Results 61 - 80 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | jesus...2year old-30.where was he? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 229168 | ||
Greetings Saving my Family! God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us in the Bible everything we need for salvation, doctrine, and holy living. He doesn't tell us why no mention is made of Jesus' childhood, but we can rest assured that we don't need that information since God did not give it to us. :-) I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
62 | Did Jesus exist? No writings at His time | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 229170 | ||
Greetings! I would recommend the book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Or, "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel. They both do a great job of presenting the early evidence for Jesus. There is a multitude of it. :-) p.s. - Wiki is not a great resource. ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
63 | Is Belief in the Trinity Required? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 230279 | ||
Greetings Holmes! I have been trying to catch up on this thread. :) It seems to me that many forget the incarnation when discussion the question of equality. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is fully God in every sense of the word, but His status changed during the incarnation. He 'emptied Himself' and 'became a servant'. During this time, His Father was greater than He. His Father was His God, because He Himself was fully man. But, these situation only existed during the incarnation. P.S. - I am in agreement with Beja. I believe that no one comes to salvation with a full understanding of the Trinity. So, in that sense, it is not necessary for salvation. But, any view that demeans Jesus is heresy and should be rejected. Thus, as a believer submits to Scripture, he or she will come to recognize the Trinity. As an individual, I could not say that someone who rejects the Trinity is not saved, but I can say that he or she is a false teacher. Great discussion. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
64 | Why am I not hearing from God | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 230534 | ||
Greetings Lkearse! You ask a very general question, but I would ask in return, 'Are you reading God's Word?' He has revealed Himself to us in His Word. If you read it, you are hearing from God. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
65 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232124 | ||
Hi Preston! Which verse or verses are you asking about? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
66 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232128 | ||
Greetings Preston: Thanks for the clarification. Here is what the study note from the Net Bible says about this phrase: "The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic "like that of a son of the gods." Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., "the Son of God"). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase "like a son of the gods" is equivalent to "like a divine being."" So, there argument is that the plural is more faithful to what the phrase would have meant to this pagan king. In fact, most of the commentaries that I checked accepted the NIV's translation as the better choice. Personally, I probably would have used the singular and included the above information in the study note. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
67 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232843 | ||
Greetings Ed! I'm not sure that I am following completely, but my response would be that Rom. 1:20 does teach that no man has an excuse for rejecting God since nature itself reveals Him to us. You seem to be asking, 'Is the knowledge gained through nature enough to produce saving faith?' I don't know, but it is certainly enough to produce blame. :-) I suspect that the knowledge gained through nature is not enough to produce saving faith, but it is enough to produce guilt. That guilt should then turn the person toward God for help, at which point, I believe God will make Himself know in a more complete way. However, Rom. 1:20ff tells us that many reject even the knowledge gained through nature, and turn to worship created things rather than our Creator. I hope I understood your question correctly. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
68 | we r living together but r not married.. | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232858 | ||
Greeting Magie! It is never really a good idea to discuss personal issues on a public forum like this. You really should talk to a local pastor about this issue. If you would like, e-mail me at Morant61@insightbb.com, and I can put you into contact with a local pastor. If you already have a pastor, I would go speak to him about this issue. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
69 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232897 | ||
Greetings! Here is an article that might aid your research into this topic: http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/ Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
70 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232940 | ||
Greetings Preston! You said in your post: I am sure you are aware but, for reminders to all of us the origional KJV was brought about by the king of england who assembled the greatest scholars known at the time, who used the only known to man... manuscripts. I don't know how much closer we will ever be able to come to the origional Word. Please answer a question for me...we have one from the origional manuscripts...why is another/new one necessary...for what purpose?"" The KJV New Testament text was actually based upon the greek text of Erasmus. His first edition was put together in only 5 months, and he only had a handful of greek manuscripts available to him, the oldest of which dated to the 10th century. So, as much good as has been accomplish by and through the KJV, it certainly is not the closest we have to the original manuscripts. We now have thousands of manuscripts from which to work, some of which date back to the 1st century. So, modern translation have a tremendous advantage when it comes to source material. Now, now all modern translations are good. :-) I would not use the TNIV as a door stop. ;-) But, almost all of them are much closer to the originals than the KJV. p.s. - Here is a link that details the manuscripts used for the KJV: http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
71 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232949 | ||
Greetings Preston! Could you give me the reference for the change from 'God' to 'Gods'? Without knowing the reference, all I can say in general is that 'elohim' (the Hebrew word for God) is a plural noun in form. When it is used with singular verbs, it is usually translated as 'God', but when used with plural verbs, it is usually translated as 'gods'. When you provide the specific reference, we will probably find a textual reason for the change. I agree with you that some translations are motivated for the wrong reasons, but there are many that are done for the right reasons as well. Whatever the reason, God's word is still powerful and will not return void. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
72 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 232960 | ||
Greetings Preston! I agree with you that God has many names. I looked up the link you provided, and I did not see the reference you mentioned concerning changing 'God' to 'Gods'. Do you have that reference? What do I mean by textual reason? Simply this, how we get the Bible is a complicated process. There are many thousands of copies, but to the best of our knowledge, we do not have any of the original texts. In the copies, are many variant readings. Almost all of them are minor issues of spelling, or word order. None of them affect any major doctrine. However, there are some instances where copyists either intentionally or unintentionally changed the original text. According the the link you provided, the modern translations either change or omit things, but this is only true if KJV accurately reflects what the original text actually said. If the KJV doesn't accurately reflect the original text, then it is the one that added or changed the text, and the modern translation are correcting it's mistakes. One famous example is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), where the entire passage is pretty much added to the KJV without any textual support. Here is what the NET Bible says about the lack of textual support for this reading. "This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest MS with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century (629), and that MS deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the Textus Receptus (TR) was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (Codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading... Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings — even in places where the Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (TR) equals the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history." I apologize for the long quote, but it is necessary to understand the textual issues before us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
73 | Is salvation a choice? Deut 30:19 | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233089 | ||
Greetings AJV! There are two main theological perspectives (Calvinism and Arminianism) and each one would answer your question a little differently. But, the points that both would agree on are: 1) Salvation is entirely of God. It is not based upon any personal works or merit. (Eph. 2:8-10 and Rom. 4:1-25) It is solely based upon the saving work of Christ upon the cross. (Col. 1:20, 2:14-15) 2) Salvation is a gift that must be received. On this point, the two sides begin to diverge quite a bit. Who can receive the gift? Why can they receive the gift? I don't want to delve into those differences, but I will simply encourage enter the terms 'choose', 'accept', and 'receive' in their various forms into the search box to the right of your screen and you will find many verses. Good luck in your study! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
74 | GRACE Preacher | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233091 | ||
Greeting Rbarman! I not sure of the context of your question. I know that there is often a difference between what Scripture says about grace and what man says about grace. So, I would recommend that you use the search box to the right of your screen and do a search on 'grace'. Find out what Scripture has to say about grace and then compare it to the definition you came across. In the process, if you have specific question, post them on the forum. Good luck! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
75 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233120 | ||
Greetings! For the purposes of this thread, here are the verses that actually mention the 'book of life', with a couple that 'may be' the book of life: Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Php 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. _________________ Now, based on these verses, what can we say about the Book of Life? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
76 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233124 | ||
Sorry, I was using the KJV simply because I wasn't sure how some of the modern versions translated the phrase. Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
77 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233125 | ||
By the way, the question wasn't just for you. It was an open question. Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
78 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233133 | ||
Thanks! That would be a good one to add to the list! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
79 | STMTS GOD TOOK PEOPLE TO HELL CONTRADICT | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 233273 | ||
Greetings J Lo! Luke 16:26 certainly indicates that individuals cannot cross between the paradise side and punishment side of Hades, but that does not necessarily mean that someone from earth could not go there either physically or in a vision. However, I would take any such claims with a giant grain of salt. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
80 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 234300 | ||
Greetings G.Preston! I am assuming that the relevant verse is Ex. 32:33, where God says, "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." There are a couple of questions which this text does not answer: 1) Which book is God talking about? 2) When will they be blotted out of this book? 3) Can they be added to the book again? So, to answer your question, I believe that names can be blotted out of the book of Ex. 32:33, but I am not sure what that book is! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [339] >> |