where in the bible is the word piggy bank found?
146768
yah it isnt in there unless u r writin in ur Bible
292246
Yes it is,  Many protestant bibles have left it out since it does not contain alot of writings to the level of some of the other books ( but I would guess if many protestants had thier choice today they would leeave out some of the OT stories now adays.\n\nBut it is in my bible
13735
Probably religious temples. Jesus tried to deal with them, but they're still here. Go figure.\n\nFrom wikipedia:\n"The very first banks were probably the religious temples of the ancient world. In them were stored gold in the form of easy to carry compressed plates. Their owners justly felt that temples were the safest places to store their gold as they were constantly attended, well built and were sacred, thus detering would-be thieves. There are extant records of loans from the 18th Century BC in Babylon that were made by temple priests to merchants."
1034695
Verse 18:\nHere is wisdom. That is, in what is stated respecting the name and the number of the name of the beast. The idea is, either that there would be need of peculiar sagacity in determining what the "number" of the "beast" or of his "name" was, or that peculiar "wisdom" was shown by the fact that the number could be thus expressed. The language used in the verse would lead the reader to suppose that the attempt to make out the "number" was not absolutely hopeless, but that the number was so far enigmatical as to require much skill in determining its meaning. It may also be implied that, for some reason, there was true "wisdom" in designating the name by this number, either because a more direct and explicit statement might expose him who made it to persecution, and it showed practical wisdom thus to guard against this danger; or because there was "wisdom" or skill shown in the fact that a number could be found which would thus correspond with the name. On either of these suppositions, peculiar wisdom would be required in deciphering its meaning. \n\nLet him that hath understanding. Implying \n\n(a) that it was practicable to "count the number of the name;" and \n\n(b) that it would require uncommon skill to do it. It could not be successfully attempted by all; but still there were those who might do it. This is such language as would be used respecting some difficult matter, but where there was hope that, by diligent application of the mind, and by the exercise of a sound understanding, there would be a prospect of success. \n\nCount the number of the beast. In Rev 13:16, it is "the number of his name." The word here rendered "count"-- qhfisatw--means, properly, to count or reckon with pebbles, or counters; then to reckon, to estimate. The word here means compute; that is, ascertain the exact import of the number, so as to identify the beast. The "number" is that which is immediately specified, "six hundred threescore and six"--666. The phrase "the number of the beast" means, that somehow this number was so connected with the beast, or would so represent its name or character, that the "beast" would be identified by its proper application. The mention in Rev 13:17 of "the name of the beast," and "the number of his name," shows that this "number" was somehow connected with his proper designation, so that by this he would be identified. The plain meaning is, that the number 666 would be so connected with his name, or with that which would properly designate him, that it could be determined who was meant by finding that number in his name or in his proper designation. This is the exercise of the skill or wisdom to which the writer here refers: substantially that which is required in the solution of a riddle or a conundrum. If it should be said here that this is undignified and unworthy of an inspired book, it may be replied \n\n(a) that there might be some important reason why the name or designation should not be more plainly made; \n\n(b) that it was important, nevertheless, that it should be so made that it would be possible to ascertain who was referred to; \n\n(c) that this should be done only in some way which would involve the principle of the enigma--"where a known thing was concealed under obscure language"--Webster's Dic.; \n\n(d) that the use of symbols, emblems, hieroglyphics, and riddles was common in the early periods of the world; and \n\n(e) that it was no uncommon thing in ancient times, as it is in modern, to test the capacity and skill of men by their ability to unfold the meaning of proverbs, riddles, and dark sayings. Compare the riddle of Samson, Jud 14:12, seq. See also Ps 49:4 78:2 Eze 17:2-8 Pr 1:2-6 Da 8:23 It would be a sufficient vindication of the method adopted here if it was certain or probable that a direct and
574120
There is a Book called the Bible....\n\n\nOne example, Romans 9:13
50389
According to the Bible it is.
960100
You have to understand that the Bible was an oral tradition for hundreds of years.  People told the stories long before they were written down.  Do you remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears?  Do you remember the exact words in the story from the first time you heard it?  I doubt it.  But you remember the message and could still tell the story to your children.\nWhen the Bible was first written it was in Hebrew (atleast, the Old Testament was).  You're reading an English translation.\nIn all of this, things change, and we shouldn't focus on one word "Us."\n\nMore to think about: Royalty in medieval brittain referred to themselves in the plural (i.e. "We are not amused.")  When the Bible was translated by King James (the most famous English translation) any royal attributes of the day may have been given to God as the Almighty King.  \n\nNo one knows for sure.  You could study this for years and not know.  I hope this summation here does the subject justice.\n\np.s. many people referred to the Trinity (I don't want to say they are wrong, but I don't agree with them).  \nThe trick with that is that the Trinity as a concept wasn't known to humans until the Coucil of Nicea in 325.
279996
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians13.htm
449716
Please refer http://www.bible.com\n\nYou can also buy it there.
813879
Any who says "yes" to this supports:\n\nSelling own daughters into slavery\nkilling farmers who grown 2 crops in same field\nkilling women who wear material made of 2 different threads\nkilling children if they badmouth the parents\nNEVER borrowing boney unless free of interest\n\n\nAnd so it goes on, MOST of the above is from Leviticus by the way.\n\nSo ANYONE who has a credit card and fails to pay it off in full each month is going against the bible, ditto anyone with a mortgage.
558250
I will on the contrary prove that Bible has not been preserved and hence it has lost the igredients from God. Bible might have little bit of God's word left but it has other things and I Will start with\nABSURDITIES: \nA TALKING ass. NUMBERS 22:27-28 \n\nFOUR footed fowls. LEVITICUS 11:20 \n\nBirth of females a DOUBLE pollution LEVITICUS 12:1,2,5 \n\nSamson KILLS A THOUSAND with the jaw bone of a donkey. JUDGES 15:15-16 \n\nA SEVEN HEADED leopard REVELATION 13:1-2 \n\nTo eat SHIT and drink PISS. 2 KINGS 18:27 and ISAIAH 36:12 \n\nDUNG on your faces. MALACHI 2:3 \n\nTo eat cake with SHIT. EZEKIEL 4:12-15 \n\nRuth COHABITS with Boaz in the barn. RUTH 3:4-l5 \n\nDavid SLEEPS with a young virgin l KINGS 1 1:1,3 \n\nWord BASTARD used in the Bible and This word occurs in the Bible THREE times \n\n"The BASTARD shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation . . . DEUTERONOMY 23:2\n\n"And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod . .ZECHARIAH 9:6 \n\n"But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then ye are BASTARDS and not sons. " HERREWS 12:8\n\n\nThe big problem i.e. CONTRADICTIONS: \n\nThe "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1 or "Satan provoked David . . . I CHRONICLES 21:1 \n\n700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . . ? 2 Samuel 10:18 vs 1 CHRONICLES 19: 18 \n\nSolomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7-26 vs 2 CHRONICLES 4:5 \n\nSolomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs 1 KINGS 4:26 \n\nDid Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUELS 28:6 vs 1 CHRONICLES 10:13-14 \n\nHeaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13 Contradicted by. 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24 Enoch ascended. \n\nJesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9 Contradicted by. He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12 \n\nALL are sinners 2 CHRONICLES 6:36 Contradicted by: "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin. . ." 1 John 3:9  \n\nGOD: Qualities ill-befitting God\n\nA hissing God (?) ISAIAH 5:26, \n\nZECHARIA 10:8 \n\nA "roaring" God (?) ISAIAH 42:13, JEREMIAH 25:30 \n\nA "barber" God (?) ISAIAH 7:20 \n\nA "penitent" God (?) JEREMIAH 15:6, GENESIS 6:6 \n\nA God "riding" a cherub (?) 2 SAMUEL 22:11 \n\nA God murders 50,070 for looking into a box (?) SAMUEL 6:19 \n\nCan we see God, Look What Bible says....\n\n"No man hath seen God at any time John 1: 18 \n\n" (God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see .,."I TIMOTHY 6:16 \n\n"And he (God) said, Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and 1ive. EXODUS 33:20 \nContradicted by: \n"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend Exodus 33:11 \n'And they (Moses, Aaron and seventy others) saw the God of Israel . ." EXODUS 24:10 \n"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved GENESIS 32:30 \n\nAnd as a special favour God shows his back parts to Moses "And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts . . . " EXODUS 33:23 \n\nGOD: Is not a fabricator of confusion\n\n"For God is NOT the author of confusion . ." I CORINTHIANS 14:33 Contradicted by". \n" . . I make peace, and CREATE EVIL . . ." ISAIAH 45:7 \n\n\n\nif you want to do more research refer this document and let me know about it..\nhttp://www.irf.net/combat_kit.doc\n\nI can go on and on and on but the point is can a Word of god accomodate all this, if you ned to know more about the Bible being the Word of God please contact me at shiekhtm@yahoo.com
802541
In written form through the Bible.
158847
The word giant is mentioned ten times in the old. The first place it is mentioned is Sam 21*6 and the last Job 16*14. There are twelve different combinations of hebrew chaldaen words that define this word.\n\nThe word giants is mentioned thirteen times in the old starting with Gen 6*4 and the last place it is mentioned is Josh 18*16 and is about the same in words as the other. \n\nSo to answer your question exactly twenty three times in the Authorised King James Version Bible Only. Have fun with it and keep asking questions.
1125783
"The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel (Tigris): that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates." (Genesis 2:11-14 KJV)
872379
The biggest problem about where it was copied from the KJV Bible isn't the exact language that was used but the fact that even the italicized words were included as part of the text without comment. Just so everyone knows. Those were were added to make the translation flow properly in English. It's not always possible to translate even from another Latin based language to English with out adding some wording to make it flow properly in syntax. But to add them as though they are part of the Scripture is wrong.. No not wrong  EVIL is a better word...   Jim
129169
where does it say this in the Bible?And please try to spell correctly
788399
Where does it mention dinosaurs in the Bible?