Results 81 - 100 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | When is abortion right? | Ex 21:23 | disciplerami | 74834 | ||
Dear CDBJ, I don't hear anyone say, 'well, we want to do the right thing, and there does seem to be some debate about whether its a child or not, but clearly it isn't wrong to abort babies.' When in doubt, steer right. If, for arguments sake, we say that it is ultimately unknowable, it seems that the prudent thing to do would be to go the safest way. Here's what I mean. If you are right-life begins at birth-then the only harm done is a lot of women are made to carry their babies to term. If we pro-life people are right-life begins at conception-there are 40,000,000 murders someone is going to have to answer to God for. Is an abortion worth doing when there is the chance that God will charge you with murder? We know where murderers go, so I don't think it is worthy the risk. But there is a silver lining in this dark cloud: aborted babies have no sin and go straight to heaven (2 Sam. 12:23) |
||||||
82 | When is abortion right? | Ex 21:23 | disciplerami | 74838 | ||
Dear Chuck, Forgive me for jumping in here, I understand that you would rather let this drop, but I just can't without saying a little something. You write: "Just for the record I hate abortion" I wonder, in what way do you 'hate' it? Is it a personal preference 'hate it' type thing. I'm curious to know WHY you 'hate' it, in what sense to do you hate abortion? The reason I ask is because I hate abortion too, but my hate is because I find it morally wrong. I hate it because I think it is sin. It arises out of sin and is practiced because of sin. Apparently your hatred of the practice isn't the same hatred. For the sake of understanding, I sincerely would like to know why you hate it. |
||||||
83 | When is abortion right? | Ex 21:23 | disciplerami | 74915 | ||
Well, certainly you are correct in pointing out that we are all guilty and the surefire way of being forgiven is to repent. Murderers can repent and be forgiven. So please don't take me wrong. Polarbeardog 2 really opened a can of worms when asking 'when is abortion right.' Talk about a leading question! But we don't have to go there. because it is simple enough to say that its never right. Take care. | ||||||
84 | Who was Micah's grandfather? | Judg 17:1 | disciplerami | 72632 | ||
Greetings, I need a little help. Was Micah from the book of Judges the grandson of Moses? God bless. |
||||||
85 | Eight or Eighteen when Jehoiachin reign | 2 Chr 29:6 | disciplerami | 75840 | ||
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown says the following: "8. Jehoiachin--that is, "God-appointed," contracted into Jeconiah and Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24). eighteen years old when he began to reign--At the age of eight his father (Jehoiakim)took him into partnership in the government (2 Chronicles 36:9). He began to reign alone at eighteen." |
||||||
86 | Contradictions | 2 Chr 29:6 | disciplerami | 75842 | ||
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown says the following: "8. Jehoiachin--that is, "God-appointed," contracted into Jeconiah and Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24). eighteen years old when he began to reign--At the age of eight his father (Jehoiakim)took him into partnership in the government (2 Chronicles 36:9). He began to reign alone at eighteen." |
||||||
87 | Contradictions | 2 Chr 29:6 | disciplerami | 75941 | ||
Sometimes you have to be knocked on the head twice to for something to sink in. Obviously, what is offered is an viable explanation. What people think are contradictions are usually answered with more study. Good day. |
||||||
88 | Who is able to 'seek'? | Ezra 8:22 | disciplerami | 76143 | ||
Is God's power for those seek Him of their own volition, or is it only for those who seek Him as He gives them impulse to? | ||||||
89 | Who is able to 'seek'? | Ezra 8:22 | disciplerami | 76148 | ||
Maybe you should read a little closer before responding: it says, "The hand of our God is favorably disposed to all those who seek Him," So let me ask the question again, "is God's power for those who seek Him of their own volition, or is it only for those who seek Him as He gives them impulse to? |
||||||
90 | What was the man thinking? | Prov 23:7 | disciplerami | 72500 | ||
The passage is a warning to anyone who might be enticed be things external: food or a smile. Beware, for you may be sorry later. It is not what the man says that matters, it is what he is thinking that is your concern. What he is thinking isn't good. He isn't a good host, he is offering gifts because he has ulterior plans. He is a ruler and only hopes to use you to gain an advantage through you. Someone who is perceptive, not allowing the eyes to be glazed over by promises of riches or food, will recognize the true heart of this man. A wise man will be very cautious about whose delicacies he takes. Later, when the careless man is called to return the favor, he will throw up the morsels and take back his compliments. I like this vese because it is so practical. God bless. |
||||||
91 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77201 | ||
2nd post. Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
92 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77268 | ||
Dear Tim Moran, The translation is quite clear the way it is. The way that you propose it should be is translated is no where to be found. It's not just a matter of the difference between 'you', singular or plural, it's a matter of cutting and splicing the entire passage in ways that no one else attempts. The Greek doesn't say, "Repent BECAUSE of the remission of sins, AND be baptized afterward..." Simple grammar is what I hope is visible in the NASB translation. Why do you claim that it is 'simple grammar' that supports your position, yet no translation board, no Greek text has the verse parsed or translated accordingly? I say, if anyone is unwilling to budge it is you. Show me the verse, show me the variant reading, give me evidence. A.T. Robertson's remark does not help your case. He says that the English translation does not preserve the thought. How so? My NASB says, 'Peter said to THEM, Repent (I think that implies he is still talking to the audience YE,THEM) and let EACH ONE (sounds like individual emphasis, reflecting the singular verb 'be baptized') OF YE (humon, plural pronoun, so the 3rd singular verb with the plural pronoun makes the command match in number to the command to 'repent') Following the second verb, for 'be baptized' is the plural pronoun YE which matches the YE connected to forgiveness of sins. Also, your example sentence doesn't work. It doesn't make sense, but Acts 2:38 does. The conditional "if" of your sample sentence goes against your entire argument that the blessing doesn't follow. Or are you now admitting, by offering this sample sentence, that 'forgiveness of sins' is conditional to repentance and baptism? You have me confused. To fit, it would have to include two imperative commands with a result following the second. To my children: "graduate (Ye) high school, and attend college (each individual of YE) out of respect to me with a view to receiving (YE)a degree, and your tuition will be paid in full." -- Rules of Dad 2:38 Have a good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
93 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77280 | ||
Hi Tim, I'm not really writing any books because I've still three at home and every day is an adventure, if you know what I mean? Tim, you write, "One cannot say in Greek, 'Be baptized (singular) for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins!'" The reason I have to write one more time on this is because that's not exactly what it says. Here is something a little closer: "Be baptized (singular) YE (plural) for the forgiveness of your (YE) (plural) sins!" Take a look at the Greek and you'll see. The pronoun "YE/humon" is twice in that sentence: once following 'be baptized' and once following 'sins.' The distinction between 'you' and 'ye' was shown pretty well in our Olde English Bibles, but the new translations don't do it. 'Ye' was the word used for showing the plural of 'you.' I wouldn't mind a Texas version, showing 'you' for singular and 'ya'll' for plural. But you make the statement: "The reason I can't appeal to a translation is simple - there is no way in English to express this distinction!!! :-)" The plural and singular can easily be shown if the Greek supports it. The reason the translators don't bother is because those being commanded to repent are the same ones being commanded to be baptized (YE and YE). I don't see the problem. Thanks for taking the time. Disciplerami |
||||||
94 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77286 | ||
You have a grandbaby? Me too. You wrote: "If Peter had meant what you are saying, he simply would have had to use the plural command to 'be baptized'. But, he didn't for a reason! :-)" I don't believe that is right, the singular "each one" is follow by the genetive OF YE. You are right, the Greek "be baptized" could have a plural form, but it is not ungrammatical to do it this way: the manner in which we have received gives emphasis to the individual, but still applies to the "Ya'll" plural. Lk 22:31 the word transalted 'you' is the accusative plural, humas, so Satan must have requested permission to sift two or more of the disciples like wheat. The same word is used in vese 35, and all of the disciples understood it so and so it is translated, "you (Ye) did not lack anything, did you? And they said, 'No..." The English is clear enough when it shows that all responded. Again, the Greek plural is often depicted in the King James as 'Ye.' I wish we had that in our modern English. |
||||||
95 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77936 | ||
Search for ID 77890 and 77929 for response the argument that singular 'be baptized' is not connected to 'forgiveness' (singular) of the sins (plural) of Ye (plural). | ||||||
96 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 78060 | ||
Hi Tim, How I wish there wasn't this difference between us. I believe that you have not yet grasped what I or the Bible are saying about the necessity of works. It's not that works 'earn' you anything: you can never do enough works to attain the state of righteousness. BUT works are 'in keeping' with Biblical, saving faith. John had people coming to him for baptism: immersion for the remission of sins. But he refused to baptized the 'brood of vipers'. "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" He then said, "bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance." Hence, a working repentance, not just being sorry for past sins, was required before he would baptize them. Many people started asking what they needed to do and he told them. But Herod, in contrast, threw John into prison. Herod did not repent by putting away the unlaw marriage. I venture to say that none on this forum - save the infant baptizers - believe that baptism, in and of itself, can save. But the Bible clearly shows that Baptism is the place where God's grace saves. That is why there was such urgency to baptize in the early church (and still is today by those like myself). I'm glad that you teach the necessity of baptism. But baptism is commanded for a specific purpose and should be received with that purpose in mind. Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
97 | Was the Disciples married? | Matt 8:14 | disciplerami | 77438 | ||
Greetings, The Bible shows that Peter was married, and Paul indicates that others were as well. 1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Disciplerami |
||||||
98 | Was the Disciples married? | Matt 8:14 | disciplerami | 77439 | ||
Sorry, I thought Matthew 8:14 would be included, not just the reference. Matt 8:14 When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. |
||||||
99 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78400 | ||
I have read from many Greek Scholars that the word translated in this verse "at", which is the Greek preposition EIS, is always prospective. But some say that the usage of the word in this verse is retrospective/causal and represents an exception to the rule. My question is this: Does this verse say Nineveh repented BECAUSE of the preaching of Jonah (retrospective use of EIS), or does this verse say Nineveh repented INTO/TOWARD the preaching of Jonah [i.e. moving their lives toward the pattern outlined in Jonah's preaching]? Help me out please. Disciplerami |
||||||
100 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78481 | ||
Searcher, I agree the word denotes 'purpose' and not 'cause'. The English 'for' is not the best choice of words for translating the Greek EIS because 'for' can be used prospectively and retrospectively. But the Greek word is only retrospective. There are other Greek prepositions that would be used if 'Because' was the intended idea. Thanks for the feedback. Disciplerami |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |