Results 6861 - 6880 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6861 | Christ Jesus testimony / Red writing | Rev 1:1 | Hank | 141910 | ||
Years ago I came to the conclusion that any effort to separate the Scriptures into essential parts and non-essential parts is futile, fatuous and inane. It's as pointless as trying to assign different values to links in a chain. God inspired all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), and the product of His inspiration is a divinely woven fabric, complete and perfect, that does not lend itself well at all to the severely limited and bumbling efforts of human beings to make a "qualitative analysis" of the relative importance of various passages of Scripture. Better by far to read and study all of God's word as it is written and forget about what's important and what's not: All of it is important God inspired it all and therefore all of it is important. Since all of it is the word of God, all of it is likewise essential. Who are we to suggest otherwise or assign degrees of importance to God's holy book? Black, red, green or blue, it's the words that count, not their hue! --Hank | ||||||
6862 | Christ Jesus testimony / Red writing | Rev 1:1 | Hank | 141911 | ||
Being more than willing to agree wholeheartedly that the "red writing" are words that came from God, I would submit that the "black writing" from Geneis to Revelation also came from God in no less measure than the "red writing" did. Do you agree? Why or why not? --Hank | ||||||
6863 | Christ Jesus testimony / Red writing | Rev 1:1 | Hank | 142055 | ||
tduplechain - Come now, surely you don't expect any reasonable person to believe what you are saying about the "red writing." What you are saying about the "red writing" is as much of a fictional fairy tale as "Red Riding Hood"! The third sentence of the Bible is a direct quote from God: "Then God said, 'Let there be light.'" [Genesis 1:3]. God Himself likewise spoke the words of the Ten Commandments. He spoke directly to Moses from the burning bush, and to Job, and to Jonah, and so on throughout the Old Testament. Therefore to say that the "red writing" of the New Testament "carries more weight" than God's direct words in the rest of Scripture is perfectly ridiculous. There is neither an ounce of proof nor an ounce of truth in what you say. Please, let's get off this silly and pointless harlequinade and on to something that makes at least a modicum of sense. It wouldn't hurt a bit for you to review the aims and guidelines of this Forum before proceeding any further. --Hank | ||||||
6864 | what are the 7 churches | Rev 1:4 | Hank | 93453 | ||
jshaw, if you are asking about the "seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelation 1:4), they are all named in the first 3 chapters of the Book of Revelaton. --Hank | ||||||
6865 | what are the names of the keys of the kg | Rev 1:18 | Hank | 42632 | ||
Kalos, the keys with names are in Florida, not in the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps the questioner got his geography mixed up. Key West reminds one of Hemingway, Key Biscayne of Nixon, and Key Largo of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. That "Key Largo" was one good movie. These Keys are not in the King James Bible either, though they may be mentioned in some of the newer paraphrases. --Hank | ||||||
6866 | Can you tell me where was jesus for thos | Rev 1:18 | Hank | 144811 | ||
No passage of Scripture ever says two opposing things. When Mr. A interprets a passage of Scripture to mean thus-and-so to him and Mr. B interprets it to mean the opposite, one may be right and the other wrong, or both may be wrong, but both cannot be right. It is of supreme importance to seek for truth relentlessly and objectively, to search and keep on searching for what what Scripture really means by what it says. We should all do well to cast from our thought and from our speech the phrase, _Scripture says so-and-so to me_, for that is merely another way of expressing our opinion, not of diligently exegeting Scripture or digging deeply enough for objectivity. Scripture always means what it means no matter what it may or may not say to me. What certain passages "said to me" when I was a child are not necessarily what they "say to me" now, yet Scripture said exactly the same then as now. Scripture has not changed. I have. My ability to understand has. Until I reach the plateau of perfect understanding -- and in 70 years I am not even close -- I should continue to search for God's absolute truth and, in searching, cast away the thought of seeking for what a passage of Scripture means to me and seek simply for what it means. False teaching flourishes because various groups have promoted bad doctrines and bad theological systems based on subjective feelings and faulty reasoning, the inevitable products of "what Scripture says to them." --Hank | ||||||
6867 | Can you tell me where was jesus for thos | Rev 1:18 | Hank | 144844 | ||
Actually, Ed, I won't turn 70 until March 4 but have begun to refer to it now in an effort to cushion the shock of being three score and ten. When from the King James Bible I read 1 Kings 1:1, "Now King David was old and stricken in years" and glance at the note in the margin that tells me he was seventy years old, I recognize that no longer was King David the young shepherd boy he once was and neither am I the young lad who once ran barefoot up and down the red clay hills of north Georgia. But thanks be to God for the long and full life that I have been blessed to lead thus far: so many joys, so many blessings, so dear a wife and children, so many faithful friends, and above all, so unspeakably great a Friend in Jesus, who gave me the greatest gift of all, eternal life, because He loved me so much that He willingly went to the cross to die for my sins. And for yours, Ed. And for all who come to Him in faith and put their trust in Him as Lord and Savior of their lives. Alleluia! Praise to the Lamb! --Hank | ||||||
6868 | Jesus took keys from Satan for hell | Rev 1:18 | Hank | 167153 | ||
justolneetor: Two trustworthy colleagues, Kalos and BradK, gave you fine answers to your question. In this short post I wish merely to point out that your question itself is what we might call 'loaded' -- that is, it is freighted with two major assumptions, both of which are wrong if we are to use the Bible as the sole standard upon which we are to base our faith. And that, by the way, is exactly what we do on SBF: we measure everything by the yardstick of Scripture. ...... ERROR ONE: Jesus went to hell. .... Consult any good Bible dictionary for the distinction between hell and Hades in the New Testament and hell and Sheol in the Old. ERROR TWO: Jesus took from Satan the keys to death, hell and the grave. ..... Keys are symbolic of authority and control in Scripture. Matter of fact, they still are. So if Satan indeed had authority over, and control of, death, hell and the grave, as you say, then pray tell me how he got it, when he got it, why he got it, and who gave it to him. This is an important question, friend, and I am not prepared to accept any answers to it from you or anyone else unless those answers are thoroughly documented with Scriptures that fully support the premise and leave no room for doubt. ..... I agree with my Christian brother, BradK, who suggested that perhaps you have been watching too much Word-of-Faith nonsense on TBN. In my economy, ANY exposure to these spreaders of false doctrine is too much! Much of what they say and teach is is laughable and would comedic if it weren't so damagingly heretical and even at times blasphemous. ...... Read and study God's pure word for yourself; be careful to choose your spiritual mentors; avoid false teachers like the plague; and please don't accept the polluted versions of the Gospel being bruited about by charlatans who infest your home like gnats and grub worms via TV and the Net, lead the gullible into egregious error, and infuscate the Gospel light like a total eclipse darkens the noon-day sun. --Hank | ||||||
6869 | Where are the other churches | Rev 2:4 | Hank | 209108 | ||
Kcabml4 :: Gutenabend und Wellkommen, zum des Bibel-Forums studieren. It's good to have you, and we hope you will find this website a friendly place to engage in the study of God's word and to enjoy the fellowship of Christian men and women from near and far who gather here to learn more about God's Holy Word, the Bible. ...... Quite some time ago I spent an enjoyable year and a half in southern Germany, in the Stuttgart area, as a member of the U. S. Army. I studied German during my time in the country and became fairly fluent in it. I have fond memories still of Deutschland -- the energetic and hospitable people, the lovely mountains and peaceful valleys, the vibrant, bustling cities and quiet, charming villages, and the delicious food. --Hank | ||||||
6870 | What is the morning star here? | Rev 2:28 | Hank | 80732 | ||
Biblebeliever: It happens that I share your enthusiasm for the King James Bible but for different reasons. My admiration for the Authorized Version rests mainly upon its well-deserved reputation as a literary masterpiece, which has little to do with the question of its textual superiority. Textus Receptus, or so-called Received Text, versus a more eclectic textual basis is a subject that is freighted with a good deal of controversy and disagreement even among well-seasoned scholars and translators, and I fear that that water is far too deep for me to dare to wade into. Suffice it to say that since there exists a general consensus among qualified experts in the field of biblical texts that the differences between the various texts are fairly minimal, that no essential Christian doctrine is compromised by these differences, and that they are of concern mainly to the most exacting scholar and have little practical value to the lay Christian, I therefore submit that the fuss about texts is largely unwarranted. Of greater concern is the degree of fidelity to the biblical text which the translators of any given version have exercised in order to meet their responsibility to be as transparent as possible to whatever biblical text they used. For example, two groups of translators using identical manuscript texts can produce two versions of the Scriptures that are very different, if one group follows a fairly rigid word-for-word philosophy of translation and the other subscribes to the liberties available through paraphrasing..... Well, at all events, I must express my awe at your ability to provide us with a 10-year course in manuscript evidence in one paragraph. This is no small feat. It is highly doubtful that even Calvin Coolidge, who was as frugal with words as Scrooge was with money, could have accomplished that :-) --Hank | ||||||
6871 | One save always saved? | Rev 3:5 | Hank | 78773 | ||
Disciplerami: No need to be sorry for not being able to produce scriptural passages in favor of the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. We all of us have our shortcomings. In some small effort to take up the slack, I've happily supplied the questioner with a generous sampling of passages that weigh heavily in favor of this doctrine (See Post #78772). Perhaps you would like to peruse the references yourself and thus broaden your already vast and impressive biblical knowledge. --Hank | ||||||
6872 | One save always saved? | Rev 3:5 | Hank | 78907 | ||
Disciplerami: You say that the passages I supplied to Tamrenee are "true only if man has no free will. I believe man has free will..." Does that mean that the passages are therefore true for those who believe man has no free will but untrue for those who believe that man does have free will? Seems to me rather a strange exegetic road to travel: biblical passages are either true or untrue, depending upon one's pre-conditioned beliefs. Words can be tricky fellows at times and hard to tame. But the effort to be as precise as possible with our use of words is truly worthwhile. Surely your words in this instance betray your meaning. Or don't they? --Hank | ||||||
6873 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | Hank | 206335 | ||
Hi, bowler :: I've peeked in on this thread from afar off, so to speak, find it absorbing, but don't really have any ambition to jump into the conversation. I can readily identify with the assessment of C. S. Lewis in calling these waters of High Theology well over my head and would sooner be an observer than a participant. ..... So, to dive into these deep waters isn't my objective at all. I'm merely tip-toeing into the thread, bringing with me only two small points to lay before you. The first is to welcome you to Study Bible Forum and extend every good wish that you may discover in this website a rich opportunity to share with Christians of kindred mind the blessed word of God. And, secondly, to applaud your gentle spirit of cooperation and consideration of others that is exemplified by your stated desire not to become involved in debate or controversy. That's so commendable. I appreciate it, and without a doubt so do others. Again, welcome aboard. --Hank | ||||||
6874 | Where is the Key of David in his story? | Rev 3:7 | Hank | 54632 | ||
The phrase 'key of David' appears in Isaiah 22:22, is metaphoric, and means the authority entrusted to the king's servant Eliakim to admit or forbid admittance into the king's presence. In Rev. 3:7 Jesus applied the term to Himself as one who could determine who would enter his future Davidic kingdom. You asked why it appears in Isaiah and Revelation. Would "Because it does" be o.k.? :-) --Hank | ||||||
6875 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 24983 | ||
Steve, a.k.a. Indiana Jones! Excellent point: Self-made linguistic "experts" who, after having lent a desultory consultation to a Hebrew or Greek lexicon, advertise themselves as scholars are flatly ridiculous. Genuine scholars spend decades in research and study and, even then, will be the first to admit they haven't yet learned it all. I agree with you entirely: it's far better for most of us to leave the scholarship up to the scholars and ourselves reap the rewards of their work as it is given to us in a number of excellent modern translations into our native tongue. --Hank | ||||||
6876 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 24987 | ||
Norrie, maybe if the Puritans were still around today, they would trust the KJV because of its relative immortality and forgive it it's immorality! Any new translation has a tough go of it at first. When the modern translations first ventured to address God as You instead of Thou, stones flew for no other reason than some few purists held that You was less reverential than Thou. Scholars tell us that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke was the plain, everyday language of the people. I believe that any translation that renders, with the greatest possible fidelity to the manuscripts, God's word into the plain, everyday language that we can understand in our native tongue serves well both the reader and the Author. --Hank | ||||||
6877 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 24999 | ||
Jumping Jehosophat, Norrie, are you ever mixed up! :-) Everybody knows that King James made a deal with the Pope. The Pope agreed to translate the Bible for King James if King James would paint the Sistine Chapel. It gave them both something to do and, as history has shown, it turned out pretty good. --Hank | ||||||
6878 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 25012 | ||
And to think, Joe, that for all these years I've been laboring under the delusion that R.C.Sproul and King Jimmy were buddies! Just shows how simple it is to be wrong, I guess. --Hank | ||||||
6879 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 25052 | ||
Nolan, how does the ESV render Isaiah 7:14? Just curious...... And would you (and Joe, too) care to comment on the ESV in a comparative way with NASB, NIV, and NKJV? (I'm talking about the version as a whole here, not the verse from Isaiah.) --Hank | ||||||
6880 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | Hank | 25054 | ||
Nolan, Holman NT in print now; OT not until 2003. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 ] Next > Last [349] >> |