Results 6901 - 6920 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6901 | Rowdy, where is your Scriptural support? | Rev 7:17 | Hank | 121373 | ||
Rowdy, why oh why do you persist in making sweeping theological (there's that word again!) statements without scriptural foundation or support? ____"They'll be judged...by their conscience" ____ Now where did you get that idea? ......... Rowdy, this is not the first time you've been warned to refrain from posting unsupported theological conclusions that you manage to dream up. Please covenant to do one of two things: Enter only sound, orthodox, Bible-based and Bible-supported posts or remain silent on this Forum. You are keeping a team of other users busy trying to correct your bad theology! Wait till you get the bill for our services :-) --Hank | ||||||
6902 | What is God's hidden purpose ? | Rev 10:7 | Hank | 30668 | ||
Dakota, let's substitute "mystery" for "hidden purpose" and proceed. In the New Testament, "mystery" is a truth that God concealed but has revealed through Christ and His apostles. The mystery in Rev.10:7 is the final consummation of all things, as God destroys sinners and establishes His righteous kingdom on earth. This explanation was adapted from notes in the MacArthur Study Bible. --Hank | ||||||
6903 | Why translationed "who are and who were? | Rev 11:17 | Hank | 154580 | ||
Joyfulmom: An interesting question. I can give you a plausible reason for using the plural verbs in Revelation 11:17 which is grammatically accurate in the English. The way in which the NASB translators constructed the English rendition, it would seem fairly obvious that they understood the clause to be in the form of a direct address to God; hence, we could read it thusly: "We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty [you] who are and who were..." The antecedent of who therefore becomes 'you' which is understood, although not written, and, according to standard English usage, would take the plural form of the verb. We use the unvoiced but understood 'you' all the time; e.g., we say, "Behave yourself." We don't usually say "You behave yourself." Another example, is "Naughty boy!" when what is clearly meant is "[You are a] naughty boy." The other translations that I have consulted generally have recast the sentence to read, "The One who is and who was." In this construction the antecedent is 'One' and thus takes a singular verb form. In no rendition are we to interpret the clause to mean that the subject itself (God) is plural. ...... According to my analysis, then, both renditions of the verb forms, whether singular or plural, are grammatically correct and deliver the same message. ..... Someone else on the Forum may be able to shed more light on your question than I have. I'd also comment that the Lockman Foundation, translators of the NASB, have been very kind and helpful in answering technical questions concerning their translation, and you may wish to query them on this passage. And, by the way, the book in question is called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" or simply, "The Revelation." Note that it is always referred to in the singular without an 's' -- but never in the plural. --Hank | ||||||
6904 | Why translationed "who are and who were? | Rev 11:17 | Hank | 154655 | ||
Ray, in no version of which I'm aware is the last book of the Bible called "The Revelations of Jesus Christ." Always it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, or simply, "The Revelation". Moreover, the word "Revelation" is capitalized only because it constitutes the title of a book. Titles of books, sacred or secular, are usually capitalized. This has been a convention of English for years. I think I learned it in the second grade, and that was a long time ago. :-) --Hank | ||||||
6905 | Why translationed "who are and who were? | Rev 11:17 | Hank | 154710 | ||
No doubt about it, Doc. It's much more fun to re-invent the wheel every day. And everything looks so fresh and unsullied when we, like a chicken, get up in a new world every morning. Down with conventions! down with traditions! down with culture! down with orthodoxy! Whoop it up! Do your own thing, man! Name it and claim it, that's what I say! :-) --Hank | ||||||
6906 | GOD CAST SATAN FROM HEAVEN? | Rev 12:4 | Hank | 95290 | ||
Hello, EdB -- Much has been the talk on the forum lately about users' "credentials," so I'll hasten to offer the disclaimer that I'm no rocket scientist or any other breed of scientist, but I've read fairly widely on the "scientific" theories" of the origin of the universe versus the biblical account of creation. The "gap theory" hinges mainly on whether the Hebrew word 'hayetah' at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 should be translated 'was' or 'became.' Conservative scholars have always held that the correct translation is 'was' and not 'became.' Insistence of the gap theorists that the word should be translated 'became' instead of 'was' is less a matter of semantics than it is of an effort to change facts to fit a theory instead forumlating a theory on given facts. ..... Although the old earth/universe, theory still predominates in our secular society (evolutionists find it comfortable and congenial), there is mounting evidence being gathered in support of the new earth/universe theory. A great deal of attention is now being focused on the devasting effects of Noah's flood (which most skeptics deny ever happened) which the major part of the scientific community has long attributed to the aging of the earth over millions of years and not to any global catastrophic event such as the flood. But now a segment of the scientific community is beginning to think of the age of the earth in thousands of years, not the "billions and billions" of years that the late atheist Carl Sagan talked about so much. Evolutionists in order to give their views any semblance of credibility must insist on the old earth theory as being the correct one. Creationists on the other hand are under no such burden. ..... Of course it comes as no real news to Christian believers that natural man will -- his track record proves it -- go to any length to drum up any theory or excuse he can think of to disprove Scripture and make it look like an irrelevant relic of a bygone era when men believed in myth, fable, and superstition. The irony is that the closer mankind comes to genuine scientific truth about the origin and nature of the universe that God spoke into being 'ex nihilo' (from nothing) the more his "pure science" of the past looks like myth, fable, and superstition -- and the more the Bible looks like pure science. --Hank | ||||||
6907 | GOD CAST SATAN FROM HEAVEN? | Rev 12:4 | Hank | 95297 | ||
EdB -- My, but you're lightning fast in your response today! You must have been reading my mind as I wrote my former post :-) And I would add that if you were reading my mind, your eyesight is keen indeed to be able to see so small an object. --Hank | ||||||
6908 | GOD CAST SATAN FROM HEAVEN? | Rev 12:4 | Hank | 95337 | ||
Radioman -- These are times when it is considered fashionable in ever widening circles to idolize science and impugn Scripture. Not long ago I chanced upon an anonymous little news article that seems in some measure to put science back into proper perspective. It reads, "On September 13, 1765 people in fields near Luce, in France, saw a stone-mass drop from the sky after a violent thunderclap. The great physicist Lavoisier, who knew better than any peasant that this was impossible, reported to the Academy of Science that the witnesses were mistaken or lying. The Academy would not accept the reality of meteorites until 1803." --Hank | ||||||
6909 | Kingdom Now Theology Defined | Rev 12:5 | Hank | 125126 | ||
hefourgvs: You say that truth is "forever being revealed." That's an interesting point of view. Perhaps you'd care to show wherein Scripture backs your view. Jude 3 speaks of "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." ..... In view of this passage then, on what do you base you statement? Who is "forever revealing" truth, how is it being revealed, to whom does it continue to be revealed, and why is it being revealed, since God has already revealed the faith once and for all and delivered it to the saints through His word, the Bible? ...... Please let me add that I'm not interested in theories, kingdom or otherwise; I do, however, have a keen interest in sound Bible doctrine. That's the stated purpose of this Forum, by the way: to study the Bible and learn more about it. --Hank | ||||||
6910 | Kingdom Now Theology Defined | Rev 12:5 | Hank | 125301 | ||
Kalos, better luck to you than I've had with hefourgvs. My questions to him have been dangling since Friday. He, as so often we've seen others do, may have dropped by, cast a few choice pearls of wisdom and then, when he felt the heat, moved on to cooler climes. The truth of God's word simply doesn't fit into the agenda of these self-appointed, guesswork, theological theorists who can hatch more theories than a hen can chickens. --Hank | ||||||
6911 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159695 | ||
David, your premise that "Michael and Jesus are one and the same person" has no sound biblical support at all; therefore, your "proof" fails utterly. Please state your belief on the triunty of God. .... Michael is an archangel. Why therefore is he not to be considered an angel himself? Angels are created beings, do you agree? So show us where there is any indication in Scripture that the archangel Michael is not also a created being? Where did your ideas about Jesus being Michael come from? From what teacher, group, sect, or cult did you learn this? --Hank | ||||||
6912 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159777 | ||
Bows, "facts" on internet websites are often distorted! You need to dig deeper into the question of the origin of Jehovah's Witnesses. ..... The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society changes doctrines on a moment's notice. We see in those doctrines a metamorphosis from original Russellism, not correcting any of Russell's theological errors but adding some of their own. There is a current remnant of Russellites called "Bible Students" who disavow any connection with Watchtower, but such a disavowal does not change the historical fact that both they and Jehovah's Witnesses share a common root in the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. ..... Russell had some fine thoughts on biblical research; however, they are completely overshadowed by unorthodox interpretative teachings that are wholly off the wall. They are in many respects no different from other religious movements of the 19th century. Russell was in the same league with other false teachers of the period -- people such as Joseph Smith (Mormons), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), and Ellen White (Adventists). All of these individuals had some fine teachings -- false prophets have an art of mixing just the right amount of truth in their batch of lies to make the whole package look appealing -- but all of them were also off the deep end Cults, their teachers and followers alike, are masters of deception and destructive and detrimental to orthodox Christianity. ..... Whether Russell was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses is really academic and not worth arguing about. What is worth considering is that much of what Russell taught and Watchtower teaches is false and heretical and many continue to be led astray by them. --Hank | ||||||
6913 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159813 | ||
David, you are being presumptuous with BradK; you mention 100 verses without specifying even one of them and then have the audacity to ask him which of these unnamed verses he is having trouble with. ..... David, you have been asked to support your claim about Jesus and Michael being one and the same, which you have not done. You have been asked about any connection you may have with Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctrine, which you have not responded to. People who keep their religious affiliation to themselves have some reason for doing so, and more often than not that reason is that they have something to hide. If you wish to remain an active user of this Forum, you are advised to follow the rules and play straight with the other users and to stop playing silly games such as the one you just played in responding to BradK. Other users have posted what the Bible teaches on angels, archangels, and Jesus Christ. You have posted nothing of what the Bible teaches on any of these topics, but instead have concentrated on pushing an idea that has been condemned as unbiblical and heretical by the orthodox church for years. ..... Now, please answer this question directly: Are you a Jehovah's Witness or do you endorse any of their their views, especially those involving Jesus Christ and Michael? I expect you to answer this question as soon as possible. --Hank | ||||||
6914 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159824 | ||
forwwjd: You make it sound as though theologians and apologists are not lovers of Jesus! Is there anything wrong with serious Bible study? (See 2 Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11; and Psalm 119:11). .... Or should we just "Honk If You Love Jesus," and fly around as unanchored as a tumbleweed, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine? (See Ephesians 4:14). ...... As is the case with virtually everyone who comes on this Forum bearing scriptural error, he is given what the Bible teaches on the subject. Whether he is willing to investigate, believe and accept scriptural truth or remain in error is up to him. What you call "attacking" is not what most seasoned users of this Forum do. They are not actually "attackers" of the person or his theological position but are instead defenders of the gospel of Christ. (See Philippians 1:17; Romans 1:16 and 2 Timothy 3:16; and 2 Timothy 4:1-4) --Hank | ||||||
6915 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159827 | ||
forwwjd: I have to admit that it seems quite ambitious of you to tutor Doc in Forum guidelines and behavior -- he who has made 2758 postings in 15 months and you who have made 4 postings in 13 days. Had your tutelage been made available to Doc during all his 15 months on the Forum, he might have turned out pretty good. But we can breathe easier now and gather renewed hope for Doc, knowing that finally, and in just the nick of time, Doc is in good hands. :-) --Hank | ||||||
6916 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 87720 | ||
Now really, John Reformed, what's new in your post that you haven't posted umpteen times already? EdB was right after all: "We have both heard it all." (What WOULD you Calvinists have to talk about if it weren't for Romans 9 ?? !! :-) ..... Note to new users: If you really want to read several hundred posts on the Forum's Famous Calvinism Debates, hit Search and type in Calvinism. --Hank | ||||||
6917 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88095 | ||
John Reformed: So your argument is that it was God's will that the fall of Adam and Eve would occur? Was sin involved in the fall? Was it God's will that they should sin? How does this line of reasoning prevent God from being, in fact, the author of sin? And how is it that Scripture says that God is not willing than any should perish? (see 2 Peter 3:9). How do you fit that in with your assertion that God willed the fall of Adam and Eve? You do say in your post that God created Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose to obey or disobey His commands. Yet you say in the very same paragraph that it was GOD'S WILL that they should fall. How can you possibly unify this glaring dichotomy without dancing around with some fancy semantic footwork? --Hank | ||||||
6918 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88118 | ||
John Reformed: You still have not answered the question that I asked you in Post 88095 which was prompted by two of your statements in Post 88091. So let's go back and review your statements: "God created Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose between obedience to His command or to disobey His command." You follow with this statement, "His will was that their fall should occur." The Question: If Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose (as you have stated), was it Adam and Eve's will, or God's will, that resulted in their decision (choice) to disobey God's command? Please provide a biblical answer. --Hank | ||||||
6919 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88139 | ||
John, it is my view that Tim was fully justified in saying what he said in Post 88126 in response to your Post 88125. I would have drawn essentially the same inference as Tim did. Could it therefore be that it is not so much a case of Tim's not paying attention as it is of John's being a trifle vague and rattled in his exposition of the circular reasoning and eccentricities of Calvinism? --Hank | ||||||
6920 | Who hardened Pharaoh's heart? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88303 | ||
Come now, Doug, just because I'm an Arkansas hillbilly doesn't necessarily mean I'm swamped by total ignorance or steeped in naivete. :-) By the nature and phrasing of your question I'm led to believe that you yourself have already made up your mind on the question, and that leads me to inquire whether you are truly seeking information from me or a debate with me. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ] Next > Last [349] >> |