Results 61 - 80 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Was Jehovah wrong? | John 3:16 | Morant61 | 111996 | ||
Greetings Tara1! I have asked you at least two times, with no response, how this doctrine of 'gods' can be correct when Jehovah Himself said in Is. 43:10: "'You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." So, was Jehovah wrong and there is in fact other gods? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
62 | What does Scripture mean by no works? | John 3:5 | Morant61 | 111328 | ||
Greetings Colin! My friend, what then does Scripture mean when it says that we are not saved by works? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
63 | What does Scripture mean by no works? | John 3:5 | Morant61 | 111327 | ||
Greetings Colin! My friend, what then does Scripture mean when it says that we are not saved by works? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
64 | Why did the KJV include these verses? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 110269 | ||
Greetings Ken John! Allow me to ask you the question from the other perspective. Why exactly did the KJV include these verses? After you have addressed that question my friend, then I would ask, 'Why did modern translation not include these verses?' Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
65 | Evidence? | Revelation | Morant61 | 109353 | ||
Greetings Electionresults! Other than the writings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
66 | Where does Scripture teach an exception? | John 4:14 | Morant61 | 103402 | ||
Greetings AO! Where exactly does Scripture state that the Apostles and the family of Cornelius were exceptions to the rule? I have had this discussion many times with many different proponents of baptismal regeneration. The end result is always the same - Acts 10 is an exception to the rule. Even though, Scripture never makes such a statement. Allow me to illustrate why this position simply doesn't work. Proponents have baptismal regeneration usually rely upon a particular intepretation of Acts 2:38 for one defense of their position. This intepretation says that two things are required for salvation (the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' being synonomous with salvation): 1) repentance, and 2) baptism. Yet, in Acts 10:45, we are told that the 'gift of the Holy Spirit' was received prior to water baptism. Therefore, one can only conclude that this particular intepretation of Acts 2:38 is in error. To read my view on this verse, simply search the archives, but the short version is this: There is only one condition for salvation in Acts 2:38, that being repentance. The phrase, 'be baptized' is an appositional phrase added to the sentence to describe what one does afterwards. This is evidenced by the grammatical change in form in the Greek text. But, I wander! :-) Back to your point, where does Scripture teach that God will make exceptions to your understanding of Acts 2:38. Is baptism required or not? Is is only required for some or all? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
67 | Pologomy Allowed? | Ex 21:10 | Morant61 | 102398 | ||
Greetings Michael! Where exactly does the Bible say that pologomy is allowed? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
68 | Is obedience to every command necessary? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 100938 | ||
Greetings Walterpp22! Baptism is definitely commanded, but what about all of the other commands in Scripture? By the reasoning you have advanced, obedience to every single command would be necessary for salvation. In which case, we are back to being saved by works, which Scripture specifically says can't be done. :-) It is important when discussing this topic that we distinguish what one means by 'necessary'. If by 'necessary', one means 'required for salvation', then one is contradicting Eph. 2:8-10. If by 'necessary', one means 'a command which ought to be obeyed because one is already saved', then I would agree that baptism is necessary! :-) p.s. - Your quote is from James! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
69 | Where does Scripture say this? | Ps 102:16 | Morant61 | 100319 | ||
Greetings Candy Lee! Exactly where does the Bible say that Jesus is Michael? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
70 | How would you make textual decisions? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 98733 | ||
Greetings Justanotherchristian! You wrote: "For the unavoidable REALITY is that IF 1 John 5:7 is not inspired, authentic and trustworthy, we also do not know WHAT ELSE will sooner or later be changed or deleted or added." Now, you seem to be knowledgable enough to know that there are many manuscripts which make up the basis of the text of the Bible. Not all of them agree on every single point. Therefore, your slippery slope arguement does not work. If we had 3,000 manuscripts of the Bible, and they all agreed one hundred precent, and then someone came along and ripped a verse out for no reason whatsoever, then your arguement would be valid. However, it isn't valid for one very simple reason - there isn't just one text. Hence, textual decisions must be made as to what should be included and what should not. What you are claiming is that a reading (1 John 5:7-8), which is found in only four late manuscripts, should be included in the text of the Bible, even though thousands of earlier manuscripts do not include it. How do you reach that decision? On what basis should anyone reach this conclusion? In fact, one could argue that you are in fact 'adding' to the Word of God, since you are inserting a verse which is not found in all but four late manuscripts! ;-) So, what I am asking is how do you propose that textual decisions be made? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
71 | Why is it only found in 4 manuscripts? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 98699 | ||
Greetings Justanotherchristian! One quick problem, if I may! The first part of v. 8 is also part of the disputed text. In your response as to why leaving the disputed text of v. 7 out, you arbitrarily leave the rest of the disputed text in and then use it as evidence that the first part should remain. The fact that the first quote appears in the 4th century only affirms that the spurious reading was older than the tenth century - originally. However, it does not provide support that the reading is original since the fact remains that the reading only occurs in 4 manuscripts (2 of which have the reading written in the margin), none of which are older than the 10th century. So, allow me to ask: If the reading were original, why is it not found in any of the thousands of manuscripts before the 10th century? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
72 | What problem? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 98559 | ||
Greetings Justanotherchristian! I just thought of another question my friend! You state that there is some problem with the connection between the shorter ending of 1 John 5:7 and 5:8. How so? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
73 | Why would you include 1 John 5:7? | 1 John 5:7 | Morant61 | 98558 | ||
Greetings Justanotherchristian! Welcome to the forum! I was curious as to why you feel that a reading which is only found in four manuscripts (none of which date before the 10th century), out of the thousands in existence, should be included in the text of the Bible? There may be many textual variants over which people can legitimately have differences of opinions, but this one seems to be a 'no brainer'! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
74 | Which Translation are you using? | Mark 9:1 | Morant61 | 97811 | ||
Greetings Candy Lee! I forgot a point in my previous post! Oops! :-) Which translation are you using that says in Eze. 4:6 that 'a day is as a year'? Every translation I looked at said 'a day for a year', not 'a day is as a year'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
75 | Are Footnotes Biblical Evidence? :-) | Rev 3:14 | Morant61 | 96074 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! You're joking! Right? Your Biblical evidence that Jesus was created is a footnote found in a Bible translation!!! You'll have to do better than that my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
76 | Where does Scripture say Jesus created? | Rev 3:14 | Morant61 | 95955 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! You wrote: "After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence." Where exactly does Scripture say that Jesus was created? I know that you believe the term 'first-born' means 'first created', but where does Scripture clearly say that Jesus was created? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
77 | A Question of Timing? | Revelation | Morant61 | 95113 | ||
Greetings Humpy! How does John's statement that the 'time is near' (Rev. 22:10) prove that the book has already been fulfilled? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
78 | Scripture support? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 94776 | ||
Greetings Gbennet76! Where exactly does Scripture say that the Bible is incomplete? Where are these 'other' works called Scripture? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
79 | Source? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 94758 | ||
Greetings Gbennet76! What is the source for this quote? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
80 | Where is a 1,260 year apostasy taught? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 94736 | ||
Greetings Gbennet76! You ended your post with the following statement: "But if the 'Great Tribulation' theory is false, then the scriptures clearly teach that there was a Great Apostasy, lasting 1260 years, which ended in the year 1830." My question is, where does Scripture clearly teach this? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |