Results 61 - 80 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Are all interpretations equal? | Rom 3:4 | Radioman2 | 81704 | ||
Some Things Are True - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'It is impossible to know the meaning of any written text. If this is true, log off the web now. If not, read this commentary to find out about self-refuting arguments.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Let me give you a picture of my world, by and large, at least as it touches this particular issue. My world is a world in which thinking matters, in which there is such a thing as truth, in which truth can be known and in which we use thinking to assess ideas to determine whether they are true or not. There's really not much room in my thinking system for comments like, Well, that's just your interpretation, or just your opinion, when the emphasis is on "just." Of course it's my interpretation. Of course it's my opinion, but it's not just those things in that I'm not simply sharing my point of view, I'm sharing my reasons why I have a point of view. 'Now it could be that my opinion or my interpretation is mistaken, but the only way for me to find out whether it's mistaken or not is to get at the reasons I draw the conclusions which form either my opinion or my interpretation. I don't believe that all opinions are equal. I don't believe that all interpretations are equal . . .' To read more go to: (www.str.org/cgi-bin/daily_commentary.pl) (Some Things are True by Gregory Koukl) |
||||||
62 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | Radioman2 | 81643 | ||
Are parables alone sufficient to prove a doctrine? Many verses used to support the notion that a true believer can lose his salvation are taken from parables. This, in spite of the fact that clear verses of Scripture directly teach otherwise. I would not base a doctrine on parables (alone or primarily) -- not when there are so many clear passages of Scripture that support and establish doctrine. Although they have their place in Scripture, parables are easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. Too often people assign to parables meanings that simply are not there. Which of the following essentials of the historic Christian faith (basic Bible doctrines) are built PRIMARILY or ONLY on parables? None of them, not one. Rather they are based upon clear passages of Scripture taken at their face value. The essentials of the historic Christian faith include: the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; the triune Godhead composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the virgin birth and Deity of Christ, the necessity and efficacy of His atoning work; Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension; His imminent coming for His Church and His visible return to the earth; the everlasting felicity of the redeemed; and the everlasting punishment of the lost. Although there may be parables that teach or apply some truth(s) concerning the above basics, all of the above doctrinal truths are established in Scripture without depending primarily upon parables alone. |
||||||
63 | Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81555 | ||
Exposing Doctrinal Errors: Heresy Hunting or Biblical Mandate? 'Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, that Christians are simply supposed to love one another and be united together in faith. Should we, therefore, regard as divisive those Christians who speak out against teachings in the church which are clearly unbiblical?' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0601.pdf) |
||||||
64 | Which one is cause, which is effect? | 1 Cor 1:10 | Radioman2 | 81524 | ||
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." Do creeds cause division? Or do they deal with the fact that division already exists? One could argue that pre-existing division is the reason for -- not the result of -- statements of belief. EdB, Reformer Joe, John Reformed and whosoever will join this discussion: What do you think? Division and creeds -- which is cause and which is effect? Consider what John Reformed said in his recent post: "I believe it is important to remember that our creeds arose in answer to those who were attemting to pervert sound doctrine." The intent of the creeds was not to pervert sound doctrine, but rather to preserve it. Radioman2 |
||||||
65 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81288 | ||
Searcher56: You write: "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views..." I ask you: Who is debating Arminian/Calvinist views? Am I? You write: "Radioman2 and others ... just answer the question of how you see God's wish(es) apart from your Arminian or Calvinist view." I ask: Which view do I hold -- Arminian or Calvinist? If you tell me which I am (Arminian or Calvinist), then we'll both know. What makes you assume I am either Arminian or Calvinist? Radioman2 |
||||||
66 | What are the greater works in John 14:12 | John 14:12 | Radioman2 | 81128 | ||
What are the greater deeds (works) that Jesus speaks of in John 14:12, and how is this related to his going to the Father? NASB John 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." |
||||||
67 | Are we back to the absurd view...? | 2 Timothy | Radioman2 | 80908 | ||
Are we back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles? Many people, such as the KJV-Only advocates, are scared to death that someone might get hold of a so-called corrupt Bible translation that will somehow deceive them into committing apostasy or heresy. The inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, God's plan of salvation, the Second Coming of Christ, etc. can be proven using the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB, or any number of other translations. The idea that the same passage in one version will be translated to have an opposite meaning in another verison is pure nonsense. I see no need for people to become hysterical in their fierce opposition to this translation or their fanatical defense of that translation. Moreover, the differences in the wording of various translations is due more to the aim of the translators (to produce a word-for-word or thought-for thought translation) than to differences in the underlying Greek texts, which are minor. |
||||||
68 | Is your modern translation corrupt? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80751 | ||
IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White 'Summary 'King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) 'The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. 'Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.' ------------- To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates Also recommended, James White's book: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations?" James R. White/Bethany House Publishers/1995 (Type: Trade Paperback) |
||||||
69 | Is the KJV truer to the original mss? | Rev 2:28 | Radioman2 | 80726 | ||
Is the KJV truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions? - - - - - - - - - - "We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles." - - - - - - - - - - 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] |
||||||
70 | Do you win converts to your opinions...? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 79901 | ||
RCSCROLL: Do you win many converts to your opinions when you use words like "assumption," "presumptuous," "so-called," "ridiculous", and "doesn't add up" to describe the beliefs of others? |
||||||
71 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79819 | ||
inhisname: "Could Cain do well?" What is your point in asking this? The answer to this question does not prove or disprove anything. It does not prove or disprove Calvinism, fatalism, Arminianism or anything else. |
||||||
72 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79746 | ||
"Could Cain do well?" What is your point in asking this? The answer to this question does not prove or disprove anything. It does not prove or disprove Calvinism, fatalism, Arminianism or anything else. |
||||||
73 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Radioman2 | 79760 | ||
Here is another question we might ask: Often a verse or passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, yet it is left in a particular translation. Is it dishonest or unethical not to let the reader know that such a passage does not appear in the earliest manuscripts? |
||||||
74 | Are you in the faith? | 2 Cor 13:5 | Radioman2 | 79726 | ||
Are you in the faith? Have you examined yourself? Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves [not Christ]. Do you not yourselves realize and know [thoroughly by an ever-increasing experience] that Jesus Christ is in you--unless you are [counterfeits] disapproved on trial and rejected? (AMPLIFIED 2 Corinthians 13:5) 'The Bible says "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor. 13:5). Well, are you in the faith? Have you examined yourself? It is easy to ask and sometimes difficult to answer. (...) 'You are to examine yourself, to test yourself to see if you are in the faith. This means that you must first know what the Christian faith is and what it means to enter into that faith. Furthermore, you must know and acknowledge that there is only one God in all existence, that Jesus is God in flesh, that you are a sinner, that you need to repent of your sins, and that the only way to find forgiveness is to trust in Jesus alone, by faith alone, through grace alone.' (CARM NEWSLETTER 03/13/2003, The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, www.carm.org). |
||||||
75 | Continue in sin that grace may abound? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79678 | ||
"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" Someone here seems to be implying that we should. You ask: "If Cain does bad doesn't that give God a chance to show his power?" Romans 6:1-2a (ESV) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! You write: "Cain only did what he was made to do." NASB James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. AMPLIFIED James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted from God; for God is incapable of being tempted by [what is] evil and He Himself tempts no one. But every person is tempted when he is drawn away, enticed and baited by his own evil desire (lust, passions). |
||||||
76 | Can the rapture happen anytime? | Matt 24:3 | Radioman2 | 79268 | ||
Darcy writes: "But the rapture can happen anytime." What is your scriptural evidence for this assertion? I.e., where in the Bible does it teach the rapture can happen anytime? 'WHAT ABOUT IMMINENCY? '...the doctrine of imminency is nowhere taught in Scripture. The concept that Christ could return at "any moment" since His departure back to heaven is simply not taught anywhere in the entire Bible. Not one of the passages used to sustain imminency, actually teach imminency. Expectancy, yes. Imminency (an any-moment rapture), no. If imminency had been the concept that the writers had wanted to convey, it could have and would have been clearly stated (in fact 19th century promoters of pretribulationism initially taught expectancy rather than imminency for this reason). In addition, there were many events prophesied by Christ, known throughout the Christian world at that time, that still had to occur before He could return, such as the destruction of the Temple (Lk. 21:6) and the death of Peter (Jn. 21:18-19). Imminency was an impossibility until the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. 'Likewise, Christ taught that His rescue of the elect of God will occur "on the same day" that His wrath will begin upon the wicked that remain (Lk 17:26-30). There is no gap of time between the rapture and His wrath. If the seventieth week of Daniel is really the wrath of God, as pretribulationism maintains, and the seventieth week begins with Israel's covenant with Antichrist (Dan. 9:27), then Israel must be back in the land and Antichrist must be on the world scene before the Rapture, a simple deduction which once again destroys the unbiblical concept of imminency. But the prewrath position has no problem with any of these passages, including Revelation 12:12, where the persecution of Antichrist against the "elect" of God during the great tribulation is not called the wrath of God, but rather, the wrath of Satan. Pretribulationism makes Antichrist's persecution of God's elect the wrath of God. Prewrath rapturism sees this great persecution as the wrath of Satan (Rev. 12:12 being the proof text). Antichrist's persecution of God's elect is never the wrath of God (Mt. 24:21-22; Rev. 12:7; 13:7; 14:12-13).' (Questions for a Pretribulationist 'By Robert Van Kampen and Rev. Roger Best) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
77 | What topics are censored on the forum? | Prov 5:19 | Radioman2 | 79109 | ||
Thank you. Now I'll ask you again: Perhaps you could favor us with a list of topics that are banned from discussion on this forum. Or would the list itself be censored? |
||||||
78 | Isn’t this playing with the text? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 79196 | ||
Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? | ||||||
79 | What is your point? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78828 | ||
You write: "all of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." Are you implying the following? "All of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." "I believe man has free will." Therefore, the passages of inspired Scripture (that Hank provided) are not true. Is that what you are implying, that some passages of the Bible are not true? |
||||||
80 | I refuse to deal with it??? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77742 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |