|
|
USER COMMENTS BY WAYNE M. |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 9 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
2/28/08 11:10 AM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: Mike wrote: B.O. will bring change. Change will bring hope. Hope will bring change. And change is not staying where we are but moving forward with hope. Hope is not hopeless, because hope is hopeful. And it brings change, which is not hopeless because it brings hope. Good one Mike. Yes, it seems politics unfortunately is often more rhetoric than substance. Good sounding rhetoric seems to be more useful for getting votes. |
|
|
2/26/08 3:53 PM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, Erasmus did a very poor translation of the Greek, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]. Dr. Wallace's comments on Erasmus begins in the second paragraph. With due respect to Ian Paisley and to KJV only types, many knowledgeable people agree with him. The KJV with Ryrie notes to explain antiquated terms (especially for Americans) The English are more acquainted with Elizabethan English, makes the AV acceptable to people knowledgeable about the Bible. It is not necessary to go into this debate again. The KJV (1611) is based on the Received Text (or Textus Receptus) while the modern versions are based on the few corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts and the faulty theory of Westcott and Hort in the 1800s. These corrupt manuscripts came from the Pope's library and a monastery in the Sinaii. This has resulted in thousands of changes in the New Testament. I wonder if this gentleman has considered that. |
|
|
2/25/08 1:47 PM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
See BibleClassics.comMatthew Henry's Bible commentary on 1 Cor. CH14 explains what the Apostle Paul said about speaking in an unknown tongue. "Prophecy preferred to the gift of tongues. (1-5) The unprofitableness of speaking in unknown languages. (6-14) Exhortations to worship that can be understood. (15-25) Disorders from vain display of gifts; (26-33) and from women speaking in the church. (34-40) Verses 1-5 Prophesying, that is, explaining Scripture, is compared with speaking with tongues. This drew attention, more than the plain interpretation of Scripture; it gratified pride more, but promoted the purposes of Christian charity less; it would not equally do good to the souls of men. What cannot be understood, never can edify. No advantage can be reaped from the most excellent discourses, if delivered in language such as the hearers cannot speak or understand. Every ability or possession is valuable in proportion to its usefulness. Even fervent, spiritual affection must be governed by the exercise of the understanding, else men will disgrace the truths they profess to promote." A complete exposition on this chapter can be read at: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/1corinthians/mhc/1corinthians14.htm |
|
|
2/17/08 11:34 AM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: If you would be so kind, please apply this to the "Gunman Slays 6 at N. Illinois University" thread. The Westminster Confession (1646) says "III Of God's Eternal Decree" 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."G.I. Williamson explains this in his Study Guide of the WCF. "God does not force men to do what they do not want to do (in the way of sin). It is part of God's sovereign plan. Although we, with our finite human minds, cannot reason or understand why evil would happen if God is sovereign and ordains everything that comes to pass, we trust that all things will work out according to His plan. "The free actions of men are also predestined by God. Please note: these acts are both free and predestined." "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Matt.18:7 To believe God does not pre-ordain everything would be like saying everything happens by chance. |
|
|
2/4/08 1:13 AM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Lance Eccles wrote: Actually, Michael, on this point of Jesus Christ being Creator or the world, I'm out of my depth. I'm not sure what either the RC or the traditional Protestant view of this is, though I was under the impression that the Creator is God the Father. May I interject?"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:15-17 These verses are speaking about Jesus Christ, God the Son. This is shown by verses 13 and 14. "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" Col. 1:13,14 |
|
|
1/31/08 12:39 AM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Lance Eccles wrote: Gluten-free hosts are not permitted, though low-gluten ones are. There is probably no change of substance in a gluten-free host, as it is most likely invalid matter. Regarding the metaphors, "I am the door" and "I am the vine" are perfectly obvious and understandable. If "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" are metaphors, they must be among the most bizarre and incomprehensible ever uttered. When Jesus said "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day," (John 6:54) was he meaning whosoever believeth in Him has eternal life? Jesus did say in vs.40 "...that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:". Or are there two ways of obtaining eternal life; one by believing in Jesus and one by eating and drinking His body and blood? |
|
|
1/28/08 7:14 PM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Saint terry evans wrote: Hi Wayne Try asking instead, a little reverse psyc. They may want to answer your questions on salvation but not want to hear it from a young whippersnapper You know, that pride thing, wisdom comes with age Good point Terry. I think a question at the right moment might be what is called for. Will have to give that some thought too. Pride is always a problem. There is enough of that to go around for all of us I guess. |
|
|
1/24/08 6:23 PM |
Wayne M. | | British Columbia, Canada | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Lance Eccles wrote: Absolute nonsense. If the Reformation had never happened, today Europe would be Catholic instead of agnostic, and Islam would be kept firmly in its place. If the Reformation had never happened in Europe, the western world would probably be living like Italy where the mafia exerts tremendous control or South America or the Philipines with it's widespread poverty and illiteracy, guerrila movements, and drug czars controlling the cocaine industry. Are you sure that is what you would prefer? Can you explain why that is the case in those RC countries and not so in the countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, Canada, and the U.S.A. where the Reformation took hold. Can you explain why most RC countries have remained relatively backward and undeveloped versus others in the west? Is it because Rome prefers to keep the people illiterate, ignorant of Biblical truth, and therefore submissive to the church so they can continue to rule them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|