Results 761 - 780 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
761 | Psalm 37:24 | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77725 | ||
In a previous post (ID# 30239)someone wrote: 'The question has been debated, "Did Judas go to hell?" It seems to me the question could have been better resolved had it been considered from the perspective of whether Judas lost his salvation or whether he [n]ever had it to begin with. The weight of evidence in the New Testament points to the latter conclusion. Judas never "backslid" because he never "slid forward" -- he never was a truly regenerate disciple of Jesus Christ.' But I say unto you: Judas was definitely saved. Following are the Scripture passages that prove it beyond a doubt. NASB Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. NASB John 13:2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon, to betray Him, KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? NASB John 13:26-27 So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. AMPLIFIED John 13:26-27 So when He had dipped the morsel of bread [into the dish], He gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son. Then after [he had taken] the bit of food, Satan entered into and took possession of [Judas]. KJV John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [Judas Iscariot -- the one who is now doomed to destruction, destined to be lost (AMPLIFIED)]; that the scripture might be fulfilled. KJV Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. If you will carefully read the entire book of 1 John, you will see that all of the above verses about Judas show that he possessed every evidence of geniune saving faith. NOT! |
||||||
762 | Psalm 37:24 | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77718 | ||
He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life. Revelation 3:5 "It is unfortunate that this passage in Revelation has become a focal point of controversy. The result has been a fixation on what the verse does not say rather than what it does say. This verse was never intended as a warning. Within its context there is nothing negative or foreboding about these words. In fact, it makes a strong statement in favor of eternal security. It is a passage of encouragement and praise. "The comments are directed to a group of faithful believers from the church in Sardis. Unlike the majority of the folks in their congregation, this handful of members had remained unsoiled by the world around them. The verse in question contains Christ's commendation to this group for their consistent walk. "To assume from what is said here that God will possibly erase names from the book of life is to read into the text a concept clearly not present. At best, it is an argument from silence, for the verse simply reads, "And I will not erase his name from the book of life." If this statement raises doubts for some about eternal security, they would do well to search the Scriptures for an answer. But to base one's answer to this important question on this verse is to adopt a method of study with the potential of leading to all kinds of problematic conclusions." (...) "The good news is, God's pencil has no eraser. Before you breathed your first word, God knew how you would respond to His offer of grace. According to His foreknowledge, He wrote your name in the book of life. And there it shall remain forever. Jesus said it this way: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. John 10.27-28 "And as if that were not clear enough: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. John 10.29 " (To read the entire article, which I suggest you do before you post questions, go to: http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html) |
||||||
763 | Sin is Defined as Breaking God's Law | Gen 1:1 | Radioman2 | 77669 | ||
"Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
764 | JWs and the Wholly Other, Holy Spirit | Acts 5:3 | Radioman2 | 77645 | ||
Acts 5:3,4 (ESV) But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men but to God." 'The Watchtower and the Wholly Other, Holy Spirit 'By Tim Martin 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches that the Holy Spirit is God's active force on the earth today. If this statement is taken alone, most Christians might agree to it. However, along with the above statement, the Watchtower also teaches that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but only a force, comparable to "wind or radio beams."[1] A Biblical examination of their arguments shows that they are twisting the facts to validate this heresy. 'Upon studying various years of Watchtower publications, one can see five key arguments used to teach their aberrant views on the Holy Spirit: '1- No name 2- Use of neuter pronouns 3- Historical Arguments 4- Impersonal references 5- Personification 'No Name '"The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit."[2] This quotation from the Watchtower is correct that the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name recorded in Scripture. However, this does not mean that He is not a person. If this were a valid argument, then one could suppose that a newborn child is not a person until he/she is named. In addition, Scripture does not record personal names for most of the demons it mentions, who are, nevertheless, personal. A name does not imply personality or impersonality. Therefore, the lack of a name for the Holy Spirit does not prove impersonality. The Watchtower admits that the Greek word for spirit (pneuma) is used of the demons.[3] Why would these nameless beings called "spirits" be persons, and the nameless Holy Spirit not be a person? The Watchtower argument is flawed.' '1 "Overseers in Apocalyptic Times," The Watchtower, January 15, 1958, pp. 42–3. '2 Reasoning From the Scriptures, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989, pp. 406–7. '3 Insight on the Scriptures, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989, pp. 612.' (http://www.watchman.org/jw/watchtowerholyspirit.htm) |
||||||
765 | What is the definition of porneia? | 1 Thess 4:3 | Radioman2 | 77332 | ||
This subject has already been dismissed. Don't dismiss this here. |
||||||
766 | The definition of porneia | 1 Thess 4:3 | Radioman2 | 77317 | ||
What is the definition of porneia? NASB 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; AMPLIFIED 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, that you should be consecrated (separated and set apart for pure and holy living): that you should abstain and shrink from all sexual vice, srwoland: Your question: What is the biblical - New Testament definition of fornication? Answer: porneia [Strong's #4202] Definition: 1. illicit sexual intercourse a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11 |
||||||
767 | The choice to abstain from alcohol | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77068 | ||
It has been my experience and observation on this forum that a Note posted as a Note and not addressed to any particular thread often (usually?) goes unnoticed. Further, it seems that in order to receive a response to one's primary post, it is often necessary to post it as a Question. And if one's "Question" is addressed to a post in an existing thread, it is even more likely that it will receive a response. I see no point in posting a Note only to have it buried in the archives. |
||||||
768 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76671 | ||
Sniper: What follows is my best attempt to answer your questions. Nothing in this post is intended to be argumentative or offensive. :-) Your question: 'You allude to a freewill. You call it a "willful rejection" or "sensing personal need". But, then you turn around and say the following. '"Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin." 'How is there a willful rejection if the sin is inherent and original? Where is scripture clear about this? Please support.' An answer: I didn't say or mean that babies made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ. Nor did I say or mean that babies were condemned or lost. Therefore, as to your question "How is there a willful rejection if the sin is inherent and original?": there may be some contradiction in what I posted, but I honestly don't see any. As far as scriptural support for my position, I have no other scriptures to cite other than those I've already cited. You also write: "You allude to a freewill." Perhaps I did, but let me emphasize: "freewill" is one word I never use lightly or carelessly. Thank you for your question and interest. Radioman2 |
||||||
769 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76619 | ||
Sniper: Please accept my sincere apology for the tone and content of my earlier post. There is no excuse for my behavior. I am truly sorry. God bless you! Radioman2 |
||||||
770 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76524 | ||
"snipe — v.i. (...) "3. to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance." (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0659446.html) |
||||||
771 | "Babylon the Mother of False Religions" | Rev 17:5 | Radioman2 | 76242 | ||
"Main Entry: gee Function: interjection Etymology: euphemism for Jesus" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) Searcher: Thank you for pointing out the etymology of the word "gee". This word is offensive also to me. P.S. Isis. "Main Entry: Isis : an Egyptian nature goddess and wife and sister of Osiris" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) "Isis was a magician, possibly the archetype for the high priestess of the tarot. She learned her magic from Thoth, although according to some legends she obtained her powers from Ra himself by tricking him into revealing his name to her, thus acquiring his full magical knowledge." (http://www.crystalinks.com/isis.html) |
||||||
772 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Radioman2 | 76145 | ||
'Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer' STATEMENT DJ511 '(Note: numbers that appear in in the following text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) ' Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not. So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical - or spiritual - death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability. ' Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984 edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech....The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible." ' With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that. ' Although it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating, this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in translations. Simple observation can be powerful. 'Observing the Difference ' Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears weight. ' Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John 5:39-40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV). ' In NWT's Matthew 10:32-33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus - what is its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is - not what He stands for - the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud! 'Only the Context Knows for Sure ' When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?" ' "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32). ' "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the 'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament. He was equating Jesus with Jehovah." ' Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.' (To read the rest of the article, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) |
||||||
773 | WHERE TO FIND ALL THE NAMES OF GOD | Ps 83:18 | Radioman2 | 76144 | ||
STATEMENT DJ265 The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. (...) Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. |
||||||
774 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 76133 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
775 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61961 | ||
1) Yes, it is a duplicate post. Thank you for pointing it out. 2) It is an intentional duplicate post. I originally intended to post this as a question, but instead posted it as a note. Therefore, I reposted to place it in the category I intended -- the Question category. 3) No, it is not a duplicate post in that one post is a Note and the other is a Question. 3) Duplicate post or not, the question remains: "In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)?" "Duplicate post" is not the answer to the question. |
||||||
776 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61949 | ||
In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)? NASB Daniel 2:41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. |
||||||
777 | Better to remain silent and be thought a | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61615 | ||
Ray, To answer your questions... Question: Is this forum only for the most eminent scholars? Answer: No. Question: can a questioning new believer ask his questions and make his comments also? Answer: Yes, of course. I did not have you in mind when I posted my Note. I bear you no ill will whatsoever. I respect and appreciate you. |
||||||
778 | Questionable Questions | 1 Tim 6:4 | Radioman2 | 61572 | ||
He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions, (AMPLIFIED) 1 Timothy 6:4 Is there such a thing as a stupid question? Read the following questions which have actually been posted here and judge for yourself. Questionable Questions. These are actual questions that have been posted on the forum. Note: I am not necessarily implying that there is anything "wrong" with either the questions or those who asked them. I merely point out that these questions are a bit odd. (These are direct quotes, unedited and uncorrected.) "Who do we know the bible is realy God's?" "? ? ?" "Russellville?" "If we are to love our enemies than why are we taught to hate Satan?" "Does God have free will?" "What was the first language of Adam/Eve?" "Was Abraham a Muslim?" "Why does everything happen in thirds?" "If 'computer' stands for 666 than isn't wrong for us to use the computer?" (Note: This question was posted using a PC -- Personal COMPUTER.) "In the bible, where are Japanese?" "Blue marbles roll faster than red ones(?)" "Are death and Hades destroyed or are they tormented forever?" "What if?" "Where does the Bible say that the earth revolves?" "How do you know the earth spins on its axis?" "Why do we grow old?" "The Bible says that what is put to death is dead both in heaven and earth,so how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?" Now I will ask a question. After reading the above samples of actual forum questions: Is this StudyBibleForum or Trivial Pursuit? |
||||||
779 | Trifling (stupid) controversies | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61562 | ||
Concerning St. Judas of Iscariot, the Sabbath, Tithing, Water Salvation, Genesis 1-2, Genesis 6:4, Hebrews 6, etc. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse (shut your mind against, have nothing to do with) trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid) controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know that they foster strife and breed quarrels. Once again here on the forum someone -- in this case several someones --(Person X) takes a stand on their interpretation of one verse of Scripture or one doctrine. They cling to it no matter what. Others on the forum do all they can possibly do, using both Scripture and reason, to point out that the stand the person has taken is neither Scriptural nor logical. Person X apparently ignores every point made by every other poster. Person X quotes the same question or argument again and again. Other posters try in every way possible to make their points as clear and plain as they possibly can. Time after time Scripture and reason are totally ignored. After the other posters have repeatedly made their point as plain as day, Person X continues to repeat his one misinterpreted verse or point, saying it again and again, like a mantra. After days or weeks have gone by and 100 or more posts are made to the same thread, one or both sides finally gives up. Someone finally admits they've reached a stalemate. In vain one hopes that it's finally over and good riddance to the debate. Lo and behold, a month goes by and here comes the same issue all over again. Only it's someone else asking the question this time. Sometimes the postings here are like a dog going round and round chasing his own tale. Or like a broken record. It should come as no surprise that many former Forum members eventually give up and leave the Forum in disgust, never to return. What is my point? What difference does it make? If my point was that night is dark and day is light, someone would write in and give me 10 arguments why I am wrong. Though we or an angel from heaven stood before that person for 6 literal, 24-hour days trying to reason with them, the person would close her mind and resist the truth. |
||||||
780 | Where is paradise? Inquiring minds want | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 61559 | ||
Where is paradise? Inquiring minds want to know. (repost) Your Questions and My Answers 1. Q: Are we to pray to Jesus? A: Had you been in combat in Vietnam, you wouldn't need (or have time) to ask that question. 2. Q: Could Jesus sin? A: No. 3. Q: Is sex before marriage wrong? A: Yes. Also note: Usually the Bible doesn't speak of right and wrong. It speaks of good and evil. 4. Q: When did God change lifespan of man? A: DID God change lifespan of man? In what verse of the Bible does it SAY he did? 5. Q: What law(s) did Christ fulfill? A: He fulfilled the law. Not "laws" (plural), but "the law" (singular). 6. Q: Why? A: Because. 7. Q: Does God have multiple motivations? A: Is the clay questioning the motives of the Potter -- AGAIN? 8. Q: Satan take the place of God in Genesis? A: No. 9. Q: Good News Bible? A: Yes. 10. Q: Does it state anywhere in the old testament about jesus' crucifixion? A: Yes, it does. Otherwise what was the source of the prophecies fulfilled when Christ was crucified? (FYI: We usually spell Jesus with a capital J.) 11. Q: Can all churches worship together as one? A: No. Can all Christians worship together as one? One day we will. This is not that day. 12. Q: Can someone give me a CLEAR answere to the question..Does salvation require baptism? A: Yes, someone can. 13. Q: Where is paradise? A: Anywhere where foolish and ignorant questionings (speculations) have ceased. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |