Results 7081 - 7096 of 7096
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
7081 | What is heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3435 | ||
Heaven is God's dwelling place. Deut. 26:15, Zech. 2:13, Isaiah 63:15, 1 Kin. 8:30, 1 Chr. 21:26, Job 22:12-14, Psalm 2:4, Psalm 11:4, Psalm 33:13; Psalm 103:19, Isaiah 66:1, Lam. 3:41; Matt. 5:34, 45, Matt. 12:50, and Mark 16:19 are just a few examples, all taken from Nave's Topical Bible (Hendrickson Publishers). | ||||||
7082 | Personal Introduction Service? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3431 | ||
Hey there charis.. I appreciate the service, but I'd rather not operate anonymously. I have nothing to hide and I would like to be as personable as I can be. I am thankful that I can meet people like you on this list who so freely offer their services and time to others. | ||||||
7083 | What will heaven be like? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3429 | ||
When I think of heaven (which is often), I am overcome with a great sense of anticipation! Where the people of God (those who have overcome this world and their body of death by the shed blood of our Savior) can actually sit down together and talk about all these things of peace without the use of a discussion list.. :)Just kidding! I turn to Revelation 21 and read through 22 also, where it describes heaven, the New Jerusalem, the River and Tree of Life and many other amazing things to look forward to.. God is in heaven (Deut 10:14) and so are His holy angels (Rev 5:11-12). Nothing impure will ever enter into heaven (Rev. 21:27) and we will be servants of God Most High, praising His Holy Name forever! I can't wait.. :) | ||||||
7084 | Online Outlets for Bible Ref Utilities? | Not Specified | Makarios | 3427 | ||
Does anyone use any good online book outlets that will help you to grow a good Bible reference library? I know of three:http://www.lockman.orghttp://www.christianbook.com-Christian Book Distributors- excellent selection and good priceshttp://www.crossings.com-Crossings Book Club, which is excellent.These are a few that I can think of and I haven't found too many others. | ||||||
7085 | Online Outlets for Bible Ref Utilities? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3432 | ||
Does anyone use any good online book outlets that will help you to grow a good Bible reference library? I know of three:http://www.lockman.orghttp://www.christianbook.com-Christian Book Distributors- excellent selection and good priceshttp://www.crossings.com-Crossings Book Club, which is excellent.These are a few that I can think of and I haven't found too many others. | ||||||
7086 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | Makarios | 3424 | ||
I find this kind of reasoning intriguing! I feel that this could very well possibly be the origin of the concept of gods co-habitating with women. If such a story was handed down through generations, then this would lend support to the credence that not only was the story known, but the Bible must have been known also! I have never really considered this passage from this angle, and I appreciate you for bringing this topic up. I for one agree that if the concept of Zeus (for instance) having relations with human women had any originality at all (any 'kernel' of truth), then it must be here in Genesis 6:4. So, even though we may not agree on the actual history of this verse, we can agree on how this verse has had an effect on mythology and history through the ages. We will have to ask our precious Lord about our theory when we see Him.. This was an interesting discussion!As for our other topic, I may post as a new question my view of Genesis 6:4. You are also invited to email me at archangel76@crosswalkmail.com if you want to do that privately. | ||||||
7087 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | Makarios | 3347 | ||
Granma_ota, you must forgive me! I have obviously made a mistake when I said "daughters of Cain". I should have said "daughters of men" like the verse says. I thank you for pointing this out. I have proven my 'imperfectness' once again. :)However, I still disagree with you about the 'sons of God' issue, and I am prepared to voice my point of view, either on this discussion or on another, stemming from Isaiah 43:6. I do respect your point of view, though, even though we don't see eye to eye on this issue.But I am afraid that we have seriously gotten off topic and away from your original question, which was about Greek mythology and how the origins of that may have had their beginnings in an early understanding of Gen. 6:4 as being 'angels of God'. For an in depth reasoning on the origins of Greek and/or Roman mythology, I am an ill-suited an unprepared person to help you regarding that. Is anyone an English major/professor that can help us? | ||||||
7088 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | Makarios | 3251 | ||
Yes, I agree with JVM that the 'sons' of God were from the line of Seth who intermarried with the daughters of Cain. I respect granma's position on this, though, because my roommate in college had the same view: that the sons in Gen. 6:4 were angels. But I am a firm believer that the 'fall' of Lucifer and his angels was not in this episode, but much earlier when Lucifer rebelled in heaven because of his envy of God's Throne. I just added the mention of the Nephilim to stir up a discussion, I knew it was not referring to the Dinosaurs even though I believe that the Dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible. And the Zondervan NASB Study Bible is a very good Bible by the way, the same one that I own and use! | ||||||
7089 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3249 | ||
The NASB is my Bible of choice and it is the perfect Bible for me! I will use it for all time as my primary Bible. The Amplified is another good Bible, but I only use it to obtain a fresh sense of interpretation during my study (in the place of a paraphrase). There are several Bible Versions that I will stay away from and choose not to use. | ||||||
7090 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | Makarios | 3239 | ||
Very good question! This quite possibly could be the 'reasoning' behind the beginnings of Greek and Roman mythology, being that the 'sons of God' co-habitated with the daughters of men and created offspring. In Greek mythology, Zeus was noted for this type of behavior and Achilles was born. (Sorry, I'm not 'up to snuff' on Greek mythology- been a long time since I read the Illiad and the Odyssey :) ). But this type of thought could be a logical way to explain some aspects of the birth of pagan mythology. There are no doubt other situations in the Bible that are twisted in this way also.I have always interpreted Genesis 6:4 in this way: that the 'sons' of God were the descendants in the line of Seth as opposed to being angels. But I could be mistaken. The "Nephilim" could be referring to Dinosaurs here, but that meaning is not clear. | ||||||
7091 | 1st prophesy: Babylon invades Jerusalem? | Amos 1:1 | Makarios | 3236 | ||
In Ezekiel 21:1-27, there is a prophecy here that declares that God had drawn a sword against Israel (vv.1-7). Verses 18-23 explain that Ezekiel was informed that God would supernaturally direct Babylon toward Jerusalem, giving them an omen to go in that direction. Thus, the Babylonian Captivity was fulfilled (2 Chronicles 36:11-15). In Isaiah 39:1-8, Hezekiah shows envoys from Babylon all of his treasure (v. 1-2). Isaiah chided him for this (3-4) and predicted that all of his treasures would be carried off to Babylon including some of his descendants (5-8), but that this event would not occur in his lifetime. (2 Kings 20:16-19)Habakkuk 1:5-11 begins a prediction of the Babylonian invasion. | ||||||
7092 | Which Bible versions to stay away from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3234 | ||
If anyone would like to know my opinions on which Bible Versions to 'stay away from', then please email me at archangel76@crosswalkmail.com. I won't list those here as to create strife, but I will list them privately. | ||||||
7093 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3216 | ||
From my own experience reading, studying and interpreting the Bible in English, I have found that the New American Standard Bible suits all of my needs in the best way as a result of its excellent verse by verse accuracy to the original languages and because of its clarity.I have a hard time reading Greek straight through, so I have chosen a translation that I can trust, one that is written in my own native tongue that presents the most accurate rendering of each and every verse.My tongue is not in Elizabethan English, even though I have much respect for the King James Bible, being THE Bible of choice for 375 years, until it was replaced by the New International Version as the CURRENT Bible of choice.The NIV is an important and very popular step in Bible translation. However, I have found that I myself am looking for a translation in which there was as little as possible 'interpretation' of meaning. Also, I have found that the NASB includes in the text some passages that are textually questionable (critical) while the NIV does not retain those passages within the text. I have also found that the NIV does not capitalize the pronoun 'he' when that pronoun is directly referring to Jesus Christ, something in which the NASB translators were very diligent. The New King James is also a fine translation and one that deserves attention if you are looking for an alternative to the King James. Even though the NKJV is an accurate translation, I have found the English and word order to be ambiguous in many places, and the English that is used just doesn't read well nor compare to the usage of English in other modern translations. Also, the text is based on the Byzantine Tradition (like the KJV), not based on modern Textual Criticism like most of today's translations.The New Revised Standard is another good and widely used translation, but I was not comfortable with this Bible because of the gender inclusive language (or attempt of making the Bible gender inclusive) and because of its reliance on interpretation rather than accuracy in some areas.Don't get me wrong: the NIV, KJV, NKJV and NRSV are all good translations of the Bible, but I have found the NASB to be my Bible of choice because of the reasons above. | ||||||
7094 | Can anyone give me more reasons? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3215 | ||
Great way to answer this question! | ||||||
7095 | Why is the Apocrypha not included? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3214 | ||
The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Martin Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired. Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers- notably Origen and Jerome- who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.The Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Tobit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.This is why you will find the Apocryphal books in the Catholic New American Bible and frequently in the New Revised Standard Version as well as in very early editions of the King James Bible, but not in most of the major Bible translations that exist today. | ||||||
7096 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 236 | ||
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 ] |