Results 61 - 80 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What scripture is James referring to? | James 4:5 | retxar | 67828 | ||
Thanks Edb, I’ll have to study the idea of whether this is our “spirit” as MacArthur is saying, or the “Holy Spirit” as the NKJV, NASB, and NLT say. The “Holy Spirit” seems to make since to me now, as the “He” in verse 6 seems to be referring to the “Spirit” mentioned in verse 5. I will have to study further. Anyway, I was wondering if there was a possibility that James 4:5 may be referring to some writings of Paul, which Peter eluded to as being in the same category as "other scripture" (2Pe 3:15-16). Or if maybe the part in verse 5 that speaks of a scripture said in vain actually belongs with verse 4, and the statement "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously", is a different thought, and thus where verse 5 should begin? retxar |
||||||
62 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | retxar | 67697 | ||
I went back and looked at my post you responded to here and realize why you asked me about Isa 61. I mistakenly referred to Isa 61 when I meant Isa 53. Sorry. retxar |
||||||
63 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | retxar | 67682 | ||
I guess my only intent was to show that Isa 53 indeed includes provision for physical healing, so I guess that has been established. I am glad we agree on that! Maybe I looked at Isaiah 53 in the LXX a little too long when I looked up what Matthew was quoting and got the notion that this provision is provided for by Jesus’s suffering. Verse 3 says Jesus was a man "in suffering and acquainted with the bearing of sickness". Anyway, I checked with the commentaries on Matthew 8:17 I had available and found that this is not that far fetched of an idea: Matthew Henry: "we may say, that he bore our sicknesses then, when he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree" Albert Barnes: "The word translated “griefs” in Isaiah, and “infirmities” in Matthew, means properly, in the Hebrew and Greek, “diseases of the body.” Adam Clarke: "And the rabbins understand this place to speak of the sufferings of the Messiah for the sins of Israel; and say that all the diseases, all the griefs, and all the punishments due to Israel shall be borne by him." David Guzik: “Matthew rightly sees this as a partial fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 53, which primarily refers to spiritual healing, but also definitely includes physical healing. The provision for our healing (both physically and spiritually) is made by the sufferings (stripes) of Jesus; the physical dimension of our healing is partially realized now, but finally only in resurrection.” This last commentary best sums up the way I understand in much better words than I could ever convey to you. A quick word on Isa 61: This is the same scripture Jesus read from when He declared His ministry in Luke 4. Jesus declared His ministry would be a healing ministry which would include physical, emotional, and spiritual healing. I will concede that 1Pe 2:24 is speaking of spiritual healing. However, this does not rule out the provision for our physical healing is also provided for by Jesus in Isa ref is given. God bless you bro! retxar |
||||||
64 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | retxar | 67657 | ||
Thanks Steve, Isa 53 in the Septuagint, which Matthew probably had access to, reads much like Matthew has quoted here of Jesus taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses. In context, Matthew is no doubt referring to spiritual as well as physical healing, but mostly physical. Since the bible does not contradict itself, we have to conclude that Isaiah 61 refers to physical as well as spiritual healing. 1 Peter, as you have correctly said, in context, is mostly referring to spiritual healing. However, if we take what it says and what it does not say, we cannot rule out the fact that Jesus’s suffering provided physical healing. By the same token, we cannot take James 5 and rule out the fact that sometimes God does not heal, (for what ever reason that He knows and we do not) even tho James 5 plainly says the prayer of faith WILL heal the sick, with no option of God ever not healing. Other scripture, as you and others have provided, will bear this out. We must balance scripture with scripture and interpret scripture in context of not only the passage we are studying, but also the whole bible. retxar |
||||||
65 | Is God's will prosperity/healing always? | Rom 8:28 | retxar | 67578 | ||
In reference to Isaiah, Mat 8:17, in context, speaks of physical as well as spiritual healing. retxar |
||||||
66 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67540 | ||
It's OK if you don't see it that way, but if you had even built anything like this (on a smaller scale of coarse), it would make sense to you. You have to admit that it is very probable and you cannot rule out what I have said. Even if I am not correct the Bible is, and you are really grabbing at straws here to try to say this scripture is in error! When you are measuring stuff with strings and sticks, 15 digit precision is not really an issue anyway! Apparently Solomon got every thing built OK, so I guess he had no problem with the numbers God gave him or he would not have wrote them down! How do I pronounce "Retxar"? Well, I don't really know. It has a rhyme and reason but I guess it is not really a word. Here’s another arithmetic question for you and you don’t even have to use pi! What if the bowl was made from 6 brass plates joined together to form the walls. This would not be a true circle, but THE WORD says “circular in form”, and this would indeed be “circular in form” in the same way as a geometric dome house is “circular in form” or the old wooden barrels made from slats were “circular in form”. They are constructed in the same fashion and everyone calls them “round” houses and “round” barrels. If the bowl was 10 cubits outside to outside, what would be the outside length of each of the 6 plates that make up to wall have to be? What would this number multiplied by six be? This number would be the length around the outside walls. retxar P.S. A true math whiz kid ought to be able to do this in his head, but you can use your calculator if you like! |
||||||
67 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67459 | ||
Thank’s Hank! It’s good to know that scholars as Tim and yourself have let me know that I’m not totally off track anyway! I only know hillbilly, not real English, and only a little Hebrew and a little Greek. The little Hebrew owns a shoe store and the little Greek owns a restaurant! later bro, retxar |
||||||
68 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67351 | ||
You are only looking at the finish product and you are not even thinking about the process of getting there. There were many measurements that needed to be known and taken before this swimming pool size bowl was even started! From a design standpoint, which is really what would have been Solomon’s concern and reason to know, and what would be reasonable to think God would have revealed to him, the circumference measurement would have been AROUND the core, which would be the inside of the bowl, not the outside. I know you know your arithmetic, but do you really have any idea how something like this large bowl would have been cast? Would you know where to start? If you did, you would know that the circumference of the core would be something handy to know and that the diameter from brim to brim would be something handy to know and you would have indeed been blessed if God had given you both! The bowl was probably constructed upside down. Straw or some other filler would first have been heaped up to a size somewhat smaller than the inside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the straw would have been covered with clay to a size somewhat larger than the inside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the clay would have been trimmed, honed, and sanded down to the exact size as God specified. This is where the 540 inch core circumference would have came into play. Next, the clay would have been hardened and cured with heat. Next, wax, paraffin, or some another material that would melt would have been put on the outside of the clay core to a size somewhat larger than the outside dimensions of the bowl. Next, the wax would have then been trimmed, honed, and sanded down to the exact size as God specified. This is where the 172 inch brim to brim measurement would have came into play. Next, the wax would have been covered with clay. Next, this layer of clay would have hardened and cured. Next, holes at the top would have been added thru the outer clay and into the wax cavity for molten brass to be poured into. Next, holes would have then been added at the bottom for the wax to escape. Next, molten brass would have then poured into the wax cavity which would cause the wax to melt and be replaced with brass as the melting wax escaped thru the relief holes. After the brass had set up and cooled down, the outer clay shell would be chipped away. The bowl would have then been turned right side up and the clay and straw on the inside would be removed. A few finishing touches and we now have a bowl large enough to be called a sea and it is exactly as God wanted and as He precisely specified for His Temple! The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers my friend! Keep on hammering away if you like, but I would suggest you just put down your hammer and realize that Jesus has already been hammered to a cross for you! Just give it up and believe His WORD! John 20:27b ....do not be unbelieving, but believing. retxar |
||||||
69 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67277 | ||
EdB, I like that Tim, he's a good dude! I think the reason the NKJV, NASB, and ESV are not more clear here is because they are all more of a word for word translation written in modern English, which simply does not have 2nd person pronouns that differentiate between singular and plural. Maybe adding words to clarity would go against the word for word translation principle. I primarily use the NKJV, which, of coarse, is written in modern English, which, of coarse, does not use thee’s and thou’s. However, if one knows how they are supposed to work, it would help in passages such as this and is a lot simpler solution than having to look up the Greek when the passage could read either way in modern English. retxar |
||||||
70 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | retxar | 67252 | ||
You need to look down at verse 26 "It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup," A handbreath is about 3 inches and the brim of a cup is flared out, I would say at least an inch. The measurement from outside to outside of the brim was 10 cubits (about 180 inches). The circumference of the bowl would almost have to be taken from the inside, because it would need to be measured before it was cast, which would equal the circumference of the core, which would be the inside of the bowl. So lets do the math. Brim to brim is 180". Subtract the thickness twice (6 inches) we now have 174 inches. Subtract the flare twice (2 inches) we now have 172 inches. 3.14 (pi) x 172" is 540.08 inches. 30 cubits is about 540 inches!!! This is just over 1/16 of an inch (the size of a flea!) of being right on!! I know of no building contractor anywhere that can measure something 45 feet long this close, let alone build it!! This is a powerful text to prove The Bible's accuracy, not it's error. retxar |
||||||
71 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67248 | ||
Well, if you be a know'n what you be a talking about, you got a heap more folk than myself to straighten out, including the sponsor of this bible study forum! Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, (AMP) Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to have all of you, to sift you like wheat. (NLT) Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has asked permission to sift all of you like wheat, (ISV) Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, (NAB) Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, (NRSV) Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, I tell you that Satan has obtained permission to have all of you to sift as wheat is sifted. (WNT) retxar |
||||||
72 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67108 | ||
Hank, I am no English expert, so teach me something here bro! You said that “thee” and “thou” can be used in the plural as well as in the singular. Does this also apply to the KJV? I can find plenty of verses in the KJV where both “thee” and “you” are used. It seems to me that in all cases that “thee” applies to one and “you” is used to show the places where God is talking to more than one or to show that what God is saying applies to more than one. Also, is the Greek/Hebrew different for thee/thou than it is for you/your? Here’s yet another example of what I see: 1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. "Hand" is singular so the pronoun "thee" is used. "Feet" is plural so the pronoun "you is used. Thanks for your impute of wisdom!, retxar |
||||||
73 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67106 | ||
Edb, Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you (does "you" here mean Peter or the disciples?) like wheat; [32] but I have prayed for you (Peter or the disciples?), that your faith (Peter's faith or the disciple's faith?) may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." NASB-U Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (you is plural so Jesus means the disciples), that he may sift you (the disciples) as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee (thee is singular so Jesus means Peter), that thy faith (thy is singular so Jesus means Peter's faith) fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. KJV I hope you now see what I am saying. But unless we are aware that there is a difference between you/your and thee/thou it does not make this passage or any other more clear. retxar |
||||||
74 | Pre update NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 67050 | ||
Ed, I guess what I said had nothing to do with the differences between the NASB and NASB-u. Sorry for the confusion. All I was trying to say, and show, was how thee's and thou's were originally used in Renaissance English. Thee's and thou's were not used as a reverent way to address the Lord, as in the '77 NASB. “Thee” and “thou” are singular forms of the pronouns “you” and “your”. In present day English “you” and “your” can be either singular or plural. In Renaissance English “you” and “your” were always plural and “thee and “thou” were always singular. I only gave the passage of Luke 22:31-32 as an example of how this can be a determining factor in knowing what a particular passage is saying. If we only have “you” and “your”, which can be either singular or plural, we have to guess where Jesus means Peter and where Jesus means all the disciples. If we have “thee” and “thou” as well as “you” and “your”, we can know when Jesus means Peter and when Jesus means disciples. I hope this clears things up a bit, and explains what I was trying to say! retxar |
||||||
75 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66891 | ||
Thanks Charis, No ploblem here, I just wanted to be sure I didn't say something I did not mean. You be right, I be a bro also! I'll try to do that profile thing soon! I was wondering how long before that came up! later bro! retxar |
||||||
76 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66883 | ||
Thanks Tim! I examined your posts and studied your comments on Romans 5 and Romans 7 and I thank you for teaching me! later bro! retxar |
||||||
77 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66882 | ||
Charis, I know this is where this exchange was supposed to end, but I have 2 small issues with your last post that I fell I must address and then I will cease. 1. You wrote: “Please do not accuse me of following tradition, that would not 'stick' on me! :-)” What brought this on? I re-read my posts, and am at a loss as to what you are talking about? Are you sure I was the one that said what you thought I said to prompt this response from you? Anyway, I apologize to you, sir, if you thought I implied this in anyway. I promise, the thought (of you following tradition) never crossed my mind! 2. Your comments that I was assuming too much to determine the children were NOT the disciple’s: If you would examine the text carefully, you are sure to agree with me too! The ones who were rebuked were not the children, as you have assumed, rather the ones rebuked were the ones who brought them! “Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.” (Mar 10:13 NKJV). So unless Jesus was rebuking the disciples for rebuking themselves, I think it is safe to say the children were not their own. retxar |
||||||
78 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66837 | ||
Sorry if I came across as negative. Here’s another shot! Mar 10:14 such is the kingdom of heaven Mar 10:15 receive kingdom as a little child Luk 18:16 such is the kingdom of heaven Luk 18:17 receive kingdom as a little child Mat 18:3 become as little children Mat 19:14 such is the kingdom of heaven And they were bringing children (children of many) to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them (definitely not the disciples children). But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children (any of the children) to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these (no regard to who their parents were). "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child (as a child, not any particular child) will not enter it at all." And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them. (Mar 10:13-16) These children here in Mark were NOT the disciples children. Jesus did not care who’s children they were. Jesus declared that they possessed heaven with no regard of who their mom and dad were. Jesus gave no hint that any of the children’s heavenly status was questionable. You state that you have a hard time understanding God's rationale for 'un-saving' children and that seems to be a problem for you to believe that ALL young children are secure, even tho you feel that should be right. Then you go on to say that there was a time when you KNOW you were lost. I assume that when you were born you also KNOW (now anyway) your were saved (secure). Hey, I believe the same thing for my own life! I believe I was secure/lost/saved! I know I am probably misunderstanding what you meant and please, please don’t think I am trying to twist your words, but it seems you have said the same thing (secure/lost/saved). Could this mean that what you KNOW is not necessarily what you understand? I do not pretend to understand either! retxar |
||||||
79 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | retxar | 66734 | ||
Charis, I do have other scripture I could present, but from what I have already stated as what Mat 18 is saying to me, I can't really say it would be anything that would sway your thinking. Mat 18 is my best shoot (for now anyway!). I admit that the WORD is pretty silent (not totally tho) on the fate of young children of both believers and non-believers. 1Cor 7:14 has been presented as "proof text" that children of believers are secure in Jesus. But to me, it is less convincing than Mat 18 that all young children are secure in the Lord. I believe in salvation of all young children, but if I based a belief of salvation for the children of believers only based on 1 Cor 7:14, I would also have to believe it as proof of salvation for their un-believing spouse. I, like you, am confident that God is just with young children (even aborted children), and that to me has to mean that he will not send them to Hell. If only the children of the saved were secure in the Lord, and the children were kept secure until they had the knowledge to accept Jesus (no saved-now/lost-later scenarios), would not everyone that has been born since Noah be saved, because all would have had to have salvation passed down from their parents? How could the chain have ever been broken? Thanks for your pleasent exchange, tho we disagree. retxar |
||||||
80 | Submit . . . unless it hurts? | Eph 5:33 | retxar | 66615 | ||
I re-read your post and am very sorry if I misread it, but must admit I am no wiser on what you are asking me now than before. If you are not indeed questioning women who do not endure abuse, pain, torment, and even death, in an abusive relationship, I really don't know what you are saying? I don't see how any of the "models" as you have called them, have anything to do with any women “taking a beating” from an abusive man, and how that could possible be honorable unto the Lord? The submissiveness of a wife in marriage simply means she trust her husband to hear from the Lord on her behalf. If he is obviously not hearing from the Lord, any word God would have otherwise spoken thru the husband on his wives behalf, will be spoken directly to the wife. Please consider what Charis and Joe have said to you. Out of curiosity, how many women have you counseled in life threatening relationships? Was your advise for them to “hang in there baby”, because that's what God requires of them because of the "model" of Job? How did that turn out? Did they understand what you were talking about and how that applied to their situation? Would you give the same advice to your daughter or sister? I have advised women in threatening situations to seek the protection necessary for themselves and their children. How was I, according to the WORD, giving the wrong advice? What would you have advised instead? retxar |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |