Results 6941 - 6960 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6941 | What about human cloning? | Gen 2:7 | Hank | 2749 | ||
We hear more and more about cloning. It's already happened in the animal world. Will human cloning be next? How would this impact the Christian community? Should human cloning be encouraged? Legalized? Would a human clone have a soul and spirit? What is your sense of what the Bible may or may not say, explicitly or implicitly, about human cloning? Do you think this is a vital issue for Christians to become involved in?What say ye all? | ||||||
6942 | Is baptism needed for salvation? (One.) | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 2714 | ||
JVH, you have posted a well-researched dissertation on baptism, and I concur with you in your conclusion, and with your reasoning that led to it: The New Testament does not teach that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation. I'm thinkig about the man on the cross, one of two criminals who were hanged alongside Jesus, who said in his hour of death, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." What was Jesus' response -- was it something about figuring out a way to get the man down from the cross and finding some water so he could be baptized and thus be saved? The record is clear what Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23).It may sound trite and simplistic, but I'll say it anyway: Jesus saves, water doesn't. The corpus of New Testament teaching confirms this. It is always a grave mistake to base a major doctrine upon an isolated verse or two of Scripture without taking the whole body (corpus) of teaching on the subject into full and careful consideration. It is quite possible to lift a Bible verse out of its context, call it a "proof text," and thereby extrapolate an infinite number of bizarre doctrines. "Accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) is a fearful responsibility of every Christian. | ||||||
6943 | Why five words? | 1 Cor 14:19 | Hank | 2710 | ||
Why ten thousand, the number Paul uses next? I doubt very much that Paul was into numerology and it would be fairly safe therefore to infer that the numbers per se are not especially suggestive. He juxtaposes a very low number with a very high one for contrast, for emphasis, to make his point. The first illustrative example that comes to mind is this. Which carries the better message -- to yell clearly "The building is on fire" (5 words) or to read to the occupants a pamphlet on fire safety printed in Sanskrit (10,000 words)? | ||||||
6944 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2693 | ||
Beg to differ with jg8ball on his statemenet (reference John 1:12) which reads "When you believe in His name, you will receive him. The New Testament cites instances in which someone believed but did not receive Jesus, i.e. did not receive Him as the Savior and Lord of their lives. Satan is the premier example. The rich ruler of Luke 18. King Agrippa came close in Acts 26. The sense of the passage is that he believed, came close to receiving, but didn't. One can taste without swallowing. One can believe without receiving. Belief in Jesus is the first step toward receiving him, but it does not necessarily lead to receiving him as the Lord and Savior of our lives. Ask a hundred people, "Do you believe in Jesus?" Chances are you will get some form of "yes" in the majority of cases. Ask the same one hundred, "Have you received Jesus in your heart as your Savior?" The number of positive responses will likely dwindle -- unless, of course, your sampling is made up solely of pastors or Baptist deacons! If I'm all wet on this point, please do feel free to enlighten me. Even though I am past the half-century mark, I have yet to attain either infinite wisdom or infallibility. | ||||||
6945 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2687 | ||
A further comment on your question, load, and JVH's note. Readers of a number of modern translations and paraphrases will find no such italicized words. Because they, many of them at least, make no pretext of having followed the ancient texts with the same precision as the NASB translators have done, the usage of italics by them would be both moot and decidedly voluminous. I can think of a couple of versions offhand that would be printed largely in italics. One would not go far afield to say that the presence of an occasional italicized word or phrase in the text is virtually one of the hallmarks of a reliable translation! | ||||||
6946 | is it wrong to masterbate? | 1 Cor 7:9 | Hank | 2680 | ||
Charlene, I believe this passage cleary refers in broad terms to the libido, the sex drive ("burn with passion"), that God implanted in us at creation, not only to insure obedience to His command to "be fruitful and multiply" but to provide a means to express and share, in an intimate and pleasurable way, the love of spouse, one for the other. In that love they become "one flesh" meaning, among other things, that they become as one in conjugal union. Genesis 38:9 that has been cited in reference to masturbation, but a careful reading of that passage would suggest that Onan was practicing coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The one form of sexual activity that clearly and incontrovertibly has the sanction of our Creator is sex within marriage. Of any other form the Bible is either condemnatory or silent. Paul does mention in this passage "self-control" -- something the believer should make every effort to exercise in every area of his life every day of his life. I believe that this issue, if it becomes troubling to a Christian should, along with all others, first be taken to the Lord in prayer and, if so led, discussed with a trusted pastor or other qualified Christian counselor. | ||||||
6947 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2671 | ||
Good point! Your being a Southern Baptist affirms that we, you and I, are birds of a feather. In all candor, I'm hard pressed to come up with cogent reasons for yet another translation. Have Bible publishers joined ranks with soap and cereal producers, ever searching for a new brand with which to saturate an already glutted market? It seems so. In reference to your proposal to use this tidy sum for missionary or other endeavors instead of another translation of the Bible, I would posit that in the publication of this new Bible they hope to recoup a part, if not all, of their cash outlay. Such would not be their fortune, of course, in missionary enterprises. | ||||||
6948 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2667 | ||
Agreed. KJV for four centuries has been, and continues to be, a beautiful work. Its words have music in them. Hailed by John Livingston Lowes "the noblest monument of English prose" it has long been regarded a paradigm of English usage. When I hear someone decry the old KJV I cannot help but think they are allowing their ignorance to ooze out. But, on balance, the English language of our time is considerably different from the Jacobean language of 1611. While no translation of the Bible since the King James translators set pen to paper in 1611 quite reaches the lofty linguistic heights they reached, we must in our efforts to seek the truth of God's beloved Word, look first for clarity of meaning at the expense of, if it must be, literary excellence. I cannot resist adding in defense of the Authorized Version, that for all its archaic vocabulary and turns of phrase, is far and away to be preferred over some of the modern renditions that masquerade as Holy Writ. | ||||||
6949 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2657 | ||
Notice that the word "even" is printed in italics in the NASB text. This indicates that the word does not appear in the original language but, in the view of the translators, is implied. By inserting italicized words into the text, it is their aim to give the English sentence more clarity or a better syntax. Obviously they do not always achieve their goal, as in the verse you cite. "Even" is one of those annoying little words of which the KJV translators were so fond. The NASB uses it too, although to a far lesser extent. For the word "even" in this verse, try reading it "...children of God -- to those who believe in His name." Believing in Christ is a prerequisite to receiving Him. | ||||||
6950 | "even" is confusing. | John 1:12 | Hank | 2654 | ||
Notice that the word "even" is printed in italics in the NASB text. This indicates that the word does not appear in the original language but, in the view of the translators, is implied. By inserting italicized words into the test, it is their aim to give the English sentence more clarity or a better syntax. Obviously they do not always achieve their goal, as in the verse you cite. "Even" is one of those annoying little words of which the KJV translators were so fond. The NASB uses it too, although to a far lesser extent. For the word "even" in this verse, try reading it "...children of God -- to those who believe in His name." Believing in Christ is a prerequisite to receiving Him. | ||||||
6951 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2609 | ||
I return with egg on my face! The textual base for the Amplified New Testament is indeed Westcott-Hort, which was the standard of the time in which Mrs. Siewert did her work. This fact was not in the introduction to the Amplified, but I did further research on-line and found it. In your question you also raised the issue of Westcott-Hort's reliability. There is ample variety of opinion among Bible scholars on this point. This much appears certain: The Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament of 1881 represented the signal departure from the Textus Receptus (Received Text), which formed the textual base for the Authorized, or King James Version. Understandably this departure creatured quite a stir, particularly among dedicated adherents to the King James Version. This debate is alive and well today, especially in the camp of those who hold that the KJV is the only truly reliable Bible extant. I am emphatically not a bird of this feather, but neither do I wish to engage in any debate on the subject. On the other hand, there are those who are more benign toward Westcott-Hort, among whom is Bruce Metzger, deemed by his peers one of the most influential of modern textual critics. By the way, if you'd like more on the Westcott and Hort subject, go to one of the search engines (I used Yahoo) and type in "Westcott and Hort." You'll probably get more information than you really wanted to know! | ||||||
6952 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2599 | ||
The Amplified Bible is the fruition of the life work of Frances Siewert who died in 1967 at the ripe old age of 86. This woman had a keen interest in the Scriptures and devoted her life to the study of Biblical languages, customs, archeology of the Holy Land and so forth. I am not aware that the Amplfied is a knock-off of ASV, NASB, or any other version. Having just now re-read the introduction to this translation, I get the real sense that she tended to be eclectic in her sources. Anyone with but a nodding aquaintance with the Amplified could likely be persuaded that Frances in all probability owned a well-worn Roget's. The Lockman Foundation set up an editorial board to carefully review Mrs. Siewert's work and, in a joint effort with Zondervan Publishing House, issued the Amplified New Testament in 1958, the one-volume Amplified Bible in 1965. I find the Amplified useful in aiding in the clarification of a troublesome locution here and there, but I find it ponderous to read large portions of it at one sitting. It hardly lends itself to public reading. In summation, it can be fairly noted that this work is, in the main, the work of one person, albeit with a little help from her friends. There are those, I among them, who feel uncomfortable with any translation so conceived and executed. Sorry I couldn't speak more to your point, but I hope this helps a little. | ||||||
6953 | Public profession, explanation. etc. | Rom 6:4 | Hank | 2591 | ||
Only one, if I understand your question. "We have been buried with Him [Christ] through baptism into death" to "walk in newness of life." --Romans 6:4. The clear inference is we have thereby witnessed once and for all that we have become new creations in Christ Jesus. Paul is, of course, writing here about believer's baptism, water baptism, immersion, hence the metaphor "buried with Him." I somehow fear I've not fully spoken to your question. You may be talking about something else. Care to elaborate? | ||||||
6954 | Holman Bible: Critical or Majority Text? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2546 | ||
Good question, Chris! And wouldn't you know -- I just happen to have the answer straight from the Holman's mouth, as it were. The textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition,and the United Bible Societies' Greeek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. Footnotes immediately below the text indicate significant differences among Greek manuscripts of the NT. In a few cases, brackets are used to indicate texts that are omitted in some ancient Greek manuscripts. Here's another item of some interest I gleaned from the Introduction. Under the heading TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY they review two philosophies that are old hat to most of us, i.e., formal equivalence (word for word) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). Then they expose us to a third translation philosophy -- the one they subscribed for this translation -- which they call Optimal Equivalence and define it thusly: "This method seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence by applying each method to tranlsate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy." They continue for several more lines of exposition, but what I've cited constitutes the real kernel of their concept. Is this -- this Optimal Equivalence -- really a new concept? Or is it, in the words of that great language master, Yogi Berra, deja vu all over again? | ||||||
6955 | Your exegesis of Ecclesiastes 12:!3? | Eccl 12:13 | Hank | 2518 | ||
The NASB phrasing in Ecclesiastes 12:13 "because this applies to every person" strikes me as curious. Most versions render it "this is the whole [duty] of man" or something very similiar. What's your exegesis? | ||||||
6956 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2493 | ||
Thanks, LB Lamb, for your response. Your points of view on translations are interesting, although I must confess I'd never really thought much along the paths that your views lead me except your rejection for obvious reasons some of the less-than-orthodox versions. Holman is listed as a non-profit organization and would hardly come under the category of commerical publishers. The translation team of this Bible, some 80 in number, are half of them Baptists and half of various other communions. It seems to me, with all respect, that your criterion of rejecting a transalation that is "developed and editorially controlled primarily by denominations" would leave the Authorized Version out, because it was most assuredly a product of and for the Anglican (Church of England) communion. The name of the publication is Holman Christian Standard Bible, not Holman Baptist Bible. As with any new translation, I opt to reserve my vote until I've had ample opportunity to examine it thoroughly and carefully. For a project of this magnitude which is projected to cost some 10 to 12 million dollars, I believe it only fair to give them a chance to prove their stuff. Public acceptance of a new translation has historically been a slow process, and that's good. It took the King James Version fifty years to find its place in the sun. | ||||||
6957 | Was the wine alcoholic or not | John 2:10 | Hank | 2473 | ||
Kathy, opinions are somewhat divided on this one. I searched four study Bibles and one commentary for any light they might offer on John 2:10. Without exception, they grappled with the issue by skipping to the next verse! The wine may well have been alcoholic, inasmuch as wine diluted with three parts water was a common table beverage in Jesus' time. While drunkenness is roundly condemned in Scripture, Paul prescribed for Timothy "a little wine for the sake of your stomach" in 1 Tim. 5:23. (We don't know whether Dr. Luke concurred!) But earlier in the same letter (3:3) Paul in laying down the qualifications for overseers of the church says they be "not addicted to wine." God gives us some interesting vignettes in Scripture of foolish things people do while under the influence, e.g., Noah and Lot. So, what inference can we draw from John 2:10. That Jesus forbids using wine as a beverage? Hardly. That He condones drunkenness? No. That the choice is ours to make? This may be a viable option. However, we know today that alcohol, among other things, can be addictive. I discovered this early in life and, thanks be to God, found the strength to walk away from it. Others I have known have not been so fortunate. One would be hard pressed to cite chapter and verse in the Bible to prove that traveling 80 miles an hour in a 30-mile zone is foolish and outright hazardous, or that smoking a pack or two of cigarettes a day will sooner or later help the undertaker pay for his new Mercedes. God lays down eternal principles to guide us in our walk with Him. Many detais he leaves to our discretion. But in His goodness and infinite wisdom, He chose to equip us with sense and reason. Since He never does anything by caprice, I believe he expects us to use it not only for His glory, but also for our own good. I think the issue of whether a Christian should drink anything alcoholic may be likened to the issue of eating meat in Paul's time: Will it cause my brother to stumble? A good friend of mine happens to be a circuit court judge and a Christian. He told me one time that he chose not to drink because he was concerned that drink might dilute his Christian witness. "So," he added with a sly grin, "I remain sober as a judge." | ||||||
6958 | Apostles4-2day | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2442 | ||
At first glance your user name, RCSCROLL, set me aback. I read it as RCSPROUL, the well-known apologist for the faith and theologian of some renown! Your question is a complex one, if only because the definitions of apostle and prophet are incredibly complex. Scholars differ widely on their definitions. In the strictest Biblical sense, an apostle is generally a person who witnessed the Risen Lord and who was sent out with authority (which is what the word apostle actually means) as a messenger to proclaim the gospel. Matthew (10:1-5) uses the terms disciples and apostles interchangeably when speaking of the calling of the Twelve. Luke in Acts extends the title apostle beyond the Twelve. And Paul calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the greeting of virtually every letter he wrote that we have in the New Testament canon. In light of the scriptural record, therefore, it is difficult to see how anyone living today could be called an apostle -- not, at any rate, in the Biblical sense.Prophets. Do they exist today? Yes, they do and Scripture supports this view, particularly the existence of false prophets. Jesus issued a stern warning to beware of false prophets and false Christs (Matt. 7:15; Mark 13:22) Paul referred to genuine prophecy as a gift in 1 Cor. 13:2. Prophecy simply means "spokesman for God" and does not always entail the foretelling of future events. The Old Testament is replete with instances in which the prophets spoke to Israel a message from God that had to do with current events here and now and nothing at all about the future."Beloved," said John (1 John 4:1) "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."It would appear that we are running well above quota almost 2000 years later. I'm keenly aware that in this poor attempt to answer your question I have not even begun to skim the surface. But your subject matter, as I said at the outset, is a complex one. At the risk of appearing to play the pedant, I'll venture a pair of suggestions. Consult entries for apostles, disciples, and prophets in a good Bible dictionary. I like Holman's. That will give you a fairly broad background on the subjects. Next, run the Scripture references provided by an exhaustive concordance. I use NASB. The concordance will allow you to do what amounts to an inductive study of these subjects, wherein you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. I think there is nothing on earth that takes the place of searching the Scriptures for ourselves. It means digging, and digging is had work any way you slice it. But the nuggets to be found, and found in abundance, are without price. | ||||||
6959 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2411 | ||
From a wet-eared neophyte to a (assumed) veteran, thank you for the steerings. I'll get around to making a profile. I must make the crucial decision of whether to be literal and dull (nothing to do with Bible versions!) or to gussy it up liberally with flowery paraphrase. | ||||||
6960 | can we pray for people after they died | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2408 | ||
Thanks, Hugger. Cyberhugs, after all, are better than no hugs at all! You know, God does indeed work in mysterious ways. At the time our son died, I could see nothing but darkness. Now, some 12 years later, God has not only long since healed the wound but has in countless ways led me to be able to minister to those who have sustained the grievous loss of a child. Before the tragedy the best my wife and I could do was to try to extend our sympathy to those who had experienced a loss of a loved one. Having been there and walked in those shoes, we are able to say with feeling and conviction, "We KNOW how you feel." | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ] Next > Last [349] >> |