Results 81 - 88 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | What does "being a homosexual" mean? | 1 John 3:9 | Radioman2 | 91622 | ||
What does "being a homosexual" mean? Megiddo: You write: "I'm saying that it is possible for a homosexual to be a Christian, to praise her/her creator, and to carry out God's will while being a homosexual." I think what is at issue here is: what do you mean when you say "being a homosexual?" If being a homosexual means merely to have homosexual desires without acting on those desires, that is one thing. But if being a homosexual means performing homosexual acts, then the answer is: No, it is not possible for a homosexual to carry out God's will. It is not my intent here to bash or attack. I merely wish to understand what you mean when you say "being a homosexual." Unless and until you give your definition of "being a homosexual", further discussion of the subject is meaningless. Radioman2 |
||||||
82 | What is happening here? | 1 John 3:9 | Radioman2 | 91906 | ||
Ngop: Somehow my posts re homosexual sin were twisted and misinterpreted to mean something that I never intended for them to mean. I've been accused in those posts of saying things that I neither said nor meant. And when what I wrote wasn't misinterpeted, it was ignored altogether. I quoted from the 3rd chapter of 1 John. Does the Scripture I quoted single out homosexual sin as the only sin which, if habitually practiced, has certain consequences? Does it even mention homosexual sin by name? No, it does not. I don't mean you when I say this, I mean other(s) who have replied to my posts: I was attacked, lumped together with all those "bad Christians" who hate homosexuals, and accused of condemning homosexuals. I condemned no one. The Scriptures I quoted condemned all habitual sinning -- not just homosexual sin. I asked a particular individual a simple question: What do you mean when you use the phrase "being a homosexual"? AT first my question went ignored and unanswered. After posting the same question 3 or 4 times, I finally got an answer. Of course, the answer from this individual did more to evade my question than to answer it. I wasn't asking for a philosophical essay. I merely asked does being a homosexual mean homosexual desires or does it mean acting on those desires? I asked a simple question, but did not get a short and simple answer. Ngop, you write: "I used to get into this forum on and off without any fear. I wish I am just being paranoid. If I am not, can't you and other senior members of this forum do something about what is happening." I'm not sure what you are asking me. Can I and other senior members do something about what? If you will be more specific in your question, I would be happy to answer it. However, I can tell you now, whatever is happening on the forum, I can do no more than any other poster, such as yourself. What anyone and everyone is free to do is to submit an abuse report to StudyBibleForum.com regarding a specific post or user whose posts are deemed abusive or inappropriate. It is then up to our forum sponsors to decide what, if any, action they wish to take. Thanks for your reply to me. If you have any questions about anything or want to talk about anything, you are always welcome to direct Questions, Answers and Notes to me. I'll be glad to provide any information I can. Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
83 | What is a "carnal" Christian? | 1 John 3:10 | Radioman2 | 91913 | ||
What is a "carnal" Christian? Greetings, CurtMan: I'm not sure exactly what it is you are asking in your post, ID# 91690. Do you mean: What is a "carnal" Christian?; and Can a "carnal" Christian fall from grace and lose his salvation? If this is what you are asking, then let's take one question at a time. Q: What is a "carnal" Christian? A: Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 'carnal 'Compare 1 Corinthians 3:1,4. "Carnal" ("fleshly") is Paul's word for the Adamic nature, and for the believer who "walks," i.e. lives, under the power of it. "Natural" is his characteristic word for the unrenewed man (1 Corinthians 2:14), as "spiritual" designates the renewed man who walks in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:1; Galatians 6:1.)' (Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Romans 7". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/) I would go with this definition of carnal. It seems justified by Paul's use of the term in Scripture. So one definition of a "carnal" Christian is: 'the believer who walks, i.e. lives, under the power of the Adamic nature ("human nature" (GNT); "the sinful nature" (NLT); "the corrupt nature" (GOD's WORD)).' Q: Can a "carnal" Christian fall from grace and lose his salvation? (CurtMan, I realize this is not how you worded your question, but am I correct in assuming that this is what is implied in your question, "at some point and time their eternal resting-place becomes an issue. My focus is on the fact that they were Carnal and they were Saints, What’s your take on this?"?) A: Are they Christians? Were they ever Christians? 1 John 3:9-10 (ESV) No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. If they are born-again believers, carnal or otherwise, is it possible for them to fall from grace and lose their salvation? 'Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security; therefore it is not true that believers in Christ can lose their salvation. See Jn 3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" (note at Heb 6:4, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967).' CurtMan, if I have answered questions you did not ask or not answered questions you did ask, please let me know. Also, if my answer needs more explanation or clarification, let me know. I'll do my best to address your question(s). Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
84 | Do you win converts to your opinions...? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 79901 | ||
RCSCROLL: Do you win many converts to your opinions when you use words like "assumption," "presumptuous," "so-called," "ridiculous", and "doesn't add up" to describe the beliefs of others? |
||||||
85 | Is the KJV truer to the original mss? | Rev 2:28 | Radioman2 | 80726 | ||
Is the KJV truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions? - - - - - - - - - - "We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles." - - - - - - - - - - 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] |
||||||
86 | What is your point? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78828 | ||
You write: "all of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." Are you implying the following? "All of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." "I believe man has free will." Therefore, the passages of inspired Scripture (that Hank provided) are not true. Is that what you are implying, that some passages of the Bible are not true? |
||||||
87 | Isn’t this playing with the text? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 79196 | ||
Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? | ||||||
88 | Release and faith in same verse? | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 91013 | ||
angel9: The body of my previous note made no mention whatever of the Amplified Bible. And no matter what the "amplifications" say, the fact remains: The words "release" and "faith" are not found together in the same verse anywhere in the Bible. Grace and peace, Radioman2 ____________________ "Release" and "faith" not in same verse. "do what the Bible says and release that faith"? Where in the Bible does it say that? An online search of the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible resulted in 18 verses in which the word "release" appears. And yet the word "faith" does not appear in the same verse as the word "release" anywhere in this translation. An online search of the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE resulted in 31 verses in which the word "release" appears. And yet the word "faith" does not appear in the same verse as the word "release" anywhere in this translation. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] |