Results 6961 - 6970 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6961 | Why believe 'on' not 'in' the Lord? | James 2:19 | Hank | 2402 | ||
This is far more than a semantic exercise about two little words, in and on. James 2:19 says, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." One can believe in God, that is, that there is a God, that He is the Creator of the universe, that He is all-powerful, and the list goes on. One can believe in the Lord Jesus to the extent that He was a real, historical figure and that He went about doing good and healing people, and that he came from God, that he was indeed the Son of God. But even Satan admitted as much in his dialogue with Jesus in connection with our Lord's temptation (See Matthew 4:1-12). But to believe on the Lord carries with it the idea of accepting him fully, of being willing to surrender our will to His will in simple, child-like obedience, of trusting Him, of believing that He alone is able to redeem us. When we believe on the Lord, we are of course believing in him (that He is) but we are taking a further step, and what a giant step it is indeed, of inviting Him into our lives and asking him to forgive us and save us from the bond of sin. It's recognizing and admitting to Him that we need a Savior. It's being honest with ourselves and admitting that we are solely dependent on Him for life and being. It's truly a willingness to lean on the everlasting arms. | ||||||
6962 | can we pray for people after they died | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2397 | ||
Praying for the dead is, unless I am much mistaken, largely a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I know of no Scripture that either espouses the practice or specifically condemns it. (But see Hebrews 9:27) Being a Protestant, I'd never engaged in the practice nor given it a second thought until, in 1989, we lost our youngest son in a car accident. In what may well have been a presumptuous prayer, I asked God to be good to our son and to take care of him. My heart was broken, I was devastated, and I felt then and feel still that somehow God heard and understood. After all, who but He knows better the agony of losing a Son? | ||||||
6963 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | Not Specified | Hank | 2395 | ||
The "Holman Christian Standard Bible" is the newest translation to make the scene. Only the New Testament is available now; the Old Testament is scheduled for publication in 2004. If anyone has seen it, what are your thoughts? I received my a copy today and if anyone would like, I'll be happy to post what information I have on it. | ||||||
6964 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 2471 | ||
The "Holman Christian Standard Bible" is the newest translation to make the scene. Only the New Testament is available now; the Old Testament is scheduled for publication in 2004. If anyone has seen it, what are your thoughts? I received my a copy today and if anyone would like, I'll be happy to post what information I have on it. | ||||||
6965 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | Not Specified | Hank | 2393 | ||
The "Holman Christian Standard Bible" is the newest translation to make the scene. Only the New Testament is available now; the Old Testament is scheduled for publication in 2004. If anyone has seen it, what are your thoughts? I have a copy and if anyone would like, I'll be happy to post what information I have on it. | ||||||
6966 | What do you think of new Holman Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2516 | ||
The "Holman Christian Standard Bible" is the newest translation to make the scene. Only the New Testament is available now; the Old Testament is scheduled for publication in 2004. If anyone has seen it, what are your thoughts? I have a copy and if anyone would like, I'll be happy to post what information I have on it. | ||||||
6967 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2386 | ||
In reference to your (rhetorical) question, "Did you get the message?" I hasten to add: "Yes I did. I got the message down in the cotton patch, and it nearly scared the living Bible out of me." | ||||||
6968 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2384 | ||
Thanks, JVH, for your kind remarks. You most assuredly have my permission to quote or use anything I said in the note. I echo your enthusiasm for the NASB and applaud your fine judgment in using the NIV with teenagers. The language of the NIV probably hits to the heart of the young somewhat more poignantly than does the more formal language of the NASB which likely appeals to the more mature mind. At 66, I'm surely ripe for the NASB! In a review for Amazon.com of the NASB single-column reference Bible, I said that if I could have only one Bible, and never again be permitted to have any other, this is the Bible I would choose. | ||||||
6969 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Matt 28:19 | Hank | 2382 | ||
Pyle, your question begins with that big 'if' and perhaps in revisiting your ideas on the doctrine of election, or predestination, or whatever else we may conceive it to be, some light will fall. My view is that election is not the same thing as fatalism. Election says that God in His infinite love has elected (chosen) us to be heirs with his own Son of the riches of His glory. He calls us by His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and we have the option to respond or not to respond. The Scriptures clearly teach that whosoever will may come, that God is no respector of persons. In eternity God willed that no one should perish but that all should come to salvation. That is why He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). But the Bible clearly supports the notion that not everyone will receive Him, and it makes it crystal clear that no one can come to the Father except through the Son. The view of fatalism says that, since God has already decided in advance (even before I was conceived) whether I would be saved or whether I would be condemned, why does it matter what I do or don't do, what I believe or don't believe, whether I accept Jesus as my Lord or not? -- the whole thing is out of my hands anyway. That view puts God in the role of puppeteer and us as mere puppets on His string. The Scriptures don't even remotely support such a doctrine. When God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and he became a living soul, God endowed him with the power to choose. In the Garden it was Adam and Eve's choice, not God's, heed the serpent's call and fall away in sin and disobedience. God did not will it, did not preordain it, did not elect them to disobey His will. What they did was neither God's choice nor His good pleasure. Adam and Eve sinned and thus fell short of the glory of God. Thus by their actions they created the absolute need for a Redeemer, a Savior, for someone who was empowered to retore them to a right relationship with their Creator. It was Christ then (He was in the beginning with God) and it is Christ now whom God entrusted with this awesome power, the power to restore us to a right relationship with Him. If God had already determined from all eternity that Joe would be saved and Bill would be condemned, why would it have been necessary for Him to put His Son through the agony of the cross? The way I interpret the Word is that God elected (predeterined) to offer salvation to all of his created sons and daughters through Jesus.I do believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that no one comes to God unless His Spirit calls them. But I believe the Holy Spirit calls everyone, without exception. But the response is left up to us. This subject is High Theology indeed and I surely don't pretend to be a theologian by any measure unless, as I heard one time, a theologian is a guy who says things he doesn't understand to people who don't understand them either. Now to the second part of your question, Why evangelize? Having attempted to estabish the Bible's doctrine of "choosing this day whom we shall serve" it therefore follows that Christians are entrusted with the awesome responsibity of heralds, to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to a fallen world. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."Whosoever will may come, true enough. But how shall they unsaved hear without someone to tell them? That "someone" is not just the paid preachers and missionaries. It's every child of the King. Does it make sense that Jesus would have commissioned his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone if the whole business of specifically who would be saved and who condemned had already been settled in advance? That is precisely what the Devil would love us to believe, because it would stop evangelism in its tracks! Jesus was fond of comparing His mission with a vineyard. We sow good seeds and reap a good harvest. If we don't sow seeds for Him in His vineyard, who will? Should we take the view, "It doesn't matter what I sow, or even whether I sow or not. God's already determined what the harvest will be." I truly and prayerfully trust, Pyle, that these random thoughts will help in some small way to answer your question. | ||||||
6970 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2358 | ||
By and large I incline to agree with the subjective dictum that the best version of the Bible is the one the reader understands and trusts, but with a caveat. What George Orwell said in "Animal Farm" -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- might well be said of today's bumper crop of Bible translations. The translator bug continues to go around still and it appears no one has found an antidote for the urge to translate. This is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that the Bible is still deemed to be of vital importance in the lives of human beings. It is good in the sense that new translations, armed with fresh up-to-date language and new knowledge about Bible languages and Bible times, remove a great deal of the shroud of obscurity about God's word in which the older versions unwittingly encased us. It is bad in the sense that the vast sea of translations virtually threatens to drown us. We are most of us utterly bewildered from time to time about which translation from the many choices available to us will be "our" Bible -- the one we carry to church, read from, study, meditate upon, memorize, hide in our hearts. The choice is not always easy. Concerning the caveat I mentioned, I submit a few questions that you might find reasonable to ask of any translation you consider. Do the translators hold the Bible to be the verbal, plenary, inerrant and infallible Word of God? Is their rendering faithful to the biblical manuscripts? (This answer will have to come from trusted reviewers unless one has a thorough knowledge of the ancient texts). What is their philosophy on translation -- as literal as possible, a loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between, e.g., a "dynamic equivalence" that attempts to cast the ancient languages in a thought pattern that purports to impact the reader of a modern languages in virtually the same way that the original message did to its readers. This philosophy of translation places an incredible responsibility on the translator. Is the translation obviously made by and primarily for adherents to a specific sect or cult? Is the translation rendered in clear, standard English (or whatever the receptor language may be)? Does it give honor to God and affirm the Deity of Jesus Christ? Finally, all things considered, is this a translation that I can live with, learn to feel at home with, and one that I can understand well enough come to a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to know Him more clearly, to follow Him more nearly, and to love Him more dearly? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ] |