Results 641 - 660 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15933 | ||
I must agree with Angie, I find it inconsistent to support the taking of human life for one reason (capital punishment), and oppose it for another (abortion). I also agree with Brian G. when he says, "When we begin accepting the destruction of life from one perspective, then it becomes easier to end life from other perspectives. The different acceptable reasons for destroying life begin to feed upon each other." Killing is desensitizing. In fact, a large part of military training is dedicated to that purpose. On the other hand, EdB makes the point there is no record of the martyred Christians using the argument that the death penalty is morally wrong to defend themselves. I would submit that none would be expected anyway. It is not logical that a person would use a defense, which is irrelevant to the authority over them. If the authorities were not Christians, then they would have no reason to care about what the Christian thing to do was. EdB also makes the point that there are many places where the "Bible clearly prescribes execution". I would submit that these are in the OT and that there has been a fundamental change since then (see "Death penalty in OT is good" post). There have also been people posting on both sides of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrant. That is to be expected, because there are experts on both sides of that as well. In fact, since that has not been conclusively shown either way, I don't think that it is a reasonable basis for deciding either direction. I understand where EdB and many others are comming from on this issue, but I believe that no matter how "right" our motivation is, it is still "wrong" to kill another human being whom God has created. |
||||||
642 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15927 | ||
Could you make this a seperate thread? It seems to be veering off the original question, but it is of definate interest, and I think deserves its own thread. | ||||||
643 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15841 | ||
Death penalty in OT is good, death penalty in NT is bad. I agree with you that in ancient Israel, it was right to kill people for certain reasons. For instance God specifically commanded stoning to death for certain sins, and specifically commanded killing certain kings and enemy nations. However, I think that a fundamental change occurred, which causes killing for any reason to no longer be an appropriate action. This fundamental change happended between Christ's death and resurrection. During that time, Jesus preached to all the people who had died before that time. Therefore, it seems that although the people in the OT were killed in the body, they still had a chance to later hear Christ's message to them. However, from that time on, people have had the opportunity to hear the message of salvation during this lifetime, so that when they die, their eternity is set. This is why I think that killing people now is so terrible. It not only kills their body, but also takes away any chance that they would later come to know Christ and be saved. I think that it is interesting and somewhat supportive that never in the NT is it presented as good for a human to kill someone. In fact the only times when death is seen as a good thing, it is done by God Himself (Annanias and his wife Saphira, King Herrod). P.S. Joe, I know that you come from the reformed perspective and therefore probably believe that giving someone more time to choose whether to follow God is irrelevant, because they are predestined one way or the other. This has of course been thoroughly discussed in other threads. But, I want to give everyone as much of an opportunity as possible to come to relationship with God. |
||||||
644 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15828 | ||
I am called to never kill another human. The answer to this question is extremely difficult to apply to all Christians. But let me explain what I believe God's will is for me. When it all boils down, it is a question of whether it is right for you personally to kill another specific person. So lets look at some common reasons for killing people. Some of these are easy to throw out as obviously unchristian motives. I think that we would all agree that it would be wrong to kill a person becuase of greediness for another person's wealth or position of power. I would also assume that all Christians would, upon reflection, agree that it would be wrong to kill a person becuase of hate, even due to such terrible things as adultery or abuse. I only say "upon reflection" because some Christians might have a first reaction of supporting a wife, who has been beaten for years, finally fighting back and killing her husband. Then there are those middle areas where most, but not all Christians agree that killing is wrong. This would include abortions. I think all Christians would agree that abortion is wrong when motivated by its most common reason, convienence (the mother just doesn't want to deal with having a kid). However, more Christians would be supportive if the girl had been raped, and a very high number of Christians would support killing the baby if the life of the mother was in danger. I believe however, that it is wrong to kill a baby, even to ease the pain of the trauma associated with rape. And although it is more difficult to say absolutely when the mother's life is endangered, I believe personally that it too is wrong. Another of these issues where there is disagreement within the Christian community is the death penalty. Many Christians would say that it is right to kill a serial killer. They would say that this is what that criminal deserves, that it keeps them from harming more people, and that it deters others from following in their path. Once again, I would disagree. I believe that it is wrong to kill a human to set an example, or based on what they might do in the future, or even to get the fair revenge for what they have done in the past. Finally, there are some issues, which the vast majority of Christianity agrees are appropriate reasons to kill a person. These would include protecting of countries (wars) and protection of our families (from criminals). I'm going to go out on a limb here to be in the very small minority who believes that these too are wrong. As a soldier in a war, it seems that there would only be a few motivations when one fires one's gun to kill someone, or pushes the button to blow up someone. The first is that one likes doing it, and I think all Christians would agree that is sinful. A second is that one really believes in one's cause. For instance, one could believe that democracy is so much better than communism that one was willing to kill a Vietnamese man in order to keep a country from switching political systems. This is an oversimplification and I am probably extremely offending any Vietnam veterans on our forum, which is not my intent. Please be patient with me. The third reason that I can think of is that one could feel that it was one's duty to obey the orders of one's superiors. I agree that God wants us to respect the authorities over us, but I think that our obedience is limited by the will of God. Therefore, if an authority over us commands us to do something that goes against that (such as, in my opinion, killing people), then we are not responsible to obey that command. The last issue that comes to mind is that of protecting one's family. Almost all Christians would say that if a burglar broke into their home and was threatening to kill their family, that it would be right to kill that person. This brings up a couple of questions. Should we do something wrong to keep someone else from doing something wrong? More classically this is the question, "Do the ends justify the means?" The second question is based on an assumption. Probability would indicate that the family members of a Christian are more likely to be in a better relationship with God than a murderer who breaks into their house. So the question is, "Which is worse, for the murderer to kill the innocent family members (who would probably go to Heaven for eternity), or for the Christian to kill the criminal (who would almost definately spend eternity in Hell)?" I know that most people in the Christian community and probably on this forum will disagree (some extremely) with this perspective. I ask that you please respond gracefully, not for my sake (I could take the attacks), but because of all the other people who will read these posts and judge Christianity by how we deal with each other. They will know we are Christians by our love. |
||||||
645 | So ALL who believe in Christ are saved? | Matt 10:33 | Sir Pent | 15789 | ||
You combine many questions here, which probably each deserve their own thread. I will attempt to answer them briefly, but would recommend seperate threads if more detail is required. As for Peter's denial of Christ, that is already covered in a current thread. As for Satan and the fallen angels, yes they believe in Jesus' existence, but this is not enough. Imagine a cancer patient who visits their doctor. The doctor diagnoses the problem and prescribes some medicine to take, which will cure their disease. The patient may be completely convinced that this medicine is at the pharmacy and would be effective at curing their disease. However, if they don't choose to go pick up the medicine and take it, they will still die. Believing that Jesus exists is not sufficient for salvation. As for Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims, the problem there is that the "Jesus" that they believe in is not at all the Jesus which is in the Bible. For instance, Muslims and Mormons do not believe that Jesus was actually God. Therefore, they do not really believe in the real Jesus at all. I understand and appreciate that you are bringing up questions, which young Christians and non-believers would naturally ask. But I hope that they will be able to see that these appearant contradictions that you bring up are actually not contradictions at all. |
||||||
646 | Was Peter denied before the Father? | Matt 10:33 | Sir Pent | 15786 | ||
I would agree that Peter's denial of Jesus was not one of belief, but instead one of aquaintance. Peter did not deny that Jesus was the Christ. Instead he denied that Peter was who Peter really was. Peter didn't lie about Jesus, he lied about himself by saying he didn't know Jesus. It was still a lie, and was still sin, and still required repentance and forgiveness. However, I think that this is different from the idea, which Jesus was trying to communicate when He said that those who deny Christ would be denied before the Father in Heaven. Whether or not a Christian could do that or not is another interesting question and is covered in the "Can a Christian disown Christ?" thread. |
||||||
647 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15780 | ||
Wrap-up, consensus of this thread: I would like to try to start something new here. When a thread has been responded to by a variety of posters, it can be difficult to find an overall answer to the original question. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to add a consensus statement to the end of these threads after either it seems that all ends are tied up or new posts seem to cease. Since I asked the original question in this thread, I will humbly attempt to summarize these ideas at this time. After reflection, it appears that the majority of posts are in agreement that God has played an active role in bringing the modern versions (such as the NASB) to the people in today's world. The differences arise in what people call this intervention, and to what degree people believe that it happened. Some quotes from many posters involved: Charis - "Inspiration continues." Hank - "God goes about His buisness of guarding and preserving the purity of His word." Open Mind - "God?s inspiration of the Bible works above the level of the text." Retxar - "God?s divine guidance in preserving His Word" Schwartzkm - "God has aided in keeping the Bible" Sir Pent - "God has inspired the people at each step in the process of bringing it to the masses." Tim Moran - "God has preserved His text throughout the years." Most posters do not believe that God put words in the translators minds, or physically directed the hands of the people who copied the scriptures. However, it seems that most posters believe that God has, in some way, actively maintained the truth of His message to mankind in the text itself and outside of the text as the reader is inspired by the Holy Spirit to have understanding. Some call it "inspiration", some call it "preserving", some call it "aiding", but the consensus is that God has been involved in the process, not only of the original writing of the Bible, but also of its copies and translations. The reason why I believe this is important to us as Christians, is that it confirms that the Bible is as true today as it was to the Christians in the Early Church. It supports the belief that the Bible is still authoritative for our lives, and that we can trust that it is still the Word of God. Lastly, it is of encouragement to all of the believers who have not had the opportunity to study Greek or Hebrew. It lets them know that even reading the Bible in their native tongue will enlighten them (if their hearts are open) to the critical message which God wants them to know. If anyone should come to this thread in the future, and have further questions, please feel free to email me at: markundy@hotmail.com |
||||||
648 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 15512 | ||
What about the word "protein"? Just giving you a hard time Norrie at the expense of the English language :) |
||||||
649 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 15511 | ||
Dear Forum members, I could be wrong on this, but let me hypothosize something. This post seems merely intended to be inflamatory. It appears to be the kind of post that only a person who was not truly interested in reaching understanding would post. I'm guessing that they either posted it and took off never to return, just to stir things up, or they posted it and will just watch and laugh at all of the responses. In either case continuing to attack their post either does no good (if they've left), or plays into their hands (if they're laughing). I would suggest that we cease adding to this thread, until Chimeara should return and indicate that they are legitemately interested in discussing whether the Bible is true. I would also encourage us as a Forum to be more careful in our responses to similar postings in the future. Perhaps we could just let one or two people respond intially, and see if the original poster remains involved in the thread or not. Does this sound reasonable? |
||||||
650 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15497 | ||
Dear Joe, I like your point that a message is authoritative based on its source. To an extent this is true. However, a message from even the most authoritative source can become meaningless depending on the transmission of that message. For instance, a person could be reading a delicious recipe from the Betty Crocker cookbook. Now I would submit that is an authoritative source (when it comes to cooking, nowhere near the Bible). However, if that person is dislexic, and puts in 61oz of an ingredient instead of 16oz, then that recipe will not be successful. I would submit that if left to only the minds and abilities of man, an "accurate translation" that you refer to, would be impossible to the degree which we currently have. Would you not agree that God had to have been involved in that process to some degree? |
||||||
651 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15492 | ||
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between your view of God's "providence" preserving the Bible through translations and my view of God's "inspiration" preserving the Bible through translations? How do you see those as being different? | ||||||
652 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15483 | ||
Dear Tim, The same could be said about commentaries. Most Bible verses are very clear cut. If the verse says "Perez was the father of Hezron", then Perez was the father of Hezron. Most commentaries do agree on the interpretation of most verses. Yet there are some passages that are interpreted differently by different commentators based on their backgrounds and ideas. Once again, it seems to me that there is little difference between a translation and a commentary without believing that the Bible is still the inspired Word of God, and a commentary is solely the words of man. |
||||||
653 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15481 | ||
Dear Schwartzkm, I apologize if I misunderstood your first post. I also would just like to say that I do not wish to "challenge you on the inerrancy of scripture". I agree with you that the Bible is inerrant. My question is specifically related to the "inspiration" of not only the original manuscripts, but also of a Bible you would find in your motel room. On the one hand, you said that "erros have crept in" to the modern translations, which might indicate that you believe that they are merely the work of man. On the other hand, you said that these errors "would not change a single Christian belief". My question to you is, "Do you believe that the accuracy and authority of the Bible has been maintained throughout the centuries by the work of man, or due to the inspiration of God upon the copiers/translators etc.?" |
||||||
654 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15478 | ||
Dear Tim, Once again, we are very close to agreement on this issue, as we both feel that God has "preserved" His Word. It seems to me that you are saying that a translator puts the original text in a new language, as opposed to a commentator who tries to explain the text. However, if God is not involved in the translation process, then isn't the translator also just trying to take an idea expressed in Greek or Hebrew and "explain" it in English (or whatever). That just seems to be to close to the same thing. In order for it to make sense to me that the Bible is more authoritative than a commentary, I think that God must have been inspiring the translation process. It also seems to me that God inspiring the copy/translation process is the only thing that could have stopped the "telephone game" phenomenum. |
||||||
655 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15471 | ||
Dear Retxar, I actually agree with almost all of the things you mentioned. I agree that the Holy Spirit will keep readers of the Word from going astray, if they will follow His direction. I also agree that God has preserved His Word throughout the centuries. I would disagree however, that it is insulting to God for me to believe that He has continued to inspire His Word. I don't understand why that would belittle God in any way. In fact, I think that it shows how brilliant, powerful, and most of all loving I believe Him to be. For God to be able to keep His message to mankind relevant and understandable in thousands of different languages and to people from thousands of different cultures, shows incredible intellegence. And for God to maintain the truth of his message throughout 2000 years despite the natural inclination of man to disrupt it with mistakes, and even changes due to different theological perspectives, shows great power. And finally for God to go to all this trouble in order to be able to speak to each and every person in the world regardless of educational background or anything else, shows just how much He loves every human being. |
||||||
656 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15470 | ||
Dear Radioman, I must agree with you that I have no evidence that the modern versions of the Bible are inspired by God. I would hope that you would not think of me as heretical or going completely against Biblical doctrine to have this idea though. That seems a bit harsh, especially since I don't know of any Biblical passage that denies that God would continue to inspire His Word. Going back to the evidence issue, I would question whether there is any evidence that the original manuscripts were inspired by God either. It seems to me that it is something which we must choose to believe on faith, and thankfully both you and I have made that choice. |
||||||
657 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15469 | ||
Dear Charis, Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I am not the only person who believes that God continues to inspire His Word. I also really like the point that you bring up about God inspiring the reading of the Bible through the Holy Spirit. I completely agree with that, and do think that it is a critical point in understanding how a person today could hear God speaking to them through reading the Bible just as much as they did 2000 years ago. |
||||||
658 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15468 | ||
Dear Charis, Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I am not the only person who believes that God continues to inspire His Word. I also really like the point that you bring up about God inspiring the reading of the Bible through the Holy Spirit. I completely agree with that, and do think that it is a critical point in understanding how a person today could hear God speaking to them through reading the Bible just as much as they did 2000 years ago. |
||||||
659 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15467 | ||
Dear Tim, When it comes to the idea that present day versions are still inspired by God, there are a couple of obvious questions that come up. You address one very well. How can versions contradict each other or have mistakes and yet be inspired. This could lead into a discussion of inerrancy of scripture, which I believe already has a thread dedicated to it. However, I would generally say that in most cases the contradictions are not actually contradictions at all. I also believe that any mistakes or true contradictions which may remain would not be of any significance to the message which God is expressing. I think that we are probably actually closer to agreement than we think since you mentioned that you also believe that the message is authoritative. I would ask you though, how can this be without God's inspiration? In other words, if the translations are just the work of men, then what makes them any different than a commentary? Yet we don't hold commentaries to be authoritative, but only helpful. |
||||||
660 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15466 | ||
Dear Schwartzkm, You seem to indicate that you feel that the present versions are "inerrant", but are not "inspired". I believe there is a seperate thread discussing inerrancy of scripture, and I would prefer not to repeat that in this thread. Therefore, let's assume (as you and I both seem to believe) that scripture is inerrant. My question would be, how would it be possible for current versions of the Bible to be "inerrant" without the inspiration of God? In other words it seems inevitable that left in the hands of mere men, copies and translations of the originals would have to contain errors. Honest mistakes and even changes made to reflect individual's theology would over time change and mess up the Word of God. Since we both assume that the current versions are inerrant, how do you explain that this was possible aside from the direct hand of God? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ] Next > Last [36] >> |