Results 81 - 100 of 130
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | I'm curious why did you do this? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 7357 | ||
I’m curious why did you do this? Your correcting something someone previously said in the forum, but unless you append your question and the answers to that thread in error how will anyone see the correction? I can and have searched for who incorrectly stated there are only 3 things in heaven. However someone reading that thread will never see the correction unless they somehow stumble upon this thread. Would it not have been better to append your question and the answers you receive to the thread that contained the error? I hate to ask this but my curiosity has gotten the best of me and makes me foolish enough to tread where I’m sure I will invoke someone’s wrath. |
||||||
82 | Hank where did I say all of this? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7054 | ||
Hank you’re an interesting person. You have a way of backing off a point making the other person the villain. Case in point you said you did not tell the story of your divorced friend who continued in the ministry to show that what had transpired was okay, that you were just reporting the facts. Isn’t interesting you decided to report the facts in a discussion on divorced ministers? You in fact were using the story in an attempt to validate your point! There is nothing wrong with that! The problem I have is how you then took what I said and turned it on me. I never said you were sanctioning divorce so why mention it? I never attempted to adjudicate the fore mentioned divorce case so why mention it? I never pointed a finger in fact I went out of my way not to impugn anyone so why imply I did? I certainly did not cast any self righteous glare as I would have been the first to leave the day Jesus said “he who is without sin let him cast the first stone”. Without the work of the cross and the precious cleansing blood my fate would be sealed. So why even mention a “self righteous” “glare”. I never pointed a finger, I merely asked if we knew God’s will in this situation. I further ask you to show me where I impugn or even attempted to impugn God’s wisdom. I stand in awe of God, I never questioned what he said I questioned what man said God said. I could take offense (but I won’t :-) ) at your attempt to imply I was questioning God on this or any other subject. All these words you used in your response to my comment, all inflammatory, all without just cause. Yes Hank you’re an interesting guy. |
||||||
83 | I'm not sure what your saying? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7015 | ||
I don't follow you on that. If we would take this verse literally we have to say God was talking about a husband married to one wife nothing more nothing less. Explain to me what you saying? |
||||||
84 | But didn't He? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7014 | ||
But didn't He? Just by the fact that God used terms that are so synonymous with marriage. Doesn't husband and wife at least infer if not insist on marriage? | ||||||
85 | Doesn't make you wonder | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7007 | ||
Hank my brother again forgive me for appearing to be so much like a donkey. Your answer “the consensus among wiser men than me says thus and such.” Yet when I used that same rebuttal point in another thread I was told we can’t do that we have to go by what the Bible says. I’m trying to show a double standard here, one place we say we must go by the Bible literally and others we say we yield to wiser men. Look at the message we are giving the world, here this verse and this verse has to be taken literally. However this verse and this verse can’t be. What does the world really see? Doesn’t it see the church living by laws they are comfortable with yet condemning the world for living by laws it is comfortable with. I have always held this passage by the interpretation you just gave. I had formed that interpretation not by what I had read in the Bible but rather by what I had been taught. However after reading what Steve had said, I noticed God had gone out of his way to mention husband and wife rather than saying sexually pure or abstained from immorality, and I began to wonder why. Doesn't that even make you wonder? |
||||||
86 | Why is this a problem? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7003 | ||
Guys you keep skating around the real issue. Why did God chose to use the words husband and wife if all he intended was a man or woman of sexual purity? God doesn’t have a problem coming to the point other places 1 Thes. 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; Why do you insist God is talking so cryptic here? Using words like husband and wife that everyone seems to maintain means merely sexual purity. |
||||||
87 | How do we pull marriage out? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6992 | ||
Thank you my brother I thought I was destined to the abyss by tone some of the responses to my comments. Maybe there is hope for me. Praise the Lord! Here is an answer I would have hoped for. Notice it doesn’t say I’m wrong (therefore my emotions aren’t charged) It presents the writer’s opinions which everyone is entitled to. However I would like to know how the writer came to his opinion. In the passage in question the word husband and wife are both used. These two words are synonymous with marriage. If we are going to eliminate marriage as a requirement how are we getting around this obvious verbal connection? We have to forget what we have been taught or feel on this subject and analyze what is being said. Doesn’t the use of the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ force the issue of marriage? How do can we linguistically reduce it down to meaning sexual purity? I think this passage also eliminates any person that has been divorced since again we see the requirement of ‘one’ here. However death and remarriage since I believe the scriptures teach death ends the original marriage contract or vow, would be permissible. |
||||||
88 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6982 | ||
Please excuse me I’m not trying to be argumentative. If God was conveying the idea, as many suggest, that elder must have sexual purity or at least the lack of immorality, don’t you think He would have said that? God has no problem conveying the idea of sexual purity in Revelation chapter 21 for instance. Instead the scriptures say he should be the husband of one wife. Again not wanting to split hairs how does one become the husband of a woman without marriage? See what has happened? In an effort to explain God we really have changed what he said. I think there are two qualifications here, one the man is to be a husband. Two he is to have sexual purity in his marriage. I know most people disagree with this, and we have men and women filling the position that are single, married, divorced, remarried, and etc. Again can I submit a point for thought, could this be the reason the church today doesn’t hold the place it once did? Is the church sending the wrong message to the world? Has the church suggested that compromise is okay? As to the example using the money issue. I know many poor people or people without money that are lovers of money. But I don’t know any husbands without wives. Please excuse the sarcasm but I hope it would make you think. |
||||||
89 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6974 | ||
I think this response is a little harsh and maybe even wrong if it was directed, as I suspect, at Steve. I asked a question awhile back in the forum “Should the Bible be taken literally?” Nearly everyone wanted to place a qualifier to my question. No one that I recall would give a black and white answer except Steve. Yet scripture tells us to let our yea be yea and nay’s be nay. (For everyone that is ready to jump, yes, I know I took this out of context, bear with me a moment). I belong to a denomination that allows men that were convicted murderers to become ordained ministers, provided they committed the murder before they were saved. However no divorced man can ever be a Pastor. No matter if the divorce happened before salvation or not. I always thought that to be wrong or at least unfair. I was talking about my feelings on this subject to a man one day and he said, “Yes in man’s eyes that is categorically unfair, however God has an excellent reason for insisting on the standards He did. If we do what seems right in our eyes we are weakening what God intended. God’s standards are much higher than ours, His ways are different than ours, His ways are always right.” “Maybe too much of man’s “fairness” has gotten into the church and that may be one of the reasons the church instead of being the dominate force of society it was meant to be, finds itself defending its every move.” There was wisdom in that man’s response! I’m not ready to take everything quite as literally as Steve does, but open your thought process, is there not some validity in what Steve is saying? Could it be God has a reason why He wanted a man that was to be the leader of a local body to know exactly what is was like to have a wife and children? So that man could have real compassion and understanding of marital problems or what it is really like to have kids. To hear the person you love most in the world standing before you with their little twisted up faces and shout I hate you. The argument that Paul wasn’t married and didn’t have kids, I don't think stands here. He was an Apostle on a mission not a pastor of a local work. Also we have made being a pastor a profession rather than a calling. We in our human wisdom say should a man not be allowed to follow his chosen profession just because he never married? May be we should. Maybe the man himself should reexamine what it is God has called him to do. Maybe he was called to be a teacher, missionary, an evangelist, social worker, and the list goes on. Think about this discussion. If we rightly divide the scripture is it all wrong to take the Bible literally? Throughout history every society or age has placed it’s assumed meaning to Bible passages. The results of this many times has been far less than desirable and many times even disastrous. Is it time we get back to where God is? Where is that, some may ask? May it be in the literal interpretation of the bible? Is it all wrong to hold a pastor’s calling in such high esteem that not every person is qualifies? If your going to respond to this question please respond to the questions I asked and points I made not to the examples I used. I intended no offense by anything I said, please take none. Be blessed and be a blessing |
||||||
90 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | EdB | 6469 | ||
My biggest fear is that the prayer of Jabez will/has become a talisman for some people. People will be putting their faith and hope in the prayer rather than God. Has anybody seen this? | ||||||
91 | Can you see my position? | Rom 5:6 | EdB | 6434 | ||
See here is the problem you said you read scripture and it says your right. I say you read scripture wrong. Example 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. I see "all" and to me "all" means all. You say however that "all" only means the ones that God elected. Now we can debate this scripture from here until tomorrow and I will probably continue to see all will see only those called. Who is wrong? If your in my camp you are. If your in your camp I am. Does that mean one of us is in sin. I think not that means one of us sees a passage different. It really doesn't change anything as far as the work of the cross. It just makes us think the other can't read. |
||||||
92 | Can you mean this? | Rom 5:6 | EdB | 6391 | ||
inHzsvc, John Gill must be a lawyer (getting paid by word count) :). Obviously I'm of not of the Calvinistic bent, in that I believe God makes us choose, either to follow Him or the lies of Satan. Since you believe we don't have a choice would you explain what Satan is doing? I mean if we can't be deceived because we don't have a choice then what is Satan doing by seeking whom he can deceive? Also Matthew 25:41 seems to imply, at least to me, that the lake of fire was made for Satan and his demons and humans only go there should they reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. You on the other hand must believe that not to be true. If we logically think through your position God created the Lake of Fire for Satan, his demons, and the whole race of people God created to throw in there also. So much for mercy! | ||||||
93 | Please explain your position | Rom 5:6 | EdB | 6333 | ||
I have a question inHzsvc. What do these three verses mean to you? Do you not see God delaying judgement? Giving every opportunity every chance for yet more to be saved? Doesn't the word ALL mean just that ALL? 1 Tim. 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. Rev. 2:21 'I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. |
||||||
94 | We may be missing something here | 1 Pet 3:20 | EdB | 6331 | ||
Excuse me for butting in but I think we may be missing something. First let’s look at God’s definition of Noah … Noah, a preacher of righteousness… 2 Peter 2:5. Now lets see there was the time of the Arks construction. Then there was seven days after Noah and his family entered into the Ark before the flood. Then we see see this reference in 1 Peter 3:20 … when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Knowing what a preacher is like does anyone think Noah didn’t preach during this time. And isn’t the patience of God the construction plus the seven days He waited after Noah entered the Ark. Why would God do that unless Noah was preaching during this time calling people to repentance and God givng them one last chance to have a change of heart? 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. |
||||||
95 | Could our understanding be wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6096 | ||
Steve thank you for your answer. Your right America could be included in the one third. Although I’m not sure where America came into the conversation. However since it was brought, America at the present time is too big to just dismiss in Revelation. That gives us a hint. That the time of Revelation America is either not a major player because all of economic power and/or political power has been removed. Or it is included in the word “island”, The word “Island” in the Bible typically refers to any land outside the immediate land mass that contains Israel. So in Revelation 6:4 and 16:20 where we see very island was moved or fled away may be speaking of both American continents as well as Australia and etc. However my question is with everything that happens during the tribulation, earthquakes, famines, flaming hail, wars, and a total collapse of society along with no food, no drinking water, the oceans dead, and other disasters and then the Anti Christ trying to kill every one that doesn’t carry the mark of the beast. Who is going to be left to go into the Millennium? Why in the opening moments of the tribulation we see 1/3 of man kind destroyed there is no accounting given for how many more die in the rest of the judgements and wraths. Then let’s assume there is people left, where are they going to live. The oceans are dead, all drinking water is contaminated, most everything green has been destroyed, all cattle and wild animals have died, the islands are gone, the mountains have been destroyed by earthquakes, major nuclear or conventional war has been raged, the infrastructure of society has been destroyed, the earth is a wreck. Current teaching is that the New Heavens and new earth don’t come into being until the end of the millennium. Now I know all things are possible through Christ Jesus but doesn't it seem like our understanding of the millennium could be wrong? |
||||||
96 | Should they be red flagged? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6022 | ||
Hank I don't really care who did it, although it appears it was done vindictively, in that they have flagged all of Orthodoxy's updates. What I care about is the closed ignorant mind, such a mind is ripe for deception. Revelation is a book with many views of it’s interpretation, of which there are four major, Historicist, Preterist, Futurist, and Spiritual. Most Futurist are dispensational and pre millennial, and either pre trib or post trib, I fit into that category and I have never really appreciated the Preterist view. In the Bible study on revelation I had asked a question of who would go into the millennium? Disappointingly all the responses I received were the standard futurist answer that are easily rebuffed. Orthodoxy made a Amillennial observation which I was trying to understand when someone that has no appreciation for knowledge tried to disrupt the study with the use of the red flags. By challenging that person to identify themselves I was trying to open their eyes that just maybe they don’t have all the answers to Biblical questions? That there are people of equal intelligence who are honestly on both sides of many issues. I consider John MacArthur and Jack Hayford as two brilliant minds yet they stand at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as Bible interpretation on issues such as gifts of the spirit, once saved always saved, women in ministry and the list goes on. Is either a heretic? No. Is either unbiblical? No. Is either bad? No. Then look at MacArthur and RC Sproul both look at Revelation differently is one a heretic? No. Is either unbiblical? No. Is either bad? No. I believe in the case of these three men they have all have made a honest attempt to answer questions that doesn’t seem to have one answer. Should they be red flagged? |
||||||
97 | What is the point of the flags? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6020 | ||
I can agree with the intent I just disagree with the use. In this case a valid point was being made and since it was in response to my question and since I felt no attitude how did someone else decide it was Inappropriate, Unbiblical, Bad, Controversial and Biased. I will yield to Biased for it definely came from a person of the pretrist presuasion however I imagine the person that red flagged it was biased to dispensationalism. So what is the point of those flags? | ||||||
98 | Would you explain your action? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 5998 | ||
Would whoever has red flagged Orthodoxy's updates in this subject string please explain to me why you consider them inappropriate to the discussion? Or why they are unbiblical? Or even why you consider them not good? As far as being controversial or biased I feel safe in saying probably all of this forum would meet that criteria to some degree. Unless we are patting each other on the back, most updates are controversial and I think everyone carries some demoninational bias. I would really like to hear an explaination for red flagging the first three categories. Does that person have the courage to step up and explain themselves? |
||||||
99 | Where do you see chpt 16 historically? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 5981 | ||
Orthodoxy I think you have two trains of thought here. I never mentioned the American Continent in any of my updates. Though I totally agree with you, anyone that thinks they see a mention of the United States or even the American continent in the Bible is pushing prophecy. If you believe revelation has been accomplished in the first century and mainly through the destruction of Jerusalem. Where do you see chapter 16 being historically being played out? For instance where did the oceans turn to blood and every living sea creature die? Or an earthquake that leveled every mountain? |
||||||
100 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 5954 | ||
Orthodoxy you say every part of scripture means something to the original audience. In Daniel we see scripture define the beast with iron teeth Dan. 7:7 which we know to be the Roman empire, yet that held no meaning for the original readers. In fact all through Daniel and many other prophetic books we see examples of things that didn't come into fruition until well after the original audience’s demise and therefore held little or no meaning to them. You say the church should have no interest in Jerusalem. Aside from the Futurist's view of Revelation where Jerusalem plays a very important role. Isn't Jerusalem, more specifically the Mount of Olives, where Jesus will touch down Zech. 14:4 when He returns? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |