Results 581 - 600 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
581 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17951 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, I think you brought up a very important point in a recent post. If a person comes to this forum looking for help and answers, and sees nothing but confusion, then they will be hurt instead. There are several solutions to this problem. I would like to share a few ideas that I have. 1. After a person asks a question, only have three people respond initially, and wait for the original person to elaborate again before everyone else jumps in. I know that there's no way to stop people from posting, but those of us who post most often (see the top 20 in my voting post recently) could just agree amoung ourselves to refrain from posting if there are already 3 responses. 2. While a thread is "alive and kicking", we could all agree to stay within the scope of the original question. In other words, if the original question is about baptism, we refuse to digress into a debate about free will. At the same time we could preface our statements with a phrase such as, "from a perspective which believes that we have the ability to choose to accept or deny God's free gift of salvation, we believe such and such about this issue, based on these verses." Then others who didn't agree with the perspective could instead of arguing that point say, "that makes sense from that perspective, but from the perspective that God alone decides the salvation of mankind, we believe such and such about the issue, based on these verses". Then what is being discussed is the original issue, and if anyone wants to discuss which perspective is correct, they can start a seperate thread on that. 3. After a thread has pretty much closed down, the person who started it (or another of their choosing) could write up a summary statement. This would be done after many people had already given their ideas on a subject, and a certain time period (perhaps a week) had passed since anything new was added. There could be a standard heading for these type of posts (perhaps "Consensus of the Thread"). That way at the end of each thread there would be one post that people could go to in the future who were interested in that topic. This would also be an opportunity to show that although we disagree on some details, we are unified on the essentials. This summary thread could focus on the overall answer to the question that everyone seemed to agree to while just mentioning some of the nuances of specific posts. An example where I tried to do this can be found by searching "native consensus". I think that if we could agree (or at least many of us) to do these things, that it would make this forum a much more helpful place for others to come to for guidance and truth. There could of course be other, better plans, but this is what came to my mind. What do you guys think? |
||||||
582 | THE REASON FOR CREATION? | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 17935 | ||
Dear KAYC, I asked this very same question a little while back. Please type "universe eat" in the search box at the top right of the screen to find what everybody thought about it. Let me know if you have any further questions. |
||||||
583 | Whatever happened to John 17:21? | Heb 6:4 | Sir Pent | 17918 | ||
Dear Bill Mc and Reformer Joe, I hesitate to jump in on your discussion here, but felt that it was important. You are both bringing up many good points about the original purpose of this thread regarding salvation. However, I must disagree with this last post regarding "labels" within Christianity. Perhaps I misunderstand you Bill Mc, but it seems to me that you are saying two things. The first is that it is purely divisive to have Christians call themselves by labels such as Calvinist or Armenian. The second is that by doing so they are neglecting the fact that they are either "in Adam or in Christ". First of all, I would like to say that I have purposely stayed out of any discussions thus far on this forum regarding Calvinism/Armenianism, and I don't want to start another one here. However, I do not think that it is the label that causes the division. The division is caused by the fact that there are two (at least) interpretations of the scripture which both appear to be valid and reasonable. The only thing that the label does is save time typing and reading. One could say, "becuase you believe blah, blah, and blah" (with each blah being an entire paragraph itself). However, it is much easier to say, "becuase you agree with the interpretation of so-and-so". This is especially important on this forum. Because of the different perspectives that people have, they have different answers to the questions people ask. They also have different ideas as to what specific verses mean at times. I agree with you that this is at times unfortunate, but not always. Sometimes it is helpful to see things from a different angle. Also, I believe that it is inevitable. True believers have debated some of these theological points for centuries without comming to a consensus. I find it unlikely that all Christians in the world will ever believe the same thing about everything until we get to heaven. This is because right now we only see in part, but then we shall see completely (1 Cor 13:12). I do want to agree with you on one important point and that is that each Christian needs to really search the scriptures to discover what they personally believe. It is not healthy to just accept the interpretations of another person (Calvin or Armenius) or even church without reflection. However, after a Christian discovers what they believe, they will probably be aligned relatively closely with at least one orthodox perspective, and I see no reason that they should not for efficiency sake, be opposed to identifying with others who think the same thing. |
||||||
584 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17862 | ||
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 sepperate threads. Bill Mc BrianG CDBJ Charis Debbie EdB Hank Kalos Lionstrong Nolan Keck Norrie Ray Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm Sir Pent - Yes Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran There Total Yes is 2 Total No is 0 |
||||||
585 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17840 | ||
Dear Lockman and Forum Colleagues, I noticed that many months ago, there was some discussion about implementing some sort of moderation on this forum. It also appeared that this was eventually dropped due to valid concerns about censorship and how it would be regulated. I would like to propose a possibility which I think would be very helpful for this forum, yet would not sacrifice anyone's free expression. My suggestion would only be possible for the hosts at Lockman to accomplish. It is to delete any duplicated posts. There are many of these, and I don't think anyone would be offended if they were taken off. In the cases where there were seperate answers to each of the duplicates, I would suggest simply combining those threads. This could also be done with threads that were not "exact duplicates" but were essentially the same. Unfortunately, this would require a small amount of interpretation, however, I think it would be very helpful for people looking for answers to have everything in one thread. What does everyone think of this idea? Would any of you mind if you're duplicate posts were deleted, or if highly similar threads were combined? |
||||||
586 | Where was God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17835 | ||
MStevens, The verse that immediately came to my mind was John 11:35 "Jesus wept". This is a good example of a time when God shared the sorrow of His friends Mary and Martha. Eph 4:30 also talks of how our sin can "grieve" the Holy Spirit. Although this doesn't specifically say that God "cries", I thinking "grieving" would be the same idea. |
||||||
587 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17826 | ||
Dear Norrie, It seems that my hunch about the cult background was correct (JW). I agree with Hank that she SEEMS to be very closed to the truth right now. Many people would consider spending time and energy on a person like that to be "casting pearls before swine". However, I would disagree. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist/optimist, but I think that you should continue trying to help her develop a relationship with the true God. Sometimes when people are fighting their hardest to be independent, it is because on the inside, they feel like they're about to fall apart. There is a word of warning here though. Imagine a person standing on a chair and another person standing beside them on the ground. It is much easier for the person on the ground to pull the person down to the ground than it is for the person on the chair to pull the person up to the chair. Similarly, it will be much easier for your friend to bring confusion, misconceptions, and possibly sin into your life than for you to lead them to truth, clarity, and a healthy relationship with God. This is especially true if you have not studied the Bible as deeply as they have (like it sounds like you're saying). If this is the case, then it becomes absolutely critical that you surround yourself with Godly counsel to support you in your own faith. Your local church and even this forum would be, in my opinion essential to your own spiritual well-being. |
||||||
588 | Lost my salvation? (Hebrews 6:4-6) | Heb 6:4 | Sir Pent | 17823 | ||
Dear JohnK, I very much understand some of the thoughts and feelings that you are experiencing. In fact, I have been in a place similar to where you are. I shared my experience previously on this forum, and hope that it might be helpful for you. Just type "lost found testimony" into the search box in the top right to find it. Let me know if you have any further questions. |
||||||
589 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17685 | ||
I agree with you Norrie. I also believe Genesis is meant to be taken in a straightforward and literal manner. There are some Christians (mainly in academia) who believe that the beginning of Genesis (creation, the garden, etc.) is only figurative. They mainly base this on the idea that the literary style it is written in is an ancient form of poetry. However, even these people do not believe such far-fetched ideas as Cain being the son of Satan. Is your friend a Christian or a member of some sort of cult? I would be a bit concerned for them if they are being taught and believing such ideas. |
||||||
590 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Ps 25:4 | Sir Pent | 17663 | ||
Dear Brian, I think this was purely accidental. I think what happened was that Benjibabs posted the primary question once, and Charis and I both answered it before realizing that the other had too. The problem arose because in our seperate answers we chose different scripture passages (Charis chose Ps 25:4, and I chose Bible General). This somehow split the thread in two. I agree that it is a bit confusing, and if the Lockman people could combine the thread again, I think it would be helpful. |
||||||
591 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Ps 25:4 | Sir Pent | 17662 | ||
I was wrong about one thing in that post about He'-li and Jacob. He'-li was definately NOT Joeseph's mother. He'-li must have been a man, because it says he was the "son" of Matthat (Luke 3:24). I just wanted to clarify my error so that people would not be confused. | ||||||
592 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | Sir Pent | 17660 | ||
Dear Joshua, I also struggled with this "appearant contradiction" for a long time. However, I discovered what I believe is a good explanation for why killing in the Old Testament (especially when directly commanded by God) was OK. At the same time I discovered that killing in the New Testament (after the resurrection) and in the present is NOT OK. This whole topic has been discussed at length on the forum though. I would suggest typing the words "absurd confusion" into the search box at the top right. It will take you to a post that I made on this subject in the middle of an extensive thread on the matter. That thread will hopefully answer your questions, but if you have more feel free to ask. |
||||||
593 | Why not even enter the village? | Mark 8:26 | Sir Pent | 17592 | ||
Dear Steve, I believe that there were two main reasons why Jesus told the man to not "enter the village" after he was healed. The first was for the man's sake, and the second was for Jesus' sake. I think that the man who was healed had a young and tender faith (see my note on Mark 8:25). Therefore, I think that Jesus knew that it was not ready for the testing and ridicule that would certainly come if the man went to the city. The religious leaders would have deffinately given him a hard time just like they did in other places (John chapter 9). Therefore, Jesus advised him to go home instead where he could ponder what had happened to him in his heart. The second reason was that Jesus often just didn't want people going around telling about many miraclous events. He told the disciples not to tell about the transfiguration (Mark 9:9). He told other people He healed (Mark 7:32-37) also not to tell about what had happened. I could see three reasons for this. The first is that Jesus was modest. This is a true statement, but I don't think would be the main reason. A second is that Jesus knew human nature, and that if He told people not to tell then the news would actually spread faster. Jesus does know human nature, but that seems a little deceitful, which would not fit His character. The third reason (which I find the most likely) is that Jesus was trying to maintain a low profile, because His time had not yet come (John 2:4 and John 7). |
||||||
594 | Why didn't Jesus heal him the first time | Mark 8:25 | Sir Pent | 17590 | ||
Dear Steve, I would say that the reason that the man was not healed the first time was that he lacked sufficient faith. Jesus often tied His miraculous healings to the faith of the person being healed (Luke 8:48, 17:19, and 18:42). I imagine that this man had the beginnings of faith that Christ could heal him, but was not "full of faith". Thus the first time he was only healed partially. However, this boosted his faith to the point that he was able to be fully healed the second time. I think that there are two important lessons here. The first is that God is willing and wanting to meet us where we are at. We do not have to have perfect faith for God to begin to work with us. He will take our mustard seed and help us to water it and make it grow into a strong plant (Matthew 13:31-32). The second lesson that I see is that we should not be satisfied with incomplete faith. Imagine how much the man would have missed out on if he had just settled for the first healing and went the rest of his life seeing people look like trees. In the same way, we must be careful to not be complacent with our own level of healing, but strive to be made perfect even as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48). |
||||||
595 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Ps 25:4 | Sir Pent | 17586 | ||
Dear Kalos, Thank you for this additional perspecitive. I think that this could quite possibly be correct. I would think that if one geneology is that of Joeseph and the other is of Mary, then it would be the other way around. I would think that Heli would be Joseph's father, and Jacob would be Joseph's father-in-law. My reasoning is that the geneology in Matthew, which includes Jacob, also includes several women. It mentions the names of Rahab (Salmon's wife), Ruth (Boaz' wife), and Mary (Joeseph's wife). I would assume that having a more feminine leaning, that this would be the geneology of Mary (or Joseph's in-laws). On the other hand the geneology in Luke (which includes Heli) only mentions Salmon, Boaz, and Joeseph. Therefore, I would think that it would make more sense that this would be Joeseph's direct lineage. As I said in my first response, I have not studied this in great length. This is just what seems to make the most sense to me based purely on the biblical passages in question. |
||||||
596 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17585 | ||
I completely agree with Schwartzkm. This is not a contradiction at all, but instead is just an example of two different writers giving different details about the same event. It is like the three blind men who encounter different parts of an elephant. The first man finds its leg and says that it is like the trunk of a large tree. The second man encounters the midsection and says that it is like a wall. The third man discovers the trunk and says that it is like a snake. The three descriptions at first appear to contradict each other. But after thought and further inspection they instead each give a valuable perspective that can be combined to give a complete picture. |
||||||
597 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17580 | ||
There is another possibility as well. in 1 Cor 15:5 "the Twelve" is capitalized (at least in the NIV). Thus it seems to be a proper noun refering to a group of people (ie. the British, the Germans, etc.) It is possible that "the Twelve" was another name for the group that today we call "the Apostles". If this is the case, then the passage in Matthew is refering to the actual number of people there (notice that "eleven" is not capitalized). But Paul is refering to the group as a whole instead. Once again, the message that God would want us to learn is that Jesus did actually raise from the dead after being crucified for our sins. God wants us to know that this was witnessed by many people, and is something that we can trust to be true. |
||||||
598 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Ps 25:4 | Sir Pent | 17554 | ||
Dear Charis, I just want to say that I really appreciate your answer to this question. I answered it from mainly a practical sense, but you went straight to the heart of the matter. I think that your approach is the wiser one, and commend you for it. |
||||||
599 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Ps 25:4 | Sir Pent | 17553 | ||
Dear Benjibabs, I appreciate that you are wanting to help the person who sent you these questions. I also believe that there are definite explanations for each of these "appearant contradictions". However, since there are so many of them, would you mind splitting this into several questions with only one or two "contradictions" in each one? I think that would help to keep the threads from getting overly long and complicated. I will share my thoughts on the first one about the lineage of Jesus' father Joseph. I have not studied this, but something just jumped out at me. I would guess that Jacob was Joseph's father and He'-li is Joseph's mother. If you look at those two geneologies, they both trace back to king David, but are completely different from there on. The Matthew account goes through king David's son Solomon. The Luke account goes through king David's son Nathan. I think the message that God has for us is that Jesus was a descendant of king David. In addition, it is interesting that this is true even in more than one branch of His family tree. |
||||||
600 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17552 | ||
Dear Benjibabs, I appreciate that you are wanting to help the person who sent you these questions. I also believe that there are definite explanations for each of these "appearant contradictions". However, since there are so many of them, would you mind splitting this into several questions with only one or two "contradictions" in each one? I think that would help to keep the threads from getting overly long and complicated. I will share my thoughts on the first one about the lineage of Jesus' father Joseph. I have not studied this, but something just jumped out at me. I would guess that Jacob was Joseph's father and He'-li is Joseph's mother. If you look at those two geneologies, they both trace back to king David, but are completely different from there on. The Matthew account goes through king David's son Solomon. The Luke account goes through king David's son Nathan. I think the message that God has for us is that Jesus was a descendant of king David. In addition, it is interesting that this is true even in more than one branch of His family tree. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] Next > Last [36] >> |