Results 61 - 80 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126905 | ||
You know, after considering this, I'm wondering, should we not be loving Marylin Manson? I know we should separate ourselves from the world, but this is more a matter of association. We should love our enemies, bless those that curse us, render good for evil, etc. Should we, as the Christian community in general, not be treating such a man as described in the Sermon on the Mount, that perhaps he will hear us and find the truth? Love suffers all things, hopes all things. Love is patient, and does not act unbecomingly. Love bears all things and endures all things. Should this not be our attitude toward him? "He causes His sun to rise on the the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." [Matt 5:44-48] Ancient |
||||||
62 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126903 | ||
Out of curiosity, am I missing something here in regard to Marylin Manson? Has he converted, but suffering rejection regardless? Or is this just a simple matter of "why are Christians persecuting a heathen?" Ancient |
||||||
63 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126902 | ||
Hey EdB. I will have to take some time to look over what you wrote. I don't like to be hasty in what I say, so I want to give your information the time it deserves. Then I can make some educated, wise decisions regarding which direction to continue in as far the information available to me. Thank you so much for the hard work you put into your post, and I want you to know that your efforts are appreciated and will not be ignored. Ancient |
||||||
64 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126898 | ||
You know Henry, perhaps if Marylin Manson was for the Lord, he wouldn't be having the problems he's having. Defeat is such a woe. My Bible says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church. Gates do not attack, they defend. If the church is kicking down the gates of Hell and taking morality to the immoral, I guess that's just too bad. The darkness hates the light, because in the light their deeds become evident. Marylin Manson's problem isn't the Church, but their own hate and lust, as Brad pointed out. If they were desirous for truth and life, they would receive what has been taken to them. With respect, Ancient |
||||||
65 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Ancient | 126892 | ||
You're right, brother. It is by grace through faith, and no other way. If I might point out something, though, not to contradict, but in order to fill out your explanation a bit, we must still keep the intent of the law. While we are in no wise under the law, the intent of the law, as Jesus explains in Matthew 7:12, is to do to others as we would have them do to us (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself). This intent we must keep, for we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. [1st John 3:14] To love your neighbor as yourself fulfills the law (i.e. keeps it to the fullest extent by default in that all the laws are derived from it. See Romans 13:8-10), but failing to love is akin to murder: Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. [1st John 3:15] Always remember that Jesus commanded the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more." [John 8:11] This applies to us as well. If we love him, we will keep his commandments. [John 14:15] I am not contradicting you. Again, I'm expanding on what you said. You have to be careful when you make statements about "not being required to maintain all of the old laws." It is written that until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Things have passed from the law, like sacrifices, cleanliness ceremonies, traditions, selection of the High Priest, etc. So we can assume that all has been fulfilled. But in the fulfillment, the law was moved from paper to the heart, and we are still subject insomuch that, as I stated before, we must keep the intent, which is to love one another as Jesus loved us. By this will all men know that we are his disciples. Just be careful to be clear when you make statements like that. I understand it, but some won't, and others will plainly defy you and think you are trying to say that because we aren't under the law we have a license to sin, which thing is still identified by the heart and conscience. Ancient |
||||||
66 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126890 | ||
Good afternoon, brother. If I am mistaken on the history of Bible translations, then so be it. The material I have read says what I have stated, but because they said it does not attest to any legitimacy. By all means educate me. I'd like to learn. As I understand it, the other versions you mentioned, while legitimate, were not considered authorized translations. The Vulgate, according to what I have read, was the standardized, authorized version in the Catholic Church (which was by far the most dominant in its day), and it is because of the Latin orientation of the Bible that King James commissioned the English translation to be made (in spite of the Catholic Church). Again, if the information I read is incorrect, then it is incorrect. I am, admittedly, not an expert in that particular field of study. I read enough to be educated in it so I will not be completely ignorant. On the subject of Lucifer, the lexicon I use is Strong's, derived from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, and Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament. And the Hebrew dictionary also cross references the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. According to these, the word being used in Isaiah 14:12 is heylel (hay-lale), rooted in halal (haw-lal) in the sense of brightness. halal (haw-lal) is not the word being used according to the references I have. The literal translation proposed by this lexicon is "morning-star" from the word heylel (hay-lale). The translations of the New American Standard (star of the morning), New International Version (morning star), and the New Revised Standard Version (Day Star), all concur that this is the best translation of the Hebrew word present in the text. I do not criticize your credentials or your comments. I don't know what your credentials might be, and I certainly value your input. But these three, barring the widely popular King James Version, are the three leading translations accepted for their literal and accurate renderings. In this particular case, I am going to trust in their expertise and accept the translation as "morning star." I appreciate your input on the subject regardless, and I have given your statement fair consideration. There are other versions that translate it as you say. But as those other translations are not as commonly accepted, and are not always done by the spectrum of scholars that gave their efforts to render the type of accuracy we have in the New American Standard, I must decline the veracity of your proposed translation of "Shining One." Now, in case I am confused in your post, if it is the word "lucifer" you are saying translates as "a shining one," I find that a common dictionary addresses this issue. [Middle English Lucifer, Old English Lucifer, from Latin: Lucifer, "light-bearer" : lux (stem luc-), light and -fer.] This word was commonly used for the planet Venus, recognized by epithet as the morning star. Additionally, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is heos-foros, which also means to "bear light." This is consistent with the Latin word lucifer. And in 2nd Peter 1:19, the Greek word is foce-foros, which means virtually the same thing, "light-bearer," and which the New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and the New International Version all once again agree accordingly, that the best rendition of the word is "morning star." Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 and 2nd Peter 1:19. Heos-foros and foce-foros, which are variants of each other, are also used in both places, and morning star, an accepted scholarly rendition, is used in both places. While there might have been English translations, I would have to submit that lucifer, being a Latin word, came from the Latin, not from Greek, Hebrew, or English. Now, did the King James Version come from the Latin? I'll say I honestly do not know if you have information that differs from mine. I thought I knew, but it appears there are sources to express various hypotheses. I greatly appreciate your input. If you have more to add, by all means. I'm interested in learning. Correct me if I am mistaken about something. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
67 | Some verses don't stand alone well | Is 3:21 | Ancient | 126880 | ||
Good morning to you, sister. Those that are intolerant are just lacking a little bit in understanding. I'm sure they mean well. They just need to learn how to bridle the tongue a little bit. Love does not seek its own, is not puffed up, does not act in pride, is kind, is gentle, is patient. Not everyone understands what love is all about, and there was a time when I didn't understand either. The stepping stones of growth attest to the necessity to overcome this phase. Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance ... Such as respond as they did are at this step. They have the faith, they strive for virtue, they have diligently sought knowledge, but they have not yet learned how to temper themselves. Again, I was there once. I look back and can't understand how I behaved that way, but when I was there, I felt absolutely correct and justified in everything I said. If someone contradicted me, they were wrong. Nothing they said or showed me was going to change my mind. Now my bride is wisdom, and I listen to her call. I listen first, consider second, and respond third. I try to esteem everyone as greater than myself whenever possible (though the unfortunate time does occasionally present itself that someone must be rebuked). As a younger Christian, I heard first, but didn't actually listen; responded second, and that with fervor; and I never considered at all unless what they said agreed with me. Needless to say, I didn't learn much in my younger Christian years. I was too busy listening to myself and my own voice to begin to hear the voice of wisdom. I am neither angry or condemning of people like that. They truly do not know better. I don't even sypathize. I empathize, because I was there. But I recognize also that any true Christian will eventually grow out of this phase. Let us move on to the phase beyond even that, and let us add to our temperance patience, that we might have the meekness and humility to guide people to love with our example. This is the goal of the New Testament teaching. "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, clear conscience, and sincere faith." [1 Tim 1:5] To Isaiah 3, I agree, this sounds a great deal like the historical account of the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus writes that during the slaughter within the walls, the number of the dead were so great that the flow of blood running down the street was actually putting out the fires of burning houses. I can't imagine. Ancient |
||||||
68 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126871 | ||
doctrinsograce, I'm so terribly sorry if you thought I was arguing. I didn't mean that at all. I was concurring with you and adding to it so we could talk about it. I feel terrible. That's not what I meant to impart to you at all. I value your input, and I hope you will give me more. Ancient |
||||||
69 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126870 | ||
I have to concur on this study note you have posted. This is what my findings, external from commentaries, have also concluded. I have concluded the same for Ezekiel 28. Neither of these passages (Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28) commonly used to reference the fall of Satan is contextually sound to the proposed theory as far as I see. As this commentary you quoted states, Isaiah is clearly talking about a man. Further, to support it better, we should take note that according to the theory of the fall, which suggests that Satan fell before the creation of man, this Isaiah passage is inconsistent with the teaching. When this fallen king went down into Sheol, those already dead and abiding there, including kings of nations, wondered over him. There shouldn't be any dead in Sheol if this is talking about a fallen angel being cast into Hell from the foundation of the world. This person also has a grave, from which he is rejected that his bones might be trampled and discarded like a useless shirt pierced by the sword. Similarly, the Ezekiel passage describes this person or being as having been perfect in his ways until the day iniquity was found in him. John, on the other hand, tells us that Satan sinned from the beginning. Also, the sin of Ezekiel's king of Tyrus is worded thus, "because of the multitude of your merchandise, and the iniquity of your traffick." In some of the minor prophets (Daniel - Malachi), you will find other apocalyptic literature regarding Tyre/Tyrus. In one of them, the activities of the Tyrians is consistent with the identified sin in Ezekiel. God declares judgment on Tyre for, among other things, selling Hebrews into slavery to the Greeks. This, I find, is consistent with the identified sin "iniquity of your traffick," which is "trade." Thanks for the input brother. Ancient |
||||||
70 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126862 | ||
Let me add to my last statement. I fear I might have used careless words. I didn't mean what it appears to me, in retrospect, that I meant to say. I am not trying to accuse or lay blame at anyone's feet for any wrong doing. I just saw a lot of poor treatment from one brother to the next in yesterday's lengthy conversation. I do not allocate blame to anyone specifically. I brought the point to attention because I don't want someone to do that to me. It already happened once, and I carefully stepped away from the situation so as not to be ridiculed undeserved for offering a piece of information to explain where the theory of the apple came from. How it exploded into such a thing as it did, I do not know. I do know that some valid points were made, and some were unwilling to listen to reason. Again, I don't want that to be the case here. I want to edify and learn together. The wisdom that is from God is easily entreated, not stubborn or prideful. In any case, if I unintentionally caused hurt with my careless statement, please forgive. No accusation was intended towards anyone specific. Ancient |
||||||
71 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126861 | ||
Good Morning Hank, The 1611 King James ... I've read three books on the origin of the Bible. Personally, I was not there, but the information I have been able to glean to date, according to these authors, is that due to the corruption to the Latin texts and lack of control over the copying and transmitting, the bible as they had it was horribly distorted by the late fourth century. Because of this, Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to collect and compile the scriptures in order to standardize a single copy for the sake of posterity, before the scriptures were corrupted beyond repair or retrieval. Jerome, as it is told, searched far and wide for texts that even then were considered ancient. It is said that he was ridiculed for his unwillingness to use the Septuagint for his work, as he believed that the only inerrant text was the original (though it is said he used it for comparison to check his accuracy). Once completed (a task that took him close to twenty years), his work became a codified text, and it was the standard used by the church. I can't disagree as to whether they used other sources, so I'll gracefully nod to that, but the authors I have read claim that the first English bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. I'm sure some of you are aware of the events leading to the alternate translations, but just for the sake of those that don't: The Latin Vulgate was at one point translated back into Greek by one scholar (very early), and in the 1800s, two (German?) scholars set about the task of the first major textual criticism, using sources going back to the 6th century. I apologize for not providing their names. I don't have the book handy. This first new textual criticism gave birth to a new age of Bible translators, and each new translation has stiven for excellence and accuracy to exceed the information and sources of the previous translations. I find that the New American Standard is a fantastic, literal translation, and is the closest thing so far. Now, Isaiah ... I agree with that study note, Hank. I find that Isaiah 14 does not offer an indisputable reference to the fall of an angel, whether Lucifer or otherwise. I am in absolute agreement that Isaiah 14 is in direct reference to the king of Babylon, and not a spiritualized representation of an angel that is named the king of Babylon in order to hide the meaning of the prophecy. This one common explanation, that "the angel" is called the "king" of Babylon, is often referred back to Daniel 10:13 which reads, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia." Recognized as angels in their context, Michael (the other is not addressed by title) is named a prince. This passage provides the means of spiritualization to verify Isaiah 14 as speaking of an angel. Since the angel is a prince, and the prophecy speaks of another royal dignity, this must, in their minds, equate to an angel. As a matter of heirarchy, princes are below a king, and next in line. It makes no sense to place "fallen" beings at a greater status than the princes doing God's will. Jesus is the King, and the angels, as described a number of times, are princes. The king of Babylon is not an angel, but a man of high status. Then we must use a "normal" reading of scripture to deduce the intent of the author, and doing so, you will see that the prophetic passage begins by saying that the people will take up a proverb against him, which word "proverb," defines in Hebrew as something "metaphoric," as in a poem. So this passage is a deliberate metaphor used to describe a haughty king. The figurative language, however pursuasive towards the proposed theory of the fall, is being used on purpose to describe a man, and it says as much. Also, you will notice if you read the passage in its entirety that it is not all consistent with the theory of the fall. Some of the passages must be dismissed in order to adhere to that interpretation. The Ezekiel passages I find are much the same. If others would like to participate in this conversation, I'd be happy to continue. However, I saw some terrible behavior by some yesterday. You were remiss in your duties to each other to practice meekness and humility, esteeming each other as greater than yourselves, and being quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to wrath. I do not wish for the same behavior to be directed at me for sharing what I've learned through diligent study. This series of posts will require each of us taking on the mind of child, unlearning what we think we know, in order to consider the validity of an alternate view that has been come to by much study. Those with heated opinions, I beg you, please don't scream at me because you disagree out of principle. Eager to continue, Ancient |
||||||
72 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Not Specified | Ancient | 126841 | ||
doctrinsograce, I apologize that I have to repost this to you. There is good information to be shared, and the original thread of our conversation is now restricted because of that debate earlier today. I had previously written: Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. You responded: Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. It is difficult in the OT because names often meant things, which means that the meaning and the name could be used interchangably. With no other clues in the text, its hard to know if a word should be transliterated or translated. I don't envy the job of the translators! This is my point precisely. "Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12." The word lucifer (small "l") is a Latin word. It never existed in the Hebrew text. Origen's spiritualized theory gave birth to a legend, and because of the teaching, by the time the Bible got translated into English in the 1611 King James Version, the word lucifer was no longer associated with its actual meaning, but now held the honor of a name. Lucifer (capital "L"). The 1611 King James Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, assembled by Jerome in the late fourth century by means of the first actual criticism of text. In the Latin Vulgate, you will find the word lucifer twice, not once. Because of the word's association with the theorized name of the highest angel who rose up in rebellion against God, the monks responsible for the English translation left the word Lucifer intact in Isaiah, but translated the same word according to its correct definition in 2nd Peter 1:19. Morning Star. You will find that all other copies of the Bible today use the word Morning Star, Day Star, Shining Star, or something akin to that. Only the King James Version holds to Lucifer in their Isaiah translation. In truth, Lucifer is not the name of Satan's former being. Satan is his former name. Although, in all fairness, the name Lucifer genuinely belongs to him at this point because of all the deceit that surrounds the name. I have tons more on the subject if you are interested. Ancient |
||||||
73 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126843 | ||
doctrinsograce, I apologize that I have to repost this to you. There is good information to be shared, and the original thread of our conversation is now restricted because of that debate earlier today. I had previously written: Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. You responded: Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. It is difficult in the OT because names often meant things, which means that the meaning and the name could be used interchangably. With no other clues in the text, its hard to know if a word should be transliterated or translated. I don't envy the job of the translators! This is my point precisely. "Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12." The word lucifer (small "l") is a Latin word. It never existed in the Hebrew text. Origen's spiritualized theory gave birth to a legend, and because of the teaching, by the time the Bible got translated into English in the 1611 King James Version, the word lucifer was no longer associated with its actual meaning, but now held the honor of a name. Lucifer (capital "L"). The 1611 King James Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, assembled by Jerome in the late fourth century by means of the first actual criticism of text. In the Latin Vulgate, you will find the word lucifer twice, not once. Because of the word's association with the theorized name of the highest angel who rose up in rebellion against God, the monks responsible for the English translation left the word Lucifer intact in Isaiah, but translated the same word according to its correct definition in 2nd Peter 1:19. Morning Star. You will find that all other copies of the Bible today use the word Morning Star, Day Star, Shining Star, or something akin to that. Only the King James Version holds to Lucifer in their Isaiah translation. In truth, Lucifer is not the name of Satan's former being. Satan is his former name. Although, in all fairness, the name Lucifer genuinely belongs to him at this point because of all the deceit that surrounds the name. I have tons more on the subject if you are interested. Ancient |
||||||
74 | Christ Sometimes Taught in Greek | Mark 12:30 | Ancient | 126840 | ||
God did promise to scatter them to the four winds and make them a byword amongst the nations. I have no ill will to anyone, Jew or otherwise, but the events of 66-70, finally concluded around 130 with the uprising of Simon Ben-Koseba, certainly seemed like a promise fulfilled. I love history. Do you do much history reading doctrinsograce? Perhaps we can discuss some interesting things. Ancient |
||||||
75 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126839 | ||
Perhaps you folks would be interested in some concepts that give weight to biblical creation. 1. We don't really have any records, finds, artifacts, or any other evidence that predates the bible. Ancient Egypt is by far the most ancient most historians deal with. There are others, but this as just an example. If man existed prior to biblical record, where are the findings, archaeological or otherwise? 2. As Mark pointed out, the skeletons on the evolutionary chart were almost all hoaxes. The only one that was genuine was the skeleton just before ours, and it is so close to what we are, there is really no difference. 3. Mark addressed the dinosaurs insomuch that they existed at the same time as man. To add to that, it is a biological fact that reptiles continue to grow their entire life, as opposed to mammals that stop at a certain point and regress. If man was living an average of 1000 years, by comparison in scale, just how big would a six hundred year old lizard be? 4. Under a pressurized, oxygen rich environment, some species, as observed in controlled environment experiments, were shown to grow to abnormal size. Most specifically, the beaver and the dragonfly. Such an environment also promotes good health, and most importantly, it eliminates the amino acids that contribute to decay. i.e. People have the potential to live forever in such an environment. Also, in this particular environment, iron does not rust orange. It rusts white. The same controlled experiments have shown this truth through observation. In the middle east, near the area of the Jordan, artifacts were found. Iron implements that had rusted white. 5. Scientists (of Christian orientation) have concluded and concurred with secular scientists that the earth at one point did not have clouds as we do now in our stratosphere (right sphere? I forget.) They belief in what is called "the greenhouse theory." This theory, briefly stated, suggests that the earth was covered by a layer of water in the sky. This layer did at least three things. It created a pressurized environment. It created an oxygen rich environment. It caused the world to be at one moderated temperature. Some evidence put forth on this theory are the frozen ferns in Antarctica. 6. If this dome of water collapsed, the world would be flooded, the temperature would become horribly unregulated and cause some places to freeze, like the polar caps which are farthest from the sun's rays, the pressurized environment would dissipate, and the oxygen would thin causing death, decay, and significantly shorter life spans in humans. Compare these facts to what you know from the creation through the flood. See what you think. Ancient |
||||||
76 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126837 | ||
Always brother. Amen, and Amen again. May I offer some thoughts in regard to topics like this? |
||||||
77 | marriage and masturbation. | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126836 | ||
Brother, I will not say masturbation is right or wrong. I have my opinion, but I choose to keep it to myself. I will say that Galatians 5:22-23 doesn't say a word about masturbation, and it surely does not address the act under the specific circumstances as mentioned by the author of the question. Exercising self-control does not define as masturbation, and there is nothing anywhere in the context to suggest that he is assuredly speaking of this act. I know of no scripture that ascribes sin to masturbation, short of the laws of cleanliness in Deuteronomy. But these laws weren't concerning the act, only the defiling of the body and the necessary physical purification after getting issue on yourself, your bed, your clothes, your chair, etc. Now, I hope you don't take this note personally. It is my intent to edify to all good works, not to make you angry or indignant. I mean well, and I hope I gave you good and worthy information. Ancient |
||||||
78 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126833 | ||
Yes, I would have to agree with Hank. We must have faith in the work of the translators. If you read several different versions, you may notice some small discrepencies from one to the next over small things as each believed their rendering was the best choice of a finite number of choices. On major portions of translation that are likley weighed heavily for accuracy because of the known doctrines, true or false, it would be irresponsible of them to not get the translation right if it would make an impacting difference. Again, I have to agree with Hank. As a matter of dispensation, you have to weigh all the evidence, then form the doctrine. You can't form the doctrine on incomplete data and bend or spiritualize what doesn't fit. Or worse yet, change it. That's like the Jehovah Witnesses adding words like "a" to prove their point that Jesus was not God himself, but a lesser God, and this without weighing the clear evidence in Isaiah that states that he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. I'm undecided about the gap theory. There are other ways to look at it. No time period is actually specified from the formation of the heavens and the earth to the time God declared that light should exist. Perhaps this is a mystery God has reserved for those that seek it. Myself, I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't affect my salvation one way or the other. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Well, hear me now ... Jesus Christ is Lord. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the Son of God, the Eternal Father incarnate, died blamesless on the cross for my sins, and rose again on the third day that God may be forever glorified. This thing I believe, and I will confess always. What I believe about the creation has no bearing on this, my salvation. As a note of good will, may I suggest that you focus on Christ and less on the creation? How creation happened is not the power unto salvation. Jesus is; and this is the thing that brings people to life. All my love to you both, Ancient |
||||||
79 | ok to sin because of the flesh | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126827 | ||
Brother, may I respond to you on this subject? Ancient |
||||||
80 | 7 twenty-four hour periods? | Gen 1:5 | Ancient | 126825 | ||
Yuke, May I address an issue with what you said regarding Satan being "hurled" to earth? Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |