Results 81 - 100 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Which part of Acts should we emulate? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 168007 | ||
Doc: I wonder: if the church today should operate exactly as it did in the book of Acts, which part of Acts should we emulate -- the first chapters, the last, or somewhere in between? Since Acts is a book of transition, at which stage of transition should we be? Maybe Israel should operate exactly as it did in the book of Judges. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
82 | sins of father repaid by son? | Genesis | kalos | 875 | ||
". . . the sins of the father must be repaid by the son?" I'm not familiar with that one. Could you tell us the book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that? | ||||||
83 | re the computer that Mr. G. made | Genesis | kalos | 1020 | ||
I have a question. This computer that Mr. G. made -- does it come with Spell Checker? | ||||||
84 | Evolution? Non-readers, non-believers? | Gen 1:1 | kalos | 3781 | ||
Isn't it interesting to note the number of armchair proponents of evolution who have read neither the Bible nor Darwin? (For what it's worth, I've read them both.) | ||||||
85 | 2 Timothy 2:23 | Gen 1:1 | kalos | 3787 | ||
Hey, melchizedekau, are you missing something? Which part of my question did you not understand? . . . I don't know what or whose question you were replying to, but it sure wasn't mine. |
||||||
86 | Q: Why? Why? Why?. A: Because. | Gen 1:1 | kalos | 4830 | ||
Have you noticed it's open season for WHY questions? To whom it may concern: When you ask "Why this?" and "Why that?," I don't know what you're getting at. Do you ask "Why" because: A) There are verses in the Bible that you don't believe? B) You won't accept any verse of the Bible unless it is explained to you? (God is not much in the business of answering "Why" questions. Does the thing made say to the One who made it,"Why"?) C) Is it that you do believe the Bible, but you are disagreeing with someone's interpretation of a particular verse or doctrine (which is your right as an American)? D) Or is there a 4th alternative answer to my question? |
||||||
87 | Did you know...Gen 2:17? | Gen 2:17 | kalos | 45238 | ||
Did you know... NET Bible Genesis 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded[4] the man, "You may freely eat[5] fruit[6] from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but[7] you must not eat[8] from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when[9] you eat from it you will surely die."[10] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Translators footnotes [9]tn Or "in the very day, as soon as." If one understands the expression to have this more precise meaning, then the following narrative presents a problem, for the man does not die physically as soon as he eats from the tree. In this case one may argue that spiritual death is in view. If physical death is in view here, there are two options to explain the following narrative: (1) The following phrase "You will surely die" concerns mortality which ultimately results in death (a natural paraphrase would be, "You will become mortal"), or (2) God mercifully gave man a reprieve, allowing him to live longer than he deserved. [10]tn Heb "dying you will die." The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, "when you eat...you will die." That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, "you will surely die." sn The Hebrew text ("dying you will die") does not refer to two aspects of death ("dying spiritually, you will then die physically"). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation. (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl) |
||||||
88 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | kalos | 2040 | ||
Can angels father or give birth to human babies? Are unicorns real? How about leprechauns? How many procreating angels can dance on the head of a pin? . . . The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) . . . "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) . . . "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
89 | In-laws: Mrs. Moses and Mrs. Cain? | Ex 2:21 | kalos | 111664 | ||
Does anyone know: Was the father of the wife of Moses in any way related to the father of the wife of Cain? | ||||||
90 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | kalos | 215 | ||
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? | ||||||
91 | Are Christians to keep the Sabbath? | Ex 20:8 | kalos | 124265 | ||
Are Christians to keep the Sabbath? "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8 (ESV) 1. Are Christians obligated to keep the Sabbath—the Sabbath of Old Testament Judaism? 2. Are Christians obligated to turn Sunday into a kind of a Sabbath with similar restrictions? 3. Are Christians to reject all Sabbath Law and enjoy freedom from that Sabbath Law and leave any other designated day alone, as to prescribing any specific restrictions? 4. What is the Lord's Day, as Sunday is called in the Scripture? Who instituted it, and to what degree are we obligated to it? Before you submit an answer to one or more of the above questions, make sure your post is biblically based and, whenever possible, you have included Bible references to support it. |
||||||
92 | Is suicide a sin? | Ex 20:13 | kalos | 3661 | ||
QUESTION: "is suiicide a sin? if it is,is it a willful sin? and what type of sin.God forbid that we should continue in sin that Grace may abound.YIC" . . . MY ANSWER: I think we can safely say that yes, suicide is a sin. I didn't know there was any question about that in anyone's mind. . . . AFTER one commits suicide, surely he will not continue in sin, will he? |
||||||
93 | What is the sin that IS forgivable? | Ex 20:13 | kalos | 4019 | ||
Matt 12:31 (KJV) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. . . . See, I am wrong again. And apparently Jesus is, too, according to some. I was always taught there is only one unforgivable sin -- the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But, now I find there are others, as well: divorce, suicide, unforgiveness, fear, doubt, unbelief. The list goes on and on. Perhaps it would simplify things to ask "What is the sin that IS forgivable?" . . . I guess this is what is meant by the term progressive revelation. There used to be *one* unforgivable sin, but now there are at least *six*. |
||||||
94 | What does the dictionary say? | Ex 20:13 | kalos | 4023 | ||
Dear prayon: I agree with you in that "unforgivable" and "unforgiven" are two DIFFERENT words with DIFFERENT meanings. However, I am convinced that some of our post-ers (and I do not mean you) are unaware of the difference between the two words. Rather, they seem to be using both words interchangeably, as if both meant THE SAME THING, which, of course, they do NOT. As I've said before, some on this Forum are throwing around a lot of words, without knowing what those words mean. I sincerely thank you for your input. --JVH0212 | ||||||
95 | What's your favorite Bible version? Why? | Deut 4:2 | kalos | 140965 | ||
What is your favorite Bible version? Why is it your favorite? This question has not been asked in the past 12 months. Many of us have previously addressed this question on the forum, but many have not. Whether you have or not, I invite you to tell us: what is your favorite Bible version and why? A Happy New Year to all! Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
96 | Oneness: Hairsplitting or Heresy? | Deut 6:4 | kalos | 112621 | ||
Oneness: Hairsplitting or Heresy? (Note: the numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. within the text are footnote numbers.) Oneness Pentecostalism: Heresy, not Hairsplitting -------------------- “It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.” -------------------- The June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, “The Other Pentecostals,”1 reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.2 Grady calls Pentecostalism a “house divided.”3 While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of l906,4 Oneness Pentecostals have been “separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches.”5 Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church.6 It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity.7 Even more troubling is the article’s suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!” Papering over Differences After discussing the Oneness rejection of Trinitarian language, Grady uses the phrase, “To split doctrinal hairs even further,...” to introduce Oneness’ insistence on baptism in Jesus’ name only.9 While Oneness Pentecostals may be “too sectarian to mix with other evangelicals,” he writes, “they are too orthodox to be compared with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Grady concludes, “No one really knows what to do with them.”10 He proceeds to juxtapose striking comments by two leaders, one from each camp. Trinitarian scholar and ex-Oneness follower Gregory Boyd is quoted as saying, “If you deny the eternality of the three personal ways God is God, you undermine the very essence of Christianity.”11 Oneness leader T. F. Tenney states, “We do not deny the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.... We believe Jesus Christ is wholly, fully, absolutely, and completely God. But no one is going to put us in the position of saying that there are three Gods.”12 Grady then offers an observation on our times, seemingly without recognizing its devastating ramifications: “The argument over whether God is three-in-one or one-in-three is a moot point for the average layman, who tends to view the doctrine of the trinity as an unexplainable mystery.”13 Grady implies that the Church should be more concerned with other issues. Concerning the baptismal view of the most rigid Oneness Pentecostals, he states, “It is on this issue, theologians say, that Oneness Pentecostals have drifted dangerously toward spiritual elitism and heresy.”14 Indeed, the Oneness view of baptism is lethally flawed. Oneness View Seriously Flawed Even to remotely imply, however, that corrections to the Oneness understanding of baptism would rescue Oneness theology is wholly misleading. Grady expresses cavalier confidence that a prominent leader within the largest Oneness denomination, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC), has a right relationship with the Holy Spirit. Referring to Anthony Mangun, a friend of President Clinton, Grady writes: “A good friend who has the Holy Ghost. That might be the best friend any president could have.”15 The problem is that a group’s denial of an essential biblical teaching excludes that group from Christianity. While there may be some Christians in Oneness churches, the movement as a whole is non-Christian. As CRI president Hank Hanegraaff has said, “It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.”16 -------------------------------- The Oneness denial of the true nature of God is heretical. Additional false teachings only compound their error. If you want to know more about the dangerous heresy know as Oneness Pentecostalism, CRI has several valuable resources available. CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Material found at: www.equip.org/search/ |
||||||
97 | Did you know... | Deut 6:4 | kalos | 112622 | ||
"Oneness Pentecostal theology is a false doctrine that denies the Trinity, states there is only one person in the Godhead, that you must be baptized to be saved, and that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign for salvation. Oneness Pentecostal theology is not biblical." (www.carm.org) |
||||||
98 | What if...What if...What if...What if... | Deut 29:29 | kalos | 105483 | ||
What if? What if the Bible dealt with "What ifs"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. I know I don't. |
||||||
99 | The burden of proof is on you. | Josh 10:12 | kalos | 6606 | ||
Lionstrong: Show me your proof. Either put up or do the other thing. No, I won't try looking it up. You made the assertion. You provide the specific proof. Title, author, publisher, page number, please. It makes no sense for you to make an assertion and then ask me to provide the proof. |
||||||
100 | Who's on first? | Josh 10:12 | kalos | 6610 | ||
Lionstrong: This is like asking "Who's on first?" You keep mentioning and asking questions about "the definition." Definition of what? What definition are you talking about? Since I can only determine what you mean by what you say, I do not see where you have even defined whatever it is you're talking about. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |