - The final destination of all persons who ultimately reject God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal pain both physically (lake of fire) and most importantly spiritually (completely seperated from God) (Matt 25:41). |
||||||
577 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18160 | ||
Christianity in a Nutshell part 1 Dear Charis, My friend, what you ask requires a tremendous amount of work. Perhaps that is why my colleagues (who probably responded more wisely than I) suggest just looking at a catechism. However, I didn't think of that, so instead I spent the whole day putting this together off the top of my head. I very much hope that it is helpful for you. God - a being who is: omnipotent (all-powerful, Jer 32:17), omniscient (all-knowing, Ps 147:4-5), omnipresent (exists everywhere at once, Eph 4:10), transcendant (is distinct from everything else in the universe, Ps 97:9), imminant (is directly and personally involved with the universe, Heb 1:3), and whose primary character traits are love (1 John 4:8) and holiness (Ps 99:9). Trinity - the idea we use to understand the three persons who make up God. They are called the Father (Eph 4:6), the Son Jesus Christ (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). They are all part of one being (God) and work toward the same overall purpose. Yet they also have individual nuances of personality and primary functions in our lives. God the Father - The first part of God who is primarily responsible for the creation and sustaining of the universe (Gen 1:1). His will also determines the words and actions of the overall Trinity (Luke 22:42). God the Son - Also known as Jesus Christ. The second part of God who is primarily responsible for providing a way to reconcile mankind to God (1 Tim 1:15). He did this by the incarnation, His teaching ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection (2 Cor 5:18). Incarnation - A part of God temporarily limited some of His characteristics as God to become completely human (Phil 2:5-7). The Christmas story is the record of this event, when Jesus Christ was born as a baby (Luke 2:11-12). Crucifixion - Jesus Christ was injustly accused, convicted, and punished with death by hanging on a cross (Luke 23:22-24,47). He allowed this to happen so that God?s plan of salvation, justification, and redemption could be completed (Rom 3:24-25). Resurrection - After being dead for parts of three days, Jesus Christ came back to life, and appeared to many people (Luke 24:5-7). He continued to teach for a short time, and prepared the way for the Holy Spirit to come (Acts 1:3). God the Holy Spirit - The third part of God who is primariy responsible for helping Christians to live according to God's will. He assists in understanding of God's messages to mankind both directly to individuals, and through the Bible. (Rom 8:26 and John 14:26) Sin - These are thoughts, words, and actions, which all people have committed that go against the desires of God (Rom 3:23). The punishment deserved for committing even one of these is death and Hell (Jam 2:10 and Rom 6:16). The Fall - This was the effect of the first sin ever committed. The first person to ever live (Adam) chose to commit a sin (disobedience) against God (Gen 3:11-12). As a result there was both immediate punishment (banishment from the Garden of Eden, Gen 3:23) and punishment for the rest of time (the beginning of the Sinful Nature, Rom 5:12). Sinful Nature - This describes how after "the Fall" mankind has had a natural instinct to commit sins (Rom 7:18). Salvation - This is the idea that God has provided a way for individuals to be "saved" from, or to escape the punishment that they deserve for the sin in their life (John 3:16). However, God cannot just ignore their sin, there must be a compensation. Justification - This is the idea describing the compensation that God made. Instead of all individuals having to be eternally punished for their sins, one perfect individual (Jesus Christ) suffered in their place (1 Pet 3:18). Redemption - This is the idea that God has provided a way to not only take care of sins, but to also "redeem", or restore mankind to their state before "the Fall" (Gal 2:20). The old self, with the sinful nature, is killed, and a person becomes a new creation that can once again commune with God (2 Cor 5:17). |
||||||
578 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18058 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, Charis, and Jensen, Thank you for your responses to these suggestions so far. It sounds like we all agree that a much better job could be done of maintaining the relevancy of discussion to the original question in a post. (In fact, I noticed that Bill Mc did a good job of this in his most recent post on regarding where souls come from.) It also seems that there is agreement on the need for greater unity, which could be aided by having "consensus posts" at the end of threads. (I didn't catch your take on that idea though Jensen.) I think that this would help people who are searching for an answer to a question to be able to get an overall idea before wading through all the "personal notes". I appreciate Bill Mc and Charis support for the third idea of limiting our responses to 3 after a person initially asks a question. I understand your reservation, Jensen, that perhaps all of the first three responses could be completely incorrect. Although this is possible, I think that it is unlikely. There is a large number of very consistent members of this forum who seem to always look out for new questions and jump at the chance to answer them (Nolan Keck, Steve Butler and Tim Moran are three of many examples). I have observed enough of all of these people's posts to have confidence in their responses. Even if I don't completely agree with what they might say, I know that they will be at least based in scripture and pretty well thought out. In short, they would be sufficient for a starting point for the original questioner to respond to. The alternative is to keep doing what we're doing and have 10 responses to a question that are so overwhelming and many times contradictory (to the point of confusion after 10 of them), that the original person who asked the question never comes back. Finally, I would like to say that these are not absolute rules to be followed upon penalty of death. Instead they are "Unity Guidelines" which I hope many of us could agree to abide by as a pattern of behavior. Of course if there was a time that the first three responses to a question said that Jesus was not the Son of God, there would be just cause for an exception to be made. |
||||||
579 | Who determines what is "minor"? | Hebrews | Sir Pent | 18035 | ||
Dear Steve, I am a bit confused. Do you mean that the list of things mentioned are minor (not worth dying for), or are major (things worth dying for)? |
||||||
580 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17958 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank Kalos Lionstrong Nolan Keck Norrie - Yes Ray Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm Sir Pent - Yes Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran There Total Yes 5 Total No 1 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Next > Last [36] >> |