Results 8221 - 8240 of 8433
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
8221 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9583 | ||
Yes yes a thousand times yes!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about. By the way I like your Plenenary, Verbal, Confluent, Inerrant definitions. I too are one. I do not believe there is one word in the Bible that God didn't intend to be there. I then say if God intended them to be there he had to have a reason for them. If we dismiss them as issues from another place and times we stand in danger of dismissing what God intended to say. Let me use your example I quote, "For instance, 1 Cor. talks about praying with head coverings. Paul gives a command there, but most of us realize that this was a cultural custom from a different time, so we don't pray with our heads covered. However, we do recognize that there is a universal principle being taught as well." Let me ask a question, do you view the church today as being in the place Jesus wants it to be? Do you see it victorious, leading the way, effecting governments and nations for Christ or do you see it rather as almost fighting for survival defending itself on all sides from attack. Let me ask another question, could the problem be we have dismissed things like this and somehow placed ourselves outside God's perfect will? Have we compromised this out and that out until we have literally compromised ourselves out of God's power and will? |
||||||
8222 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9548 | ||
JVH0212 You caught me this is the same question. ;-) I was hoping for fresh dialogue, not saying there was anything wrong with yours. But we kept dead ending as you tried to narrow me down to one particular doctrine in question. My concern is not with anyone particular doctrine but rather with the general concept of discounting something in the Bible as merely man dealing with a situation. What I’m trying to do is get people to think about these men that come on TV, Radio or even from the pulpit who are trying to be popular or PC and say this doctrine doesn’t pertain to the church today. Their usual argument is this was the writer correcting the a local situation and was never intended for today’s church. In days past it concerned, women in the ministry, children and general conduct. Today the same approach is being used to support homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research and the list grows. I say baloney! We either take the Bible as God’s inspired Word and stand on it’s infallibility or we say it is nothing more than the ramblings of men of old who left their situations, society, ego’s, prejudices, and their inherent beliefs shape what they wrote. And I for one will never do that!!!!! In my examples your absolutely right there would be many many things the Pagan would wonder about. But I believe he would come to an understanding of the basic principals of Christian living provided the Holy Spirit was involved. Of course he would not understand the awesomeness of the Balaam’s talking donkey if he had never seen or heard of a donkey before. Or he would wonder about earthquakes if he never felt one. Or find it strange to talk about a sword or a spear if he never had one. However I believe God has supplied in the Bible everything we need to determine if a doctrine, precept, command, or statue applies to us today or not. I think we run into to hazardous territory when we try to explain away any verse of doctrine, precept, command, or statue as nothing more than the writer bringing correction to a local social issue that doesn’t apply today unless we have Biblical proof of that fact. As to the example of the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, first I think we can all agree the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved. Secondly they weren’t looking for the truth they were trying to apply man’s understanding and logic to scripture. |
||||||
8223 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9540 | ||
Tim You never did answer this question can I hand a pagan a Bible written in his language and giving him time to study and apply it expect him to come away with correct doctrine? Or do you believe important concepts or important information has been left out of the Bible without which the Pagan would reach the wrong conclusions? Way too many people today are taking this passage or that passage and are saying, “we don’t have to live by this, the writer of this passage was just trying to correct a local situation in a local church, this was never intended to pertain to the whole church. Let’s take a crazy example in 1 Cor. 5:1 Paul talks about a man with his fathers wife. Paul calls it sexual immorality (which it is!). Let’s say for the sake of this discussion we have no other teaching on this. What is to prevent someone from saying, “1Cor. 5:1 was written to correct a problem in the Corinthian church and does not pertain to us today. It was written because Paul knew they had some bad genes and he didn’t want genetic mutations to take place that is why he told them it was sexual immorality. That having sex between as son and mother is really the safest sex your keeping it in the family?” I realize this is absurd example but understand if we open the door to do it in one place what is to prevent someone else from coming through that same door and doing in another? Who is to be the final authority? By doing this with any passage like 1Tim 2:11 we are saying God isn’t. !!!!Disclaimer before anybody jumps on me for teaching heresy. Sex between a son and his father’s wife is in fact SIN! Here and many other places in the Bible, it is forbidden!!!! |
||||||
8224 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9537 | ||
Tim, we must read this passage in context, the context being "conduct in public worship". In that light Paul is not giving instructions on women in ministry but women in public worship. Paul never shut them out of ministry nor did he shut them out of public worship. He just said that women should not be teaching doctrine in public worship. Should we base our doctrine on this one passage? No. However if we read all through Paul’s teachings he referenced and addressed men in the position of church leadership not women. No one can deny that is the slant of his writing. In giving the qualifications of a Bishop, elder or deacons Paul again infers it being a man. It is true Paul never said it can’t be a woman, but I think it reasonable to say Paul writings definitely never intended a woman to be a Pastor. Can God use a woman in as Pastor? Absolutely God can do whatever He wants (this kid is not going to attempt to put God in any box). However before a woman does make that step she has to weigh her perceived call against the Bible’s teaching on this subject and what she has in her spirit. I do not think she should make her decision discounting any passage (like this that give direction) because someone said it was written for a particular situation and does not pertain to today. |
||||||
8225 | literalness between NAS77 and 95 | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 9535 | ||
Hank Excellent explanation and fantastic examples! I love the NASB but found the pre 95 version very hard to read aloud from. My senses were in conflict over word placement. The Updated version flows so much more smoothly, the words just come out. |
||||||
8226 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9447 | ||
Tim in context with this question is the question of women in ministry. Prayon said that this verse was not establishing doctrine but was merely correcting a problem within a local congregation. You agreed or so I thought. So I asked you the question do you think God to be so short sighted that he failed to include the needed information to correctly determine if this text was in fact stating doctrine or was just correcting a local situation? I'm not trying to put you on the spot but I think we have to face this issue. By saying God didn’t mean what he said, and you have to understand the situation and this is really what he meant is now opening the doors for all kinds of problems. Anybody that can make a plausible if not provable argument can now cast a shadow on almost any verse of scripture. We are seeing it beginning to happen with the homosexuals, they are saying the prohibition against homosexuality found in the bible isn’t that. They say it was included to stop male temple prostitution that God created homosexuals and they have been used through out history for God’s glory. Then they ask did God create second class citizens, in an effort to level the PC field. I’m certainly not trying to put women in ministry in the same light as the sin of homosexuality, but if we are going to apply outside standards to interpret one verse can we prevent another from applying outside standards to another? See where this leads where do we stop? I think we have to get back to a strict literal interpretation to avoid even more insidious conflicts in the future. |
||||||
8227 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9438 | ||
Let me redo this. First I wrongly included JVH0212's response as a yes to my question. JVH0212's response was placing historical data in right perspective with Biblical. However if I'm not mistaken Morgan61 you feel that Bible does lack the some of the information we need to make a correct doctrinal decision. That we need to consider outside information before we can come to an answer. Is that your position? |
||||||
8228 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9428 | ||
Without trying to start a war is it fair to assume both yours and JVH0212's answer to my question is yes? Are you both saying I couldn't hand a pagan a Bible written in his own language, leave him alone to digest it all and then come back expecting him to have correct doctrine because God allowed some important details out? |
||||||
8229 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | EdB | 9418 | ||
Prayon I have created this separate thread so as to not eliminate your question/comment. Let me give one point for you to ponder. I think we all agree the Bible was for all people, all societies, both past and present. Do you really believe we must understand a Biblical society to get the full revelation of the scripture. Your hypotheses is that we don’t take into consideration the situation of the time therefore we come to the wrong conclusion. Would God be so short sighted not to include an important piece of information, without which we would make a wrong conclusion? |
||||||
8230 | Re: Explain this to me | Matt 28:19 | EdB | 9410 | ||
Hank, What a great idea to do this rather than remove the question from pending. I wish everyone that really didn't have an answer would follow suit. Many great questions (not saying this was a great question)get lost because people who just want to add a comment to enhance the discussion rather than submit an answer end up removing the question from pending. What a contrast the Mormons pay 10,000 dollars for the privelege of doing what Christ asked us to do, while most Christians sit and even refuse when begged. We must make Jesus proud. Ed |
||||||
8231 | Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath? | 2 Sam 21:19 | EdB | 9408 | ||
Steve you might be right but I see Goliath having 4 brothers in the 2 Samuel 19 passage. I figure that is why David picked up 5 smooth stones 1 Sam 17:40. David thought he might have to fight and kill Goliath's 4 brothers, after he was finished with Goliath. | ||||||
8232 | Tree of Life can we say? | Gen 3:22 | EdB | 9407 | ||
Thanks to Steve, Nolan and THECROSS for your answers. I totally agree. Man as created was not going to live forever, he needed to eat from the tree of life to continue living. Can we then say physical death was not part of the curse of sin but rather a result of it? We don’t die because of the fall in the garden we die because we are separated from God’s presence and therefore from the ‘tree of life’ which would sustain life. I say this not to appear unorthodox but rather I see modern Christianity putting so much emphasis on the phyasical aspect of the fall. Modern man is focused on his physical situation rather than his spiritual situation. I think the adversary has successfully deflected Modern Christianity’s focus from the spiritual reality of the fall to the physical results to miss the spiritual truths. The reality of the cross gets lost as they seek after more physical fulfillment. Modern Christianity looks to God to make man wealthy, healthy, and wise. To feel good about himself, confident in his own capabilities and depend on his inner strength. Many look forward to eternal life and riches rather than a intimate relationship with God. |
||||||
8233 | Some more questions? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 9401 | ||
Good word of encouragement. But the fact remains Mormons, Jehovah Witness, and other can motivate their people to get off the pew and out into the world. Why don't Christians have that same type of motivation? Jesus gave us the command to “Go”. Don't we have an obligation to do just that? Jesus said if you love Me you will obey Me. Does this lack of willingness to “Go” speak also of our lack of love for Christ? | ||||||
8234 | Explain this to me | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 9356 | ||
Explain this someone. I just picked up a newspaper article, almost the full page. The headline reads, “PROMPTED BY THE SPIRIT” with a sub title of “Twelve young missionaries, many from the Midwest, go in pairs, knocking on doors throughout Carrollwood and declaring their beliefs.” Carrollwood is an upscale suburb of Tampa Florida. Then there is a 6x10 picture showing two young men on their knees praying. Under the picture is the caption. Elder Tyler Bigler, left and John Shields, right pray in their apartment before making rounds as missionaries for the Mormon church. The two have paid the church 10,000 dollars to serve two-year stints as missionaries in Carrollwood. The encourages all young men in the faith to serve.” What I would like explained is how the Mormon church is able to convince these young people to serve and even to pay 10,000 dollars to do so. When my wife could not convince any of the ladies in our church to go with her to a small apartment complex to invite the ladies that live there to upcoming ‘Ladies Fellowship.’ Yes I know Mormons make works part of the salvation experience and all. Why don't we see even a glimmer of this type of commitment in Christian church especially considering the last chapter of Matthew Jesus says, “GO”. |
||||||
8235 | Hank your feelings on Ruth? | Ruth | EdB | 9352 | ||
Hank, you know its funny, I understand the Kinsman-redeemer relationship and can appreciate it but somehow seeing Boaz as a type of Christ has never set with me. I know many people hold to this, but I could never get it to square in my spirit. I see this more of a story of a righteous man and woman fulfilling the obligations that others placed on them. And as a reward for this righteousness God permitted them to take a place in the lineage of Jesus. What are your feelings on it? | ||||||
8236 | Where did you get this info? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 9351 | ||
Tim Thanks, I was standing in awe. I thought it was something you knew off the top of your head. I was wondering how you kept track of things like that, when I have problems remembering my anniversary. :-) Ed |
||||||
8237 | What is your idea? | 1 Cor 14:34 | EdB | 9344 | ||
Okay I'll bite! Schwartzkm, what is your idea? Ed |
||||||
8238 | Where did you get this info? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 9343 | ||
Tim From EllisYM's last response your answer appears to be right. Now I would like to know where on did you come up with this interesting tidbit of information? Ed |
||||||
8239 | 2,000 or 3,000 baths? | 1 Kin 7:26 | EdB | 9336 | ||
Good Answers! Ritual Jewish cleansing had to be from a "flowing" water source. 1 Kings 7:26 describes the Laver and the volume of water it could contain. 2 Chr. 4:5 is believed to be describing the whole system and the amount of water it contained. We know the laver feed ten vessels and quite probably the laver itself was feed from a source and all of this together made up the difference. |
||||||
8240 | Why was there a tree of life in Eden? | Gen 3:22 | EdB | 9283 | ||
Why was there a tree of life in the Garden? What was it purpose? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 ] Next > Last [422] >> |