Results 81 - 100 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | How to convince someone to go to church | Heb 10:25 | bowler | 207263 | ||
crazycatcm I only have a couple of questions - Is this person really saved? If they are saved, did they ever crack open their Bibles at home and study God's word on their own, or when they came to church where they just bench warmers? I would ask my friend nice versions of these two questions. They are key - if you are not saved, why would you bother to come? If you are saved, but you are not into God's word, there is a major problem with your concept of what it means to be a Christian and how you walk with Him. There is usually one big reason that the majority of people have as to why the don't go to church - they are not saved. The next big reason people don't go to church who are saved is they have no viable working relationship with Christ, it is dead in the water, it is not active faith. People who are saved generally hunger for God, they want to do everything possible to get next to Him and to worship Him. People go to church for all kinds of reasons, but the primary one should be to worship God with the saints. Every other consideration pales next to this one because we are the body of Christ and we should be together as one worshipping Him. If that is not important to one who claims they are a Christian, you have to wonder what they think being a Christian means they should "do" about being one. Some people are home bound, others make excuses about "what is wrong" with the church, others just don't seem to make time for God in any area of their lives. We are not fruit inspectors, but they may not be saved. Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another day after day, a long as it is still called "Today". Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
82 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | bowler | 207259 | ||
preciouspup I do apologize to you! I assumed first that you did not read it, that was wrong of me! Second I assumed that because God rebuked Jonah about wanting to die, that Jonah was allowed to live! Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
83 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | bowler | 207239 | ||
presiouspup3766 With grace and love to you, please read the book of Jonah it is exactly two and a half pages long, and has only 4 chapters and takes less than 10 minutes to read. If you are really in a hurry -you seem to be? :-):-):-) then read the last paragraph of the last chapter. Grace and peace to you and welcome to the forum. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
84 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207238 | ||
Doc There is always only one interpretation and there may be several applications. Deductive Bible study starts with the presuposition of something to be absolutely true: All cats are mortal Felix is a cat Therefore Felix is mortal In this case beccause the first premise is true and because the form is correct the conclusion is true. A (cat) plus B (mortal) is true - since C (Felix) is A (cat) - then C (Felix) plus B (mortal) is true. The inductive method of the studying the Bible starts with specific observations - I have looked at 100 T-bone steaks 100 T-bone steaks had bones T-bone steaks have bones In this case what has been observed can be said to be true, although if other observations had been made, other things could also be said to be true, although not as contradictions. It starts out as an observation of a thing from which more than one conclusion could be drawn if different elements were observed about that thing. A (100 T-bone steaks) have been observed - A (100 T-bone steaks) have B (bones) - A (100 T-bone steaks) always have B (bones) The expository study of the Bible - The text says this in the language The circumstances were this in the text The author's intent to his audience was this The author's application to his audience was this What it matters now is this, however many this's there are The application is now this, and however many this's there are The study starts with the facts of the language and history in the text, and moves to the author's intent and application for his audience, and ends with how this matters now, and how to apply it now. One could say that one starts with the premise that the text is absolutely true, and that the author proscribes the form that must be taken to arrive at a conclusion of what the interpretation is, which proscribes what the application will be. A (the language and history of the text) plus - what B (the author's intent to his audience) does - proscribes what A (the language and history of the text) means - proscribes what C (the believer) does as A (the language and history of the text) plus B (the author's intent to his audience). The first types of Bible study are "arugments" of logic and reason, the last type is not an "argument", but exegesis by itself. Now I am not saying that exegsis are not used in these methods, can't be used, were not used by those who do inductive, or deductive Bible Study. I also don't claim to have the only explanation of what inductive and deductive Bible Studies are. I am open to discussion about what these things are from your understanding, or someone elses understanding. Or even what exegesis is, as I only gave one model out of a possible several that I know of what exegsis is. As it stands about the text - Jesus was originally speaking about the unforgivable sin to the Pharisees. He told them all about His power and where it comes from and the power of Satan and them operating by the power of the devil. That is the direct original context of the verses that come before what I was originally asking about, as my verses are naturally part of that discourse. He was talking to them about what comes out of their mouths as sin, the unforgivable sin. Many have used the phrase "for the tree is known by its fruit" to mean that they are going to look at whether or not people live in sin, "do" sin - as actions like adultery, stealing, killing, hitting and so on. The idea that it has to do with "speaking" has been sort of shuffled around a bit and kind of lost. This is what I was asking about. Perhaps you were thinking that sin, is sin, is sin? Whatever kind? I do believe the passage lends itself to an application to all sin. It is the process of getting there I am interested in, not that everybody has applied it that way for eons, and so I should too. I know exactly what I believe already about a whole lot of things, and I can tick off my fingers what others tell me they believe too, and what the theologians believe. I am not interested in that part about most anything I study because that part is moot. I am interseted in being able to prove, as a workman, the reasons from scripture first and foremost, for what I already believe, or what others believe. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
85 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207231 | ||
Doc I went back to see what we were discussing. I would be happy to hear from you or Val, whoever that saint is, or anyone else on inductive study methods for post #207078.:-) I don't believe I heard you correctly! Ponificate, Pontificate? Oh, no, no, no! That is not how I view people who carefully state what they beleive in graceful terms! No matter how many times, as long as they do not apply gracefulness to the art of "graceful" insult! Let the Liberty of Christ prevail here, I am open to discussion! Now, about what you are saying in this last post Doc you made further up the branch - That there are things you do not agree with from some of the great theologians. In the instance of John Calvin for instance I happen to agree with you. In a totaly irrelevant post to this one I tried nicely as I could to differentiate between quoting the direct source theologians and quoting those who have derived creeds. That those who have made creeds whose work has partialy depended on the original source, I usually have no problem with depending on the creed. It is the source theologian's original unchanged, uninterpreted work that I often find some trouble with. Like elements of Luther's Small and Great Catechism, like the parts of the content of John Calvin's Institutes in addressing the heretics. Each has elements that show certain beliefs I cannot hold. I agree with you in this branch that the whole line of "Great Divines" have gotten this one right. If Mathew and Hebrews and James are all talking about the only Rahab that exists in the OT, then it can be none other than the Harlot. I will post you about inductive study and such in the appropriate post. I look forward to hearing from you about it. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
86 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207226 | ||
Jim Estes I would like to see if it would be possbible to look at this from a diferrent angle. Let's please put down the "Great Divines" as part of the discussion just for a minute. The Bible is the plenary inspired word of God - every word is not dictated to the writers word for word, but the actual words themselves are the scriptures God-breathed by God the author. 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16. That being said we have three New Testament writers speaking about Rahab the Harlot. Mathew 1:5 says Rahab is in Jesus lineage. Hebrews 11:13 says Rahab the Harolt had faith. James 2:25 says Rahab was justified by her works. All three writers are referring to a Rahab from the OT, and there is only one Rahab in the OT. The word Rahab appears as Rachab in the OT in Joshua, with a "c" in the Hebrew. The word Rahab appears in Hebrews and James as Rhaab borrowed from the Septuagint. The word Rahab appears in Mathew as Rhachab with an "h" and a "c", and is a derivative of the Hebrew Rachab, and is not from the Septuagint. The translators settled on Rahab for all texts. The time lines may not be something we can ever resolve. There are mysteries in the Bible, they belong to God. Both Rahab and Ruth took the God of the Hebrews to be thier God, nowhere does it say they went back to paganism. Why can it not be that they converted to Judaism and are therefore truly Jews? Paul says being Jewish is a circumsion of the heart, on that basis alone, they qualify to be in Jesus lineage - by God's sovereign will. This is just my humble opinion. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler We may not have to place our trust in the Great Divines, but we can place our trust in the same thing they did, the authority of the Bible - Sola Scriptura. |
||||||
87 | What are these verses telling us? | Gen 6:2 | bowler | 207187 | ||
Mr. Rhoades No offense to you at all, this is a good question. I have seen many fight over this question so I am not going to offer an opinion here as if it is my view point. I refuse to say which one I believe in as I am not here to push my views or be judged, or censured for what I believe in. I need to include verses one and five to do this. Veiw One - 1) Men still lived a long time, Lamech the father of Noah lived 595 years in chapter 5. Daughters were born to these men who lived a long time. 2) The Sons of God refers to the sons of Seth, as Sons of Seth was referred to as the godly line who called upon God in chapter 4. Or it refers to the sons of the kings, as the Sons of God, who wished to build up harems. 3) These Sons of God which ever human group they were took wives for themselves. They had to be human because angels do not procreate or have sex or have the organs to do so. 4) The Nephilim - in Hebrew means bully, giant, tyrant - whoever the fathers were the offspring of all of these marriages were big bad men. They are called "mighty men who were of old, men of renown" - it is thought that they did great physical feats, perhaps in battle as well as other unknown things. 5) These men were so bad and there were so many of them that they contributed greatly to the depravity of all the men on the earth and the wickedness of men was great - every thought of the heart was evil continually, so God decided to destroy men. View Two - 1) Men were "going forth and multiplying" and daughters were born to them. 2) The term Sons of God is Ben Elohim and appears in other places in the OT to refer to angels like in Job. In Job it is said that the angels were "presenting themselves to God" - as in they were going up to where God is in heaven to report to Him or to worship Him. 3) Three Angels appeared to Abraham and they ate bread, so it is said all three took on human form, and one of them was a theophany of Jesus. So it is possible for angels to take on human form. 4) Jude 1:6, 7 the angels did not keep their proper domain and abandoned their proper abode - they both left heaven and transformed to human form. And because of what they did in that state they are kept in eternal bonds until judgment day. 5) Just as Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in gross immorality and "went after strange flesh", these rebellious angels did the same exact thing according to Jude - they procreated with the wrong species or kind. Where the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah went men after men as "strange flesh", so the angels went outside their proper domain and "went after strange flesh" with women. Now some Evangelicals believe these angels were "possessing" men. Some believe they were real angels in human real human form because the Bible does not say that humans were possessed, and the Bible does not specifically say angels cannot procreate if they were to take on human form. 6) It is possible that the Greek and Roman myths of the Titans have some element of truth in them as these "mighty men of old, men of renown" that got woshipped later after the Greeks and Romans heard about them as "stories" they heard but never saw. Think flood, these mighty men all perished and the whole thing was never repeated. 7) The deeds of these Nephilim, these giants were very evil and very great, they had superhuman like abilities perhaps in war and physical feats. They contributed so greatly to evil on the earht and there were so many of them that in addition to the sins of all the men which was continually evil thoughts from the heart God decided to destroy men. These are two views I personally have heard preached from various pulpits and on the Evangelical radio stations by some very popular conservative and reformed Evangelicals who believe they are practicing Sola Scriptura. I will not get into the problems each of these veiws presents. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
88 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207176 | ||
Jim Estes You were addressing Doc, but I would like to jump in, although I wouldn't presume to answer for Doc or anyone else.:-) When we consider Sola Scriptura there is a tendency to think in term of Scripture first and only Scripture should interpret Scripture. Your post here got me to thinking about this important doctrine and how we use it. I while ago there was another post, unrelated to this whole branch, in which it came up that there are different ways to go about getting an interpretation. Don't worry, I am coming back to your point with this. The discussion started one place and got off onto styles of interpretation. That post and this one got me, as I say thinking about how we use Sola Scriptura. The "Great Divines" as some like to call them, at least the ones some Christians pay attention to, sat down and studied according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They spent laborious amounts of time pouring over all the various aspects of Bible Study using exegesis. They came to the conclusions they came to about what scripture is saying to all of us by various methods of interpretation. Many of them agree about a great number of things. I have a theory for you without attempting to speak for anyone, including myself. When so many theologians have studied a topic, a passage, a book, a doctrine, and all come to the same conclusion, it is seen by a great many individuals picking up their works and reading them that they have hit upon the truth. Numbers of people believing the same thing does not make it true. However, there is only one true interpretation of any part of the Bible, there are not two, or three. "Authorities external to the Scriptures" they may be, but they may have studied these scriptures to a high degree that some of us are not capable of, or would not have the time for, and have all come to the same conclusion about the same thing. Now, all that was not in defense of anyone, or anything, but just a careful observation of these "Great Divines". I myself have found I disagree strongly with them, regardless of the numbers of them that have said, this, or that because in studying for myself and arriving at a different conclusion, I could not agree. And after talking to people outside of here, whose credentials I will not get into, they aslo did not agree. So, don't get me wrong, because I have, even in here, disagreed with the findings of the "Great Divines". You are not looking for sympathy, and I don't offer any. I do see your point. I aslo see that there is a different way to view what constitutes adherence to Sola Scriptura than to say that "authorities and doctrines" are acting or are having views outside the "authority of scripture". This is just my humble opinion and is not to put anybody down, or to act like it is my job to solve some apparent difference between two people, or to push my views on you. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
89 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207173 | ||
Zor I have followed this post for a while. I am wondering about something. What do you plan to do with this presentation to your children of the genealogy of Jesus in the OT? I think that you only needed the genealogy of Jesus as a part of what you were trying to teach them about the conquest and Judges. A next question I have; is it necessary to prove that the genealogy is historically correct as to how many generations spanned a certain time period? Is this information central to the main point, or points you intend to make to the children about the period of conquest and Judges? I have two scriptures I considered about this aspect of what you originally needed an answer to in seeing another post that commented on discussions like this one. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, eqquipped for every good work. There is no such thing as a scripture that does not have an application. 1 Timothy 1:4 Nor to pay attention to myths and genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. Specualtion about genealogies is fruitless and does not further the administration of God. We may not be able to ever resolve what apparent gaps or "textual problems" that arise. The answer to those things may not yeild an application that you could get out of such texts. The answers to those thing may resolve accademic problems that can have real merit in a Bible Study if the mystery unravels. The accurate recording of the genealogies of Jesus prove that Jesus came from the line of David - God's word came true that David would have an eternal heir on the throne! The interpretation of genealogies about Jesus would be Jesus is the eternal king as God. The application would be He is worthy of worship. Is there really any need to proove the accuracy of the time line to get there? Do we really need to have answers to genealogies to teach that? I leave you as the father who decides what is appropriate to teach his children about God and the Bilble to decide such things. I could not infringe on your right to do what you see fit and tell you that your question is "unprofitable", or "innapropriate", or that it "is not about the more important things of faith". Only you know what your intention was in trying to provide proof of what the Bible says, by using the Bible, for your children. I judge no one here, I offer no opinion here that anyone was wrong for this question, or any other post, or note. I pray to offend no one. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
90 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207172 | ||
Zor I found something, although it does not answer your question, it has some information that might be valuable to the work you are doing. It is large and you have sift through it for things you might want. I make a disclaimer up front, that it really does not resolve your issue about the generations and whether there was a good time frame. But it does provide a lot of information on both Luke's and Mathew's genealogies and compares them and refutes a lot objections to their veracity. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm I found something else in trying to sift through things - Salmon was Caleb's cousin? Caleb's birth was listed somewhere back in Numbers? Only Caleb and Joshua made it into the promised land? What happened to Salmon? Numbers was written in about 1406 B.C.? Joshua was written in about 1000 B.C.? Salmon did to get into Canaan land, did he, was he a child? Then if that is how he survived to get into Canaan, how did he live 400 or a bit under years to be around to marry Rahab in Joshua which was written about 1000? Am I just triping over the math here? I believe the Bible is the literaly sovereign word of God and I am not questioning His sovereignty in authoring the Bible and getting it right. This is what we call a "textual problem". It may not be resolvable, there are mysteries. I did not mean to add to the dilema for you, just thought you might be interested in the two things I came across about this. And I purposefully did not look every single thing up about Salmon being this or that because it became too much. I stumbled across someone writing about it and took that away wondering about. I refused to provide a link to that because I did not like the tone toward God's holy word. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
91 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207169 | ||
Immanuelsown Two things, how could we even begin to compare Benny Hinn and people's response to him to Jesus Christ and people's response to Him? I don't for one second think you are supporting Benny Hinn, far from it! I simply cringe at the two being used to illustrate a mode of response by anybody in the same sentence, which I realize is all you were trying to do. I would ask you, what you would do with some of the original scriptures I provided that dealt with individuals and not with the crowds? In these accounts Jesus healed them and they exhibited absolutely no faith, as oppossed to the other batch of scriptures I provided where those who were healed had faith. It is apparent regarding healing individuals from my first batch of scriptures that they had no faith, faith was not mentioned, was not a factor, and Jesus did not address it saying they had faith. So it is not true, I am not saying you said exactly so, that people got healed because they had faith and sought Jesus. He often walked up to them, healed them, finished and walked off and they did not get saved, or have faith. Just a thought. Just a worthless son. blessings aboung, bowler |
||||||
92 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207168 | ||
BradK I do believe I have finally heard a really good answer to my orginal question in this post of yours. Everyone had excellent answers, however this does very much cover all the bases here - 1 Their unbelief was out of His hands. 2 He knew that they would not be profited by His continuance. 3 He Himself states that He was least received in His own home town, a place where it is likely He would have been willing to do much. I would not disparge the thoughts of all the others here, each of them contributed valuable insights. Thank you. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
93 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207167 | ||
Azure With all due respect to you and your point the fact that it is a gift is not because "we would be pleased to accept a gift" and God does not give the "gift" to please us, but Himself. Paul - Romans 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Romans 5:15-17 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of God of the one Man Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came throught the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from the one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who recieve the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One Jesus Christ. The gift of the grace of God, salvation, God was pleased to give - 1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom fo God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased throught the foolishness of the message preached to save those who beleive. Those who are repentant and seeking Christ for forgivness of sins and entrance into eternal life are receiving the free gift of God's grace - but it is not their reaching and receiving the gift that is the focus of the word "gift" as it appears in referrence to "grace" in the Bible. The focus is on what God is doing. When people humble themselves and come to Christ God will work on them through the Holy Spirit and they will come to understand the greatness of the "gift of grace" they have received. I completley agree with you that when we understand that we need grace our heart and mind will be changed. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
94 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207133 | ||
Steve I pray to the Lord my God not to get people to wrangling about my questions, God forbid! I understand your concern here, in seeing it as you see it I could wish I had phrased it much better, because as you so succinctly point out the wording is causing, well it is causing. I did try to include the following scriptures as part of my question, they are all instances where "apparently" He healed and we don't know who had faith and who did not. Mathew 4:24, 8:16, 17, 12:15 – 21, 12:22, 14:14, 15:30, 19:2, 19:14, 21:14, Luke 5:15, 9:42, 22:51, John 5:1 - 9. I get what you are saying here - we should just take it at scripture value that the Lord Jesus made judgment call and that He said it was because of their unbelief, not that "He couldn't". Bad wording. What I was seeing looking at all those other scriptures is a lack of evidence that those crowds and groups had faith, there are instances there where He is definitely dealing with lookers on who had no faith. We know Jesus power came from being God, and not from mass hysteria, or from the recipients as if He needed something from them to accomplish anything. We have too many instances where demons were cast out, infirmities healed, and in none of them does He say their sins are forgiven, nor does the Bible say they had faith. I was trying to see what the difference was. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
95 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207132 | ||
Azure Thank you Azure. I perhaps was thinking about the fact that the ages of men went slowly down from around 900, then by the time of the end of Genesis a good bit lower, then we have Moses at 120, then the Psalms speaks of 80 years if by strength. I was merely trying to apply what "might" be possible according to the "record" of scripture to the question at hand by using a little math. I pray I have not offended you by this. Did you see Doc's post? I must say his math was far superior to mine. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
96 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207130 | ||
Doc Oh Jolly Good Doc, Jolly Good! I am very impressed. Your math is better than mine.:-) Thank you for that. Just an unworthy son. blessings abound |
||||||
97 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207129 | ||
Immanuelsown Yes it was most helpful! Thank you for the link, but I was not able to use it the page said it was deleted or moved. I went to study what you were talking about in more detail and I found a fairly good site - http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php After studying these concepts on a number of different sites I have become most intrigued with "Dogmatics". Now, this was most illuminating. So was the rest of what was there. I have no personal comment on anyone here, or myself as to what I read on that site, nor do I venture an opinion about it. Via the discussion at hand about how to arrive at an interpretation of a passage, or a phrase - There is always only one interpretation and there may be several applications. I don't claim to have all the correct applications by the way. Deductive Bible study starts with the presuposition of something to be absolutely true: All cats are mortal Felix is a cat Therefore Felix is mortal In this case beccause the first premise is true and because the form is correct the conclusion is true. The inductive method of the studying the Bible starts with specific observations - I have looked at 100 T-bone steaks 100 T-bone steaks had bones T-bone steaks have bones In this case what has been observed can be said to be true although if other observations had been made other things could also be said to be true. It starts with not an absolute truth premise but an observation of a thing from which more than one conclusion could be drawn if different elements were observed about that thing. According to what I read there, true Bible study necessarily incorporates both elements in one sense or another working off, or with one another. I try to stick to exposition as much as possible before consulting people, or commentaries, or anything esle. When all esle fails I ask somebody after looking in the books. 2 Timothy 2:15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
98 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207116 | ||
Zor I found one thing that might interest you. Moses lived 120 years. It says in Genesis 6:3 that God would shorten the days of men to 120 days. It says in Psalm 90:10 that our days are as 80 years if due to strength. If we were to consider that perhpaps they all lived to about 120 it works better. 480 years divided by 6 is 80 (6? I thought you said 5 the first time), 480 divided by 5 is 96. If these men had children by the time they were 80, and remember they seem to have children late in life in many Bible stories. So if each man had children at about 80 and then lived another 40 years or so it works out just fine. Even if they had children at about 96 and then lived for anoter 24 years, it still works out. Even if you only count the exact number before David in Mathew 1 as four it still works out beause it gives each man 120 years to live as the minimum, although it is possible some of them lived to 140 or so. Remember Jesse is still alive when David is born for a while, so he could have David by 80 and still been around before dying at around 120. What we can be certain of is that Doc is right about the records being kept in the temple of everyone's genealogy. So we have to take it as historical fact and try to do a little math. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
99 | when you die. when do you go to heaven | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 207115 | ||
ljcarr I would like to add my one cent. 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are of good courage, I say, and prefer to rather to be ansent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Philippians 1:23 But I am hard pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better. I could be very wrong but it seems to me that Paul is not only saying where he wishes to be, he implies that as soon as we are gone from here we are with the Lord. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
100 | verses on God raising Jesus from dead | Rom 10:9 | bowler | 207114 | ||
LovemyLord7 No offense meant you need a Strong's Concordance and a Bible with a good referrence column. Here is a start though off the top of my head - Acts 2:24 Acts 10:40 1 Corinthians all of chapter 15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |