Results 61 - 80 of 130
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: EdB Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What is going on with duplicate entries? | Gen 1:1 | EdB | 25887 | ||
What is going on I never had duplicate entries before and now lately almost everyone is doubled? EdB |
||||||
62 | What is the most quoted verse in the Bib | Gen 1:1 | EdB | 103897 | ||
What is the most quoted verse in the Bible? Hint it use to be John 3:16 EdB |
||||||
63 | Why was there a tree of life in Eden? | Gen 3:22 | EdB | 9283 | ||
Why was there a tree of life in the Garden? What was it purpose? |
||||||
64 | Tree of Life can we say? | Gen 3:22 | EdB | 9407 | ||
Thanks to Steve, Nolan and THECROSS for your answers. I totally agree. Man as created was not going to live forever, he needed to eat from the tree of life to continue living. Can we then say physical death was not part of the curse of sin but rather a result of it? We don’t die because of the fall in the garden we die because we are separated from God’s presence and therefore from the ‘tree of life’ which would sustain life. I say this not to appear unorthodox but rather I see modern Christianity putting so much emphasis on the phyasical aspect of the fall. Modern man is focused on his physical situation rather than his spiritual situation. I think the adversary has successfully deflected Modern Christianity’s focus from the spiritual reality of the fall to the physical results to miss the spiritual truths. The reality of the cross gets lost as they seek after more physical fulfillment. Modern Christianity looks to God to make man wealthy, healthy, and wise. To feel good about himself, confident in his own capabilities and depend on his inner strength. Many look forward to eternal life and riches rather than a intimate relationship with God. |
||||||
65 | Where did evil come from? | Gen 3:22 | EdB | 83658 | ||
Is this a good explanation of where evil came from? Did God Create Evil At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade and mock their statement of faith. One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?" "Yes he did, sir," the young man replied. The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil." The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth. Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?" "Yes you may," responded the professor. The young man stood up and said, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?" "Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?" The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there." The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again the professor responded, "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied, "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?" The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil." The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light." The professor had nothing to say |
||||||
66 | Which shoud be important to us today? | Gen 8:4 | EdB | 38617 | ||
Makarios Thank you for the list of mountains! Now, which one should hold our focus in the days ahead? EdB |
||||||
67 | Interesting Rendering | Gen 22:5 | EdB | 80887 | ||
To my esteemed colleagues of the forum let me raise this question: This is not a blanket agreement with or condoning of Biblebeliever, but they raised a very interesting point here. In the KVJ Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. Focusing on the phrase "...God will provide himself a lamb..." In NKJV and many others it is rendered or something similar "...God will provide for Himself the Lamb..." NKJV Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together. NASB Genesis 22:8 Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together. NLT Genesis 22:8 "God will provide a lamb, my son," Abraham answered. And they both went on together. In KJV it is saying God will provide Himself a Lamb, which could be read God will provide Himself as the Lamb, which in effect God did, Jesus being God was the Lamb that was sacrificed. Written this way the passage leaves little room for the debate was Jesus God or there is no Trinity. I will agree this view would be made even stronger if there was a coma following Himself thus rendering the passage God will provide Himself, a Lamb, but again in open reading the tie can still be seen. In the NKJV and other versions while this passage might be more grammatically correct God gave His son (provided the Lamb) but does it remove the hint of Jesus being God offered as the sacrifice. I’m interested in your thoughts on this. As any of you that have read even a few of my responses to the forum know I'm not the person to be making a case on English sentence construction. It is just I read Biblebelievers response and pondered it all night. Looking for thoughts EdB |
||||||
68 | Should we be using company computers? | Ex 20:15 | EdB | 15284 | ||
Yesterday Labor I noticed a definite lack of forum activity. I pray it is because we were spending time with family and friends and not because we didn't have access to a computer at work. Question should Christians be using computers at work for things like the forum? Should Christians be doing forum type activity on company time? |
||||||
69 | Company resources are they free? | Ex 20:15 | EdB | 15386 | ||
Let me ask another based on Norrie's response. Is it all right to use a company computer or any company resource for personal or non company activity without obtaining prior permission? |
||||||
70 | Hank your feelings on Ruth? | Ruth | EdB | 9352 | ||
Hank, you know its funny, I understand the Kinsman-redeemer relationship and can appreciate it but somehow seeing Boaz as a type of Christ has never set with me. I know many people hold to this, but I could never get it to square in my spirit. I see this more of a story of a righteous man and woman fulfilling the obligations that others placed on them. And as a reward for this righteousness God permitted them to take a place in the lineage of Jesus. What are your feelings on it? | ||||||
71 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | EdB | 6469 | ||
My biggest fear is that the prayer of Jabez will/has become a talisman for some people. People will be putting their faith and hope in the prayer rather than God. Has anybody seen this? | ||||||
72 | Congratulations Searcher56 | Ps 19:14 | EdB | 146448 | ||
Congratulations Searcher56. Searcher56 has just passed the 7000 mark and is the highest contributor to the forum. I think what needs to be NOTED here is the fact that more than half of his contributions has been answering questions. To me this shows his interest in helping people find the right answer rather than pontificating and going “tit for tat” in endless debates. My hat is off to you! I wish my stats revealed I spent more time answering questions than responding to debate. EdB |
||||||
73 | Who was Lemuel? | Prov 31:6 | EdB | 8115 | ||
Okay that's cleared up. Let me ask who was Lemuel and who was his mother? It is a very interesting study of conjecture. | ||||||
74 | Why did Jonah need to go to Nineveh? | Jonah | EdB | 232804 | ||
With the present atmosphere here on the forum this might not be a subject we can freely discuss however never being one known for shyness I bring it up. In light of Romans 1:18-32 why was in so important for Jonah to go to Nineveh? Many have the understanding of Romans 1:18-32 to be saying that nature testifies of God to point that no one has an excuse not to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If nature testifies of God to the point they are without excuse then why did God chasten Jonah for his lack of compassion on the people of Nineveh by refusing to go to Nineveh to preach God and His judgment to them? |
||||||
75 | Know God but not Jesus | Jonah | EdB | 232847 | ||
Okay we now have scriptural proof you can know God but not be saved. Now can we know God and perhaps even think we are serving him but not know Jesus? |
||||||
76 | Is Romans 1:18-32 the definitive answer? | Jonah | EdB | 232862 | ||
Searcher Thanks for your responses. Let me now ask you the question is Romans 1:18-32 the all encompassing and absolute answer for the question, "what about people that have never heard of Jesus?" |
||||||
77 | Sufficient to lead people to Christ? | Jonah | EdB | 232864 | ||
Searcher Again thank you for your response. However I think the question is more complex than finding similar verses. The real question is since Romans 1:18-32 confirms that nature testifies of the existence of God, is nature’s testimony sufficient to guide one to salvation in Jesus Christ? Thus making Romans 1:18-32 the definitive and final answer to the question of, “what about people that have never heard of the Jesus Christ? |
||||||
78 | Is there more needed than Rom 1:18-32 | Jonah | EdB | 232866 | ||
I meant to pose this as a question. Tim In the light of your past two answers to my question. Is it safe to assume you would agree that Romans 1:18-32 is not the definitive all emcompassing answer for the question of "what about people that never heard of the Jesus Christ"? |
||||||
79 | Truth lost in the Reformations? | Matthew | EdB | 87384 | ||
Emmaus You present an interesting understanding of 1 John 5:16-17 one which is not understood outside of Catholicism. I wonder how long it was accepted as such within the church ? Which then leads me to my next thought. Since the original church evolved into the Catholic church was this an understanding invented by the church or pass to it by the apostle’s teaching? If it was a teaching of the apostles I wonder what else was lost when the reformation declared many such teachings as invalid or non "sola scriptura"? I might add I find the term "sola scriptura" to be the ideal concept but one in reality that is rarely if ever followed certainly not by any denomination. EdB |
||||||
80 | Understanding the Greek word Porneia | Matt 5:32 | EdB | 237863 | ||
I found this write up and would like opinions on it. First let me agree with those who have pointed out that it's the EXCEPTION clause that tends to get all the attention as people look for a loophole to escape their marriage . . . the PRIMARY intent of Jesus was to combat the attitude of many Jewish rabbis in his time, which was that the Mosaic commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman proved the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies, by showing God's original intention from the account of creation before the time of Moses. Marriage is intended to be permanent. The exception clause is not mentioned in either Mark or Luke. It's worth noticing that when Paul writes to the married believers in Corinth, he also does not mention the exception clause but gives the Lord's command regarding the non-separation of the parties in a marriage (1 Cor 7.10-11). So what does the exception clause mean in Matthew 5 and 19? The Jewish community of that time regarded marriage unions between people of certain blood or legal relationships as a form of incest, and used the Greek word 'porneia' for them. These were the kinds of relationships spelled out in Leviticus 18. These unlawful marriages, so offensive to the Jews, were often acceptable to Gentiles and became a real problem for Gentile converts to both Judaism and Christianity. Strict rabbis required Gentile converts to end those relationships if they were entangled in them; liberal rabbis allowed them to remain in those unions. Jesus is endorsing the stricter view, in keeping with his belief that God's word cannot be altered to suit man's whims. It is this meaning of 'porneia' as incestuous unions forbidden by God that we see again in Acts 15. Once the issue of whether Gentiles were saved by God's grace just as Jews was settled, the Jerusalem church decided to send their decision in the matter by way of a letter to Gentile believers. That letter also included their request that, in order to foster good relations with Jewish Christians, the Gentile Christians abstain from those things which Jewish Christians still found offensive: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from [porneia]. You will do well to avoid these things". Here too, I think the word 'porneia' means something more specific than sexual immorality; it again means those unlawful incestuous relationships forbidden by Jewish law but allowed in the Graeco-Roman world. Finally, it is this same meaning of 'porneia' which we find in 1 Cor 5, where Paul deals with this problem: "It is actually reported that there is [porneia] among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife." Again, the issue is not just immorality, but a particular case of incestuous union. Thus the exception clause does not contradict Christ's absolute prohibition of divorce as found in Mark, Luke, and 1 Cor. 7; it deals with the uniquely Jewish issue of illegal and incestuous marriages, which to the Jews were unlawful unions to begin with. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |