Results 6641 - 6660 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6641 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Morant61 | 8273 | ||
Greetings Mark! Sorry, your post wasn't that vague! I just don't like to read something into someone else's post unless I've sure what they are saying. I have the same problem sometimes. What I want to say and what I actually write may be very different at times. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6642 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Morant61 | 8270 | ||
Greetings Mark! I think I understand what you are saying! I think study helps and teachers are great. However, the final decision on what to believe has to be made by each individual. Study helps and teachers should be used, but they are not infalliable. Sometimes, the Believer, who simply trusts what Scripture says, has the advantage over the educated man, who tries to explain away what Scripture says. Having said this though, I do not believe that education or learning are bad things. There are many people (as JVHO212 pointed out recently) who have dedicated their lives to understanding Scripture. Their experience and learning should be listened to, even if we don't always agree with them on every point. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6643 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Morant61 | 8268 | ||
Greetings Hank! Thanks for the info! I didn't even consider the 1611 defintion of 'replenish.' I should have. I know of several King James terms that meant the exact opposite of what they mean now. Thanks for the reminder! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6644 | What Cities are Refered to in Jer. 4:26? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8257 | ||
Greetings Heir of God! Let me state up front that I am not an admirer of Benny Hinn, so you know where I am coming from. To me, Benny Hinn's teaching is a good example of how wild speculation becomes accepted without regard to the context of Scripture. Look at Jer. 4:23-26: "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone. 24 I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying. 25 I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away. 26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger." The questions that must be answered in looking at a passage like this are: 1) What is the context? 2) What is the time frame? 3) What cities are mentioned? The context of Jer. 4 is clear. The Babylonians are coming in from the north to attack Judah (Jer. 4:4-6). This attack is part of God's punishment for Judah's sin and rebellion. The time frame of Jer. 4:23-26 is the near future, not the distant past. The cities mentioned in Jer. 4:26 refer to the cities of Judah, not ancient Demon cities. Jer. 4:23-26 is simply a passage (in an apocalyptic style) describing the near future destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. I would lovingly urge you to avoid Benny Hinn. His doctrine and theology are dangerously flawed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6645 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Morant61 | 8256 | ||
Greetings Buf! If you look at a concordence for Gen. 1:28, you will find that the word 'replenish' is the Hebrew word 'maw-lay.' This word (Strong's # 4390) is used 248 times in the Old Testament. It is translated the following ways in the King James: a) fill 107, b) full 48, c) fulfil 28, d) consecrate 15, e) accomplish 7, f) replenish 7, g) wholly 6, h) set 6, i) expired 3, j) fully 2, k) gather 2, l) overflow 2, m) satisfy 2, n) misc 14; Thus, the usual meaning is apparent. It refers to something being filled, fulfilled, or completed in the vast majority of it's uses. It is translated 'replenish' in: Gen. 1:28, 9:1, Is. 2:6, 23:2, Jer. 31:25, Eze. 26:2, and 27:25. I'm not sure why the translators of the King James choose the word 'replenish' in these seven verses, but I think it was an unfortunate choice. The base meaning of 'filled' would fit these seven verses much better, without adding the possible misunderstanding of Gen. 1:28. It appears that all the modern translations reject the translation 'replenish.' Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6646 | Saved or Self-Deceived? | 2 Cor 13:5 | Morant61 | 8255 | ||
Greetings JVHO212! Your quote reminded me of some of the study tips that I have developed over the years for young Christians. These are tips that I think will help protect young Christians from false doctrine. 1) New Revelation: Watch out for New Revelation. I am always suspicious of anyone who claims that they have found something "new" in Scripture that no one else has ever seen. A lot of good people over thousands of years have studied the Bible. The odds of anyone finding anything truly "new" are astronomical. 2) New Authority: Watch out for Rogues. This one is related the first point. I am generally suspicious of anyone who claims that the "traditional" view is wrong. The core doctrines of our faith have been established for a long time. We may disagree on minor points here and there, but it is very unlikely that every theologian throughout history was wrong while this one person is right. 3) New Twists: Watch out for explanations that explain why Scripture doesn't mean what it says. In general, I am suspicious of any explanation that goes to great lenghts to describe why a Scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to say. Again, I am not speaking of legitimate differences of opinion, but those who take the clear meaning of Scripture and explain it away. I heard one like this while I was pastoring in Ohio. A man came on a Christian radio station and preceded to explain that Acts 1:7 didn't mean that no one could know when Christ was going to return, it just meant that it would not be general knowledge. I think that good common sense and sound exegetical skills will protect Christians against theological heresy or lack of balance. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6647 | Called to Preach -- What is it like? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 8208 | ||
Greetings Hank! I was saved when I was six years old. My Sunday School teacher led me to Christ. My family to this day are not Christians, so I had no "church" experience. When I got to be about 12 years old, I started feeling God's call on my life. In my case, I would say that the call was a continous call. It didn't occur in just a moment, but over time. In fact, I resisted it for quite awhile. My advice to those who think that God may be calling them is this: 1) Look at your gifts! Do you have gifts that would be useful in the ministry that you feel God is calling you to? 2) Consult with family and friends! Do they think that God could use you? 3) Try to do something else! If you can be happy doing something else, go for it. If God is really calling you, you won't be happy doing anything else. 4) Above all, Pray! Your Brother in Christ! Tim Moran |
||||||
6648 | Did the disciples use 'sidearms'? | John 18:10 | Morant61 | 8073 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I would agree that none of the passage advocate the use of a sword. However, I would also say that none of them prohibt it either. Most of the passages in the Gospels simply mention that some disciples were carrying a sword, while neither saying this was a good or bad thing. The only passage that seems to say anything about the morality of the situation is Luke 22:36-38. Jesus says to His disciples that (in contrast to earlier times) they should take a purse or a bag or a sword. The disciples, respond with a comment that they had two swords. To which, Jesus replies, "That is enough." What did Jesus mean? Since He didn't allow Peter to use his sword to fight for Him, I can't imagine that Jesus meant that two was sufficient. Since Jesus Himself said to get a sword, I can't imagine that it was immoral to do so (especially since several passages mention disciples carrying swords.) What does that leave? I think the words "that is enough" means "enough of this kind of talk." I think Jesus was frustrated that the disciples didn't understand that He was trying to warn them that times were changing. The point wasn't to actually go get a sword, a cloak, or a purse. The point was that the situation was going to change. As for sidearms today, I don't know of any Scripture that directly addresses the issue of the morality of weapons. Like anything else, they can be tools for good or tools for destruction. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6649 | Why is "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 in | 2 Tim 3:16 | Morant61 | 8055 | ||
Greetings Bud! This thread is a little old, but I just came across your question. I cannot shed any light on why the Amplified Bible changed their format, but I can shed a little light on the Greek text of this verse. There is no "is" in the verse. 2 Tim. 3:16 literally reads: "All scripture God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," It is not uncommon situation in Greek to find no verb in a sentence. In those cases, the translator must decide what verb should be supplied and where. In this case, it is clear (in my opinion) that the verse should read "All Scripture is...." The reason is simple. 'God breathed' and 'profitable' are both adjectives that describe 'scripture.' To add the 'is' after 'God breathed' would be very ackward. I hope this helps. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6650 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Morant61 | 7889 | ||
Greetings EdB! Great comments! The story you related at the end of your post actually happened to my family. My wife and I were in college when we lost a 9 month old son to congenital heart defects. Some of the people in the church we were attending were into the Word of Faith movement. They actually came up to my wife in church and told her that our son only died because we didn't have enough faith. My response to them (once I found out about their comment) was: "We were only able to survive our loss because of our faith." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6651 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Morant61 | 7888 | ||
Greetings Glory777! I have had some personal experience with the Word of Faith movement. The key problem with them can be summed up in this way: They have faith in their faith, while the Bible says to have faith in God. Faith is nothing more nor less than a trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith is only as good as what it is placed in. Therefore, faith in God is important. Through it we become partakers of the blessings of God, like salvation. However, faith is not some sort of power or force that can be used to manipulate reality. Only God can do that, so we should have faith in Him! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6652 | Plural Sabbaths? Passover Clarification? | John 19:31 | Morant61 | 7799 | ||
Greetings Brent! I have enjoyed your posts on this topic! I hold to the traditional view, but I am open to other positions. Allow me to briefly address two of your points. 1) The term used in John 19:31 for the "day of preparation" is the Greek term 'paraskeue'. It usually refered to Friday. In fact, in modern Greek, it is the term for Friday. 2) Concerning the plural "Sabbaths", the singular and the plural forms seemed to have been used almost inter-changeably. Here is a list of all the plural occurances of the word "Sabbath". Mt. 12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 28:1; Mk. 1:21, 2:23, 24, 3:2, 4, 16:2; Lk. 4:16, 31, 6:2, 13:10, 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 19; Acts 13:14, 16:13, 17:2, 20:7; Col. 2:16. All the plural uses in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ appear in verses where the plural of 'Sabbath' is being used to refer to the "1st day of the week." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6653 | Why Destroyed? | Rev 20:14 | Morant61 | 7772 | ||
Greetings Cepas! Thanks for the quick response! Verse 14 could definitely refer to the abode as well as their inhabitants. My question would be though: How does an abode get thrown in the Lake of Fire? The easiest answer seems to be that they are personifications. Thus, references to them refer to the individuals within them. But I could be wrong! The main point though concerns the word "destroyed." I think (though I can't realy speak for anyone else) that many of the responders to your original post think that you are fishing for a preconceived answer (i.e. - that people in the Lake of Fire are destroyed, and not tormented for eternity.) So I ask directly, why do you make the inference that Death and Hades are destroyed? Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
6654 | Death | Rev 20:14 | Morant61 | 7769 | ||
Greetings Cepas! I was reading this thread, and I noticed that the word "destroyed" suddenly appeared. I was wondering where did you get it from? The text of Rev. 20:13-15 makes it clear that Death and Hades both refer to a state of existence. In vs. 13, these abodes of the dead give up the dead that are in them for judgement. So in verse 14, it is the people who are in Death and Hades that are thrown into the Lake of Fire, not the abodes themselves. This is made clear in verse 15, where we are informed that anyone who is not listed in the Book of Life is thrown into the Lake of Fire. However, none of these verses says that anyone or anything is destroyed. Tim Moran |
||||||
6655 | Denominations, why? | Phil 1:1 | Morant61 | 7570 | ||
Greetings Charis! You have asked an excellent question. I'm not sure anyone can defend denominations as they exist right now. However, I think that even in the early church there was a system or structure in place. All of the early churches were under the authority of the Apostles. For instance, we read about a church council in Acts 15, which meet to decide issue of doctrine and practice concerning the Gentiles churchs. Their letter even mentions that some went out "without their authorizaton (15:24)." Furthermore, we know from Scripture that Paul constantly appointed "Pastors" over local churches. The local churches and "Pastors" were then expected to be subject to Paul's teaching and practice. While I can't endorse everything that denominations have become, I do think there is more evidence of structure and authority in the early church than most will admit. A good denominational structure will be unobtrusive as possible. It will primarily serve to provide oversight and accountability in it's pastors and congregations. In a perfect world, there would only be one denomination. However, because of the failings of both men and organizations, we have many today. In light of this fact, I think each individual believer has to decide for him or herself which denomination is the most Scriptural (if this is the direction they decide to go). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6656 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 7564 | ||
Thank you Brent! I appreciate the link and the words of encouragement! I will begin reading the link right away! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6657 | When are Christians forgiven for sins? | 1 John 1:9 | Morant61 | 7520 | ||
Greetings Lifer1J511! The short answers to your questions are: 1) Yes, and 2) Yes. 1) Yes, all of our sins were forgiven at the cross. 1 John 2:2 makes it abundantely clear that Christ died for our sins and the sins of the world. 2) However, 1 John 1:9 also makes it clear that as we live our Christians lifes we are going to sin against God and find ourselves needing to ask His forgiveness. However, I would say that this forgiveness is different from the forgiveness we receive when we first repent and are saved. When we first repent, we undergo a status change before God. His righteousness is imputed to us. But, when as a Christian we sin, our status doesn't change. We don't cease be a Christian because we lose our temper (for example). In this case, we are simply confessing our failings and maintaining our relationship with our Father, so that sin doesn't take root in our lives. So, I would say that your Pastor is absolutely correct. Concerning Heb. 9:22, this verse refers to salvation, not confession. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6658 | Willy to lose so we can gain | Phil 3:8 | Morant61 | 7435 | ||
Greetings Jim! I agreed with Steve's response to your question. And, I would like to add a few comments. The follow of Phil. 3:1-11 goes something like this. 1) Phil. 3:1-2: Warning - Watch out for the Judaizers (false teachers who taught that Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. 2) Phil. 3:3-6: They put their confidence in the flesh, but Paul had even more reason to boast in the flesh. 3) Phil. 3:7-11: However, everything that Paul had in the flesh meant nothing, because righteousness comes through faith, not through works or achievements. Therefore, the point of Phil. 3:8 is that the only way to "gain Christ" is to give up on all of our attempts to earn salvation and accept it through faith. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6659 | Arminian view of Called Rm 8:30? | Rev 21:27 | Morant61 | 7434 | ||
Part II (Cont.) Greetings Charis: I will now try to address your specific questions, though time and space will limit me from being as specific as I would like. 1) Foreknowledge: I believe that Arminians and Calvinists have both been guilty of reading a lot into words that simply isn't there. This is one of those cases. I do not believe (as many Arminians do) that God elects individuals unconditionally based upon their foreseen faith. The word 'foreknew' is only used by Paul twice (Romans 8:29 and 11:2. The word is only used five times in the entire New Testament (the other three occurances being: Acts 26:5, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17. I am a firm believer in allowing the Bible to define terms, not our theology. One should look at how a word is used in all of Scripture. One should look at how a word is used by a particular author in all of his writings. Finally, one should look at how a word is used in the book in question. The last being the most important for interpreting a word in it's context. With this in mind, how does Paul use the word 'forknew'. Romans 11:2 gives us the definiton of the word. Romans 11:1-2a says, "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew...." There isn't any doubt in my mind that Paul uses this term as a sort of title for Israel. Therefore, he most likely uses it in the same way in Rom. 8:2. Does the evidence support this? Consider the following: a) Within ten verses of Rom. 8:29, Paul begins his discussion of the status of Israel in Romans 9-11. b) Within seven verses of Rom. 8:29, Pauls quotes a Psalm (44), which deals with God's perceived rejection of Israel. Therefore, my understanding of Rom. 8:28-39 is not that God is teaching the unconditional election (through either Divine fiat or foreknowlede) of individuals to salvation, but that Paul is letting Israel (the people whom God foreknew) know that nothing can seperate them from the love of God. (Of course, the message would also be just as significant for all of those who love God.) 2) Called: Your second word is another good example of where I believe many have added meanings that simply are not there. Arminians did it with 'foreknew', and Calvinists have done it with 'called'. There simply is not a single verse in the entire New Testament where 'called' is used in the sense of an irresistable call to salvation. The word is used in several ways. a) To name someone, as in Mt. 1:21. b) To physically call out to someone. c) And, by implication, to invite as in Mt. 22:3-14. Paul uses the word (# 2564) 7 times in Romans: Romans 4:17, 8:30, 9:7, 11, 24, 25, 26. Romans 4:17 seems to be a different context and usage, but the rest all are in the same context. How then does Paul use this word? Each occurances is used within a context which deals with the Spiritual Israel. Paul make the argument in Romans 9 that Israel is made up of all those who have responded in faith to God's call, not just those who are born of Abraham. Romans 9:7 says, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles in the number. This is a direct answer to God's promise in the Old Testament according to Rom. 9:25-26. This is getting long, so will close with this summary. In my view, the Elect refers primarily to Christ and then secondarily to those who are in Christ. The promises of Rom. 8:29-30, refer primarily to Israel, but secondarily to all those who respond to God's call. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6660 | Arminian view of Called Rm 8:30? | Rev 21:27 | Morant61 | 7432 | ||
Greetings Charis! You have asked some great and indepth questions here. I do not approach the Romans the way that most Arminians do, but I will try to lay out my understanding of Romans in general (Part One) and then address your specific questions (Part Two). I believe that Paul was not writing a compendium of his theology in Romans, but specifically dealing with the issue of why the Jewish people were not accepting Christ, and why Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. After all, the Messiah was a covenant promise to the nation of Israel. If Christ is the Messiah, why weren't the people of Israel coming to Him in faith? Were God's promises to Israel false? If God's promises did not hold true for Israel, then what assurance could Gentiles have that God would be true to them? Had God rejected Israel in extending the Gospel to the Gentiles? The great scholar F. F. Bruce once said of this situation, "..it was a paradox, not to say a scandal, that the very nation which had been specially prepared by God for this time of fulfillment, the nation which could glory in so many unique privileges of divine grace (including above all the messianic hope), the nation into which in due course the Messiah had been born, should have failed to recognize him when he came, while men and women of other nations, which had never enjoyed such privileges, embraced the gospel eagerly the first time they heard it. How could this be harmonized with God's choice of Israel and his declared purpose of blessing the world through Israel?" (Quoted from Beasley-Murray, G. R. "The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nation: Romans 9-11". Review and Expositor 73. April 1976, pp. 437-438.) These questions lead to what I believe is the thesis of Romans: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16) This phrase or a variation of it is repeated in: Rom. 2:9, 2:10, 3:9, 3:29, and 10:12. I believe Romans 1-11, in particular, is an attempt to answer the question of the relationship between the Gentiles and Israel within God's plan of salvation. With this in mind, I would roughly outline Romans in the following way. I. Introduction and thesis: Romans 1:1-18. II. Gentiles and God's wrath: Romans 1:19-32. III. Jews and God's wrath: Romans 2:1-29. IV. All under God's wrath: Romans 3:1-20. V. The Gift of Salvation: Romans 3:21-31. VI. Salvation through Faith: Romans 4:1-8:39. VII. God's Plan for Israel: Romans 9:1-11:36 VIII. Concluding Remarks to the church: Romans 12:1-16:27. This is only a very broad outline. The main point that I am making is simply this: Election cannot be understood outside of the context of the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles in salvation. Every great "Election" passages deals with this issue in it's context. Cont. in Part II Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 ] Next > Last [339] >> |