As we all know that Daniel and his three friends were recruited and lived under the same Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:17-20; 2:17-19), why was Daniel not a part of the pack who defied the king’s command to worship the golden statue (Daniel 3:8-18). When they were thrown into the fire, what was Daniel doing who was also living as a ruler and the chief administrator over all the whole province of Babylon (Daniel 2:47-48)? Was it because of his position of rulership along with the king that he was excluded and thus was not compelled to worship the golden Idol?
In my weekly bible study class, we were told the Jews were only in Egypt for 210 years and of that time only 80 some years were in hard labor, not the 400 years as I had always been taught. Is this correct?
I wonder if you have ever run across any teaching on eternal security that takes what’s called a “3rd view”, as distinct from both loss of salvation and OSAS.
One teacher, in particular, uses Hebrews 6 to point to the fact that IF we can be categorized as having tasted of the good things of the Lord, and then become, by choice, apostate, God is not going to take us to live forever with him because He honors our right to choose – not because we need to be punished.
Do you see any circumstances under which having once been saved, we can go to a lost eternity? How do you feel about God taking us to Himself “against our will”? Any enlightened person would not choose to go to hell!!
Re Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one
Would you please explain this verse about buying a sword? Is Jesus condoning self-defense?
I saw your answer concerning various Bible translations and I have a question to add to it.
Romans 8:1 in the KJV says “there is no condemnation…for those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”.
The NIV leaves out, although there is a footnote, “that walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”. There are other places where the NIV leaves out portions of scripture but has a similar footnote. some claim this is a good reason to avoid the NIV.
I like the NIV and read it frequently, and will continue to do so. But why did the translators publish the NIV this way? is it unethical, or intellectually dishonest?