Results 81 - 100 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4579 | ||
Thanks for a thought-provoking question, Charis. God has sovereign power and enters into the affairs of man whenever He chooses to do so. (See Romans 8:23ff.) He may place a hedge of protection, as he did for all of Job's life. Even at the time when Satan was given freedom to attack Job, God set the limitations. And when it was time for the trial to end, God intervened. Satan goes as far as God permits in his (Satan's) hateful destruction but no farther. God shows, in Job's history, varying degrees of exercising the sovereign power that he has. He can control completely; He sometimes exercises this power and sometimes doesn't. God is active and engaged in the affairs of man. However, it is also noteworthy that neither Satan nor God indicate any perception or suggestion whatsoever that Job's responses are being controlled. Events are controlled and manipulated to reveal his responses (or for Satan to attempt to reveal the responses he erroneously expected); yet Job himself is not controlled. God knew how Job would respond, and Job proved not only his faithfulness but also his final receptivity to God's correction and rebuke. Job 1:10-12 ""Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ""But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.''Then the LORD said to Satan, ""Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.'' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD. |
||||||
82 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4577 | ||
I think I understand what you're saying. Thanks for responding. There's nothing in the text that would indicate the first day (of the creation sequence) beginning after the formation of the heavens (with the 6 days referring to only the creation of the earth and what is on it), but this is a possible interpretation, and it may allow for reconciliation between observational data and the text; this is the first I've heard of this view, but there may well be others with a similar view. There is disagreement amongst those scholars and researchers who are investigating these events. There is obvious room for disagreement and discussion among those who are recognized as orthodox in their other beliefs and their general life and witness as Christians, as to whether the "SIX days" you refer to from Gen 1:3 onward (and-or the 6 days from the beginning of the first creation to its conclusion) are 24-hour days or sequenced blocks of time. |
||||||
83 | Flood in the air? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4551 | ||
It also solidified (or perhaps re-solidified) into huge masses of ice at the north and south extremes, and dissipated into the earth in most other places. The current existence of large amounts of such frozen and underground waters is a recognized observable fact by all -- whether the Scriptures directly state the obvious in this case or not. | ||||||
84 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4549 | ||
There have been a number of responses to this question that seem to me to be stating that anyone who does not recognize the 6 days of creation to be 24-hour periods is refusing to honor the Scripture. There is clearly room for a view that the 6 days were 24-hour periods. However, there is ample room (and significant Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, I believe) for an understanding of the creation days to be unspecified periods of time that took place in sequence, each one ending (evening) and the next beginning (morning) -- with us now living in the seventh day. This is simply another readily defensible view, not some radical abdication of Scriptural authority in order to pursue peace with the pagan world (as it seems to be sometimes painted). Dr. Hugh Ross is probably one of the more prolific, solidly reasoned and Scriptural modern authors who presents this point of view in his books and essays. I would recommend the writings of Ross and his "Old Earth Creationist" associates from "Reasons to Believe" -- alongside those of the "Young Earth Creastionists" at CRI supported elsewhere in these responses -- for a more balanced opportunity to examine both of these views. Reasons to Believe can be found at http:\\www.reasons.org\, which has links to their materials. Ross has appeared on "The Bible Answer Man," and in other well-respected forums on Biblical truth. |
||||||
85 | Demon possessed now? | Matt 8:16 | Brent Douglass | 4547 | ||
This seems an odd question, Hank, but I'm sure there must be something behind it. The reverse seems a more logical question. Is there anything in Scripture clearly indicating that demon possession was ended at some specific time in the past? If not, then such possession -- which was present from the time of Satan possessing the serpent and continued in the time of Christ and into the ministry of Paul -- would most naturally be assumed to continue until something happens to remove it fully. The onus for evidence lies on the opposite side of the question. Is there any Biblical evidence that demons were removed permanently at some prior time? This is separate from the question of doctrinal abuse in seeing, naming, or challenging demons in every unhappy situation or toward everyone who dares to disagree with any given teacher-exhorcist's strongly held views. Nevertheless, the need for evidence lies more squarely and logically on the shoulders of the one who would claim demon possession to have ceased than the one who claims it to continue as it did for millennia in recorded Biblical history. |
||||||
86 | Matt 28:19 what is name of each | Colossians | Brent Douglass | 3924 | ||
Dear Jim, Can you clarify and repose your question please? I see that it was answered, but I'm not clear whether that was what you were asking. If it is, I would want to offer a different answer. However, I'd like to see the question clarified and asked again, so that a broader group of participants can respond. It seems that you are asking, "What does it mean to baptize [people from all nations] in [or "into"] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?" in Matthew 28:19 as part of "mak[ing] disciples of all nations." Is this your question? Jesus is definitely NOT the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the Son; the Son is fully God, but God is not fully the Son. The concept of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible, but it is fairly simply stated in Scripture. There are a number of clear statements about God in Scripture that must be reconciled, and this reconciliation leaves us with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is difficult (impossible, given our current bodily and fleshly limitations?) to visualize and-or to understand fully HOW God can be what He describes Himself to be, but the specific descriptions are not complicated in and of themselves. There is a lot that people on this list can contribute (and have contributed previously) to answer similar questions. Please don't give up with the one reply you received. Try to rephrase or clarify your question more deeply for us. Thanks! |
||||||
87 | Why are the Midianites called Ishmaelite | Gen 37:28 | Brent Douglass | 4368 | ||
Another possible explanation is that the term "Ishmaelites" referred only to descendants of Ishmael (who were apparently wandering traders); I don't believe there is a "land of Ishmael" mentioned anywhere in Scripture. In contrast, the term "Midianites" appears to have a broader meaning referring to people living in the land of the descendants of Midian -- just as the "Canaanites" lived in the land of Canaan. This seems supported by the fact that Moses father-in-law Jethro-Reuel was "Midianite" yet not offensive to God (Numbers 10:29). Moses married his daughter Zipporah (Exodus 2:21), and invited his son Hobab to come with the Israelites (Numbers 10:29). Yet an Israelite was later slain for having relations with a Midianite and the Midianites were considered enemies of Israel (Numbers 25:6-18). There were clearly 2 working definitions for "Midianite". Since there's no indication of sufficient relationship between Joseph's brothers and the traders to indicate actual knowledge of their ancestry, it appears that they were dressed and-or spoke like Ishmaelites and were coming from Midian and-or spoke like Midianites. The exact identity of the traders does not appear to be of particular importance. Rather it is their function-vocation as traders traveling to Egypt who would be willing to purchase and sell slaves. |
||||||
88 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 4348 | ||
Thank you for your encouragement in reference to the different sources of "baptism" as referred to in Scripture. Upon reviewing our earlier notes, I realized that I hadn't responded to your question about how someone might see 1 Cor 14 as referring to human tongues, and I wanted to clarify how it is possible (I would even say more accurate) to view it in this way. First please allow me to paraphrase some verses from 1 Corinthians 14 to provide a background. The point of 1 Corinthians 14:2 (actually vv.2-5 at a minimum) isn't that there is something mysterious in tongues that is impossible to understand naturally. The point is that tongues are not given for the purpose of revelation (as is prophecy) but rather for the purpose of pure Spiritual prayer and worship uncorrupted by human interpretation. The flow is from God the Spirit through the gifted believer and back to God; in this process, the speaker is edified in spirit only by this act of pure (unsullied by any fleshly interpretation) thanksgiving, prayer and-or worship. Prophecy, in contrast, flows from God the Spirit through the gifted believer and out to the congregation; by its very nature, spoken prophecy edifies the hearer(s) as well as the speaker. Let me also paraphrase verses 13-19. The only way that others (or even the mind of the speaker) can participate in the edifying worship of a tongue (language) is if they can understand it. If there is no one to interpret, the speaker is to simply remain silent, since his gift is useless in offering true edification to others (vv.27-28). [Paul is writing to a group of believers living in a given city, as opposed to many visitors from various languages converging for worship (as at Pentecost). It is natural to assume that they speak the same language(s), and there would be nothing to identify the prayers as coming directly from God if they were spoken in a language common to all there and known by the speaker. Likewise, there is nothing to identify the language as anything but barbarian mumbling with no meaning or purpose, unless someone understands.] Finally, in verses 10-11, Paul specifically and explicitly links this practice to "languages in the world" -- the speakers of which are unintelligible barbarians to those who can't understand them. This explanation is right in the midst of Paul's exhortation about correct use of tongues and, therefore, logically clarifies them as being human languages. While one may potentially disagree, this is a most direct reading of the context, not an invented interpretation. As a side note, I find that Pentecost (while a somewhat unique situation in which this gift was specifically accompanied by the first filling of the Spirit, physical tongues of fire, Peter's first reported sermon, and a great number of new converts) also meets the guidelines and descriptions laid out in 1 Corinthians 14. The tongues were used for worship, were real languagues, and were interpreted by someone present. However, the parallel is limited. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, there is no connection of tongues (or the other gifts mentioned) with the filling or baptism of the Spirit. They were linked at Pentecost, but this does not appear to be the norm. |
||||||
89 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3993 | ||
Thanks for your response. The use of the term "baptism" with relation to the Holy Spirit appears to be a little confusing. Your reference to Acts 1:5 definitely indicates that Jesus said the disciples would be "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (whom you and I apparently both believe had already been received in John 20) -- which is what happened at Pentecost. Thank you for pointing this out, as it better focuses the concept for me. Pentecost was a baptizing of the disciples performed BY Jesus (see John 1:33) "with" or "in" the Spirit. This is a special event performed BY the Son, NOT by the Spirit Himself. The result is immediate empowerment for effective action and witnessing (see Acts 2:14,41,43; Acts 4:8,1331; etc. This is what I believe is typically referred to as the baptism "of" the Holy Spirit. Baptism BY the Holy Spirit, in contrast, is the initial reception of the believer into the body of Christ through the initial entry and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is performed by the Person(ality) of the Spirit Himself. This is what is described in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Without this, there is no transformation, sanctification, or glorification. The Spirit comes to all believers in this way upon conversion. My understanding is that this is the same event as being "born of the Spirit" or "born from above" referred to by Jesus in John 3; without this, no one can enter into the kingdom of God. I believe Dr. D.M. Lloyd-Jones did an excellent job of describing this distinction in his book of sermons, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." On the surface, this may seem a matter of "playing with words" -- but I'm convinced that such indications of the ways in which the different Members of the Godhead interact relationally with each other and us are significant, which is why they are described in the Scriptures. |
||||||
90 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3949 | ||
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. My job gets busy or slow at unexpected times, and of course that has to come first. While I definitely have certain things that I have strong views on, I'm not particularly interested in debate as much as trying to understand more clearly what the Scriptures say -- changing my views and questioning others' views if I'm uncertain about their accuracy. It's hard to gauge from written correspondence on this kind of forum, but it seems like you're seeking to debate. For example, you said of me, "You admit that a separate experience of being filled with the Spirit is possible, so I assume you cannot deny...." "Admit" would be an incorrect word suggesting debate. I BELIEVE that Christians can (and often do) have such experiences; therefore, when a group claims something to consistently be an example(or the example) of such an experience, it should be tested against the Scriptural accounts and guidelines. I was stating my beliefs, not conceding debated points. That said, I'd like to make some observations about these passages. Acts 2 doesn't mention the "baptism" of the Spirit, and the initial verse quoted (1 Cor 12:13 -- probably when the question was asked) appears to refer to ALL Christians. I would equate this reference with receiving the Spirit (immediately following belief). Being "filled with" the Spirit appears to be different from being "baptized by" the Spirit. In John 20 and Acts 2 (along with Acts 4, etc.) receiving the Spirit and a first experience of "filling" appear to have happened separately (although there are many solid teachers and theologians who would disagree). This does not mean that they never happen together, but they initially happened separately for the disciples; this filling was also repeated (e.g. Acts 4:31) among the same people (and without any indication of supernatural tongues in that particular case). The idea that these (the "tongues" or languages of Acts 2) were somehow angelic tongues and that the listeners also miraculously (magically?) heard them in their own languages seems very far-fetched to me; let me elaborate. In the text, Luke clearly indicates that the Spirit fell upon the disciples; he says nothing about the Spirit falling upon the hearers. In fact, the text indicates they had not even received the Spirit at all after this point, set aside being filled. Peter later tells the hearers to repent and seek forgiveness and THEN RECEIVE the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Luke makes a specific point of identifying the various native languages of the hearers, and stating NOT that they could "understand" them as if in their own languages; rather they "heard" them "in [their] own languages." There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" -- but interpretation is different from hearing in one's own language. The miracle was in the disciples speaking the listeners' languages, NOT in the listeners somehow hearing some unknown language as if they were their own. Paul's explanation in 1 Cor 14:10-14 also describes the use of these gifts; I'm not an expert on languages, but I speak several. When I hear one of those foreing languages, I don't think I'm hearing English. If I'm explaining it to someone who doesn't understand, I "interpret" it; I don't repeat back the English that I heard. In addition, the word 'tongues' also means 'languages' -- which is plural, and the passage I noted from 1 Cor 14 also indicates the use of world languages. It makes logical sense to recognize that Pentecost was an example of the disciples speaking in real foreign languages, which were recognized by native speakers. It doesn't make logical sense for it to be referring to angelic languages. I can see where someone may possibly interpret other references as speaking of such angelic tongues (although I personally disagree with such interpretations), but this is the first I've heard such a suggestion specifically about Pentecost. I don't associate such a concept with any specific Christian group or groups, so my aim is not to challenge any particular group's beliefs that I know of. Have others heard such an interpretation taught? If so, how is it supported? |
||||||
91 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3614 | ||
The most natural reading of John 20:21-22 indicates that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles at that time and that the "filling" of Pentecost was something different, which empowered them to be effective in proclaiming the Gospel more powerfully. However, it is a mistake to equate this with any specific gift. It is also a mistake to equate this with current practices involving certain procedures. Please consider the following as merely an attempt at exposition and NOT intended to bash anyone or to question anyone's intentions; while some may be offended by the directness, this is not meant as an attack. The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages (Acts 2:4-11), and there is no mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I have never seen nor heard of modern-day scheduled or choreographed "Holy Spirit baptisms" being accompanied by an actual foreign language (unknown to the speaker) that a bonafide foreign language speaker testified to -- never; yet this is precisely what happened spontaneously at Pentecost. Nor have I ever heard of modern conditions where physical tongues of fire actually came down upon "recipients". It's simply not the same as the event that they claim it to be equal to. Correctly spoken praise in real languages (by non-speakers) can be easily tested by actual speakers -- as at Pentecost and likewise again in Acts 10:44-47;11:15-16 when the Gospel and the Spirit first went out to the Gentiles. Claims of unknown languages are neither verifiable nor (therefore) authoritative, since (by their very nature) they can prove nothing. This is not to say that there is no such separate experience of being "filled" with the Spirit, but Pentecost and claims of modern parallels are completely different. Can this happen? Perhaps (and most likely in a place where the Gospel is first appearing), but it should be expected to happen as a unique and spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit -- not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man. Doubtless someone somewhere may think of 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicating at least a possibility for angelic tongues -- but this is clearly hyperbole in its immediate context, which includes parallel references to people who literally "move mountains" with their faith and-or "know all mysteries and all knowledge" -- which they don't. Paul is using hyperbole to make a point about the priority of love far beyond even greatly exaggerated versions of real gifts. Please look at the context carefully. I'd like to expand more on the idea of the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but I can feel myself ready to ramble too quickly and loosely. Besides, I'm sure others can add some of the same ideas with Scripture references. Another time. |
||||||
92 | why is masterbation a sin. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3558 | ||
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 This is simply a short(?) excerpt from a longer response to an earlier question from "searchingfortruth" on 4/3 (which may be the same question that "prayon" referred to earlier). I'd suggest looking over several of the many responses to that question, which were insightful and helpful. The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. It is difficult for me to conceive of deliberate contact (e.g. masturbation) resulting in orgasm as unaccompanied by some form of fantasizing or pursuit of temptation. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). (As a side note, I would consider this to be very different from "wet dreams" -- which are often a natural release not directly related to any deliberate pursuit of temptation on the part of the individual prior to going to sleep. They may be irritating and unpleasantly messy, and the lack of control of one's thought may feel disturbing and "dirty", but I believe this is often a false guilt.) |
||||||
93 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3083 | ||
I think this is a great question, and I'd like to leave some suggestions in case Longman is watching this question for input. First, it would be wise for Lockman to have some responsible, knowledgeable and respected people (either from their own staff or from among publicly recognized experts who would be willing to be counted upon to participate voluntarily) watching the list -- as well as someone to administrate by delegating questions to these watchers to see that all questions were covered. I don't believe it would be necessary to publicly identify these watchers as representatives of Lockman, and Lockman may already have some on the list. Perhaps they should have a "future" list to draw from as the numbers of questions and-or participants increase. These "watchers" could simply join in on the discussion whenever a question was left unanswered and-or answered incompletely or unbiblically. This would serve to help people get solid answers without shutting down participation. While I'm less concerned if there are some "bad" answers in the postings, it is definitely disconcerting when someone's careful question is left without an answer or when I dig for a question that I saw previously only to find that it disappeared without being completely answered or with only an answer that may be really way out there. This seems to happen very rarely, and there do seem to be people who try to watch the list to prevent this. It should probably be broadened and or (if not currently in practice) initiated more deliberately (behind the scenes) by the hosts themselves. I agree with others' suggestions that it would probably not be appropriate to filter postings before placing them on the forum. However, it would be helpful to have some official direction and intervention from Lockman (rather than simply members from among us who may at times appear to be self-appointed rule-makers whether they are truly self-appointed or not) regarding preferred methods of hermeneutics, netiquette, and such. It may also be helpful for certain gracious administrators to privately contact individuals for correction, as long as users are notified of this practice BEFORE it starts (and new users at the time of registration). In addition, I think it would be helpful for us to try and direct our replies to the person who asked the initial question and simply refer to previous postings. That way, the person who actually posted the question would be aware of the responses (assuming he or she had requested automatic notification of answers). Finally, it may be necessary or helpful to archive questions and their answers after a certain period of time (particularly as the list grows, and it becomes difficult to "watch" late additions to old questions to make sure that twisted theology isn't slipped in to the questioner with no corrective response after the guards are down. The official "watcher" (or watchers) for the question could briefly summarize or make final comments under a different officially-recognized Lockman name before archiving them. |
||||||
94 | Age between John the Baptist and Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3548 | ||
Luke 1:24-26,36 confirms that "Elizabeth was in her 6th month" when the angel appeared to Mary, so John was at least 5 months older than Jesus, since Jesus' conception was still in the future tense when the angel revealed this to Mary (Luke 1:31,35). We don't know at exactly what point the Holy Spirit came upon Mary to conceive Jesus, but it would appear from Elizabeth's greeting in Luke 1:42 that Jesus was already growing in Mary's womb when she arrived at Elizabeth's home. Six months, as DiVash already indicated, is probably a very close estimate. (For a little bit broader context related to the timing of these events, look at Luke 1:24-57.) | ||||||
95 | History of eternal suffering doctrine? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 3428 | ||
Thank you for the reference. I used the book title you suggested as the basis for a search to find the book you recommended and was happy to find one of George Whitefield's sermons on this topic, which gave several passages. He quoted Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:47-48 (actually Mark 9:43-48). These verses give a strong argument to the idea that the soul of the unbeliever suffers eternally, so I feel they have corrected my initial understanding prior to posing this question. I'll quote them below with notes. Daniel 12:2 -- Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [This could be read as partially inclusive, as could the original verse I mentioned from Revelation.] Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [The context of this verse definitely seems all-inclusive to me, and the same Greek word is used for both instances of "eternal"; if "eternal life" means continuing forever, "eternal punishment" should mean this as well.] Mark 9:47-48 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED." [The large type is in the NASB, indicating quotation. This also appears to be all-inclusive.] |
||||||
96 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3419 | ||
Hank's concise earlier response pretty much answers this. I would simply add some of the logical observational basis for the common assumption that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry -- based on when the Scriptures do and don't say about Joseph. 5 observations are included below, which I believe indicate that Joseph died some time between Jesus' 12th birthday and the beginning of his public ministry. 1) Joseph appears in Matthew and Luke (particularly in Matthew, where Joseph's involvement is a primary focus) at the time of Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:19 specifically identifies Joseph as "being a righteous man." 2)Luke 3:23 and 4:22 identify Joseph as being the pulicly assumed and recognized father of Jesus (and 4:22 gives the indication that this reflected positively upon both of them, as they were all "speaking well of" Jesus at the time). 3) Luke 2:23 and following shows that Mary and Joseph regularly celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem and that both parents were with Jesus when he went up to Jerusalem at the age of 12. 4) The trip to Jerusalem at age 12 is the last mention of Joseph's active involvement with Jesus, and nothing at all from that time until the beginning of Jesus' public ministry is mentioned. The specific events of the (approximately 20 years of) interim are not apparently significant enough to the central message(s) of the Gospel to be included in the Scriptures (or available written history for that matter). 5) John 19:26,27 indicates that Jesus asked John to take responsibility for caring for Mary's welfare now that Jesus was gone and that John responded by taking her into his household from that day forth. (The logical implication of this is that Mary was a widow whose remaining children were not of sufficient age to care for her properly. This is an interpretation, but it's the only logical interpretation I've heard for this interchange on the cross. For further explanation of the guidelines and importance of caring for widows, see Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Tim 5:2-3,14-16). |
||||||
97 | "is" italicized or not italicized? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2927 | ||
Maybe it was a typo in the original edition. That would seem to me to be the most logical answer. I know there have been a number of typos in well-respected translations (including the several original revisions of the KJV). With all those extra words, the Amplified would be much more likely to have uncaught typos than most other translations. |
||||||
98 | History of eternal suffering doctrine? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 2919 | ||
Thanks, JVH0212. This is a question that has puzzled me for some time; it came up in another thread, and I thought this would be a great chance to get some further input. The eternality of the soul appears to be a fundamental belief among many orthodox Christian teachers and is often mentioned as an understood fact as part of the central message of the Good News itself. Does anyone know the history of this doctrine -- when, where and-or how it began; and how it came to have such an assumed part in the presentation of the Gospel? |
||||||
99 | Believing in the Bible and E.T.'s | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 2746 | ||
This is an interesting question, and I appreciate your posting it to the list. I hope my diversion to side topics doesn't offend you. I "believe" there is a significant distinction between two different meanings for "believe" that are being used. There is another thread (that started after this one and may relate to it) about the question, "What does it mean to believe?" which I'd encourage people to peruse carefully. This is a significant consideration with regard to this idea. Believing in Christ involves trust -- which results in action by its very nature. (See Ja 2:17-26; Matthew 7:15-29). This is very different from "believing in" ET's (or from believing in energy conservation, democracy, etc.) Christ is not merely a concept (e.g. energy conservation or democracy) that one supports and joins as a good thing; nor is He merely a theory that some think is probably true (e.g. extraterrestrials). There is a relational aspect where Christ rules in our hearts interactively. Likewise, the Bible, as the Word of God, carries an authority, for those who believe, that makes it the central guiding teaching of our lives (see 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:12; 2 Pe 1:20,21) and something to be studied carefully for understanding, insight and direction. It's probable that you're not considering these "beliefs" comparable (or suggesting that you've placed some significant faith in the existence of ET's) but that you're simply wondering whether the idea of ET's directly contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures. To be honest, I've never studied the Scriptures with this question in mind, and I can't help you with an answer to your actual question. There's nothing wrong with your question the way it was asked, but I wanted to clarify these things (above), since this is a public forum. |
||||||
100 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2718 | ||
Thank you, Dacajunwolf, for a very informative and helpful explanation. I haven't studied Greek (yet, but hope to) and hadn't heard of Westcott and Hort. I'm sure this (and the other replies, as well) will help prevent misinformation. Thanks to RevC for the question -- for the same reason. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |