Results 121 - 130 of 130
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4148 | ||
Your forcing me into a corner I didn't want to go into, but that's okay. Let's take the Book of First and Second Corinthians, we know Paul was trying to correct problems within the church of Corinth. In some cases it is clear there was a unique problem with a specific solution. In other cases the specific problem, is not spelled out yet there is a specific precept or statute given. Many men rationalize what the problem or custom was and then say this precept or statute applies only in that situation. Should this be done? Should we look as some parts of the Bible as merely history and unless we are repeating that history they do not apply to us? | ||||||
122 | Why can't we take the Bible literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4136 | ||
I'm trying to stay away from particulars because I don't want to revisit or rehash old ground. If what you responded is true. Would you tell me why you think God would have allowed such to be included, in the Bible knowing that it would cause confusion and debate in generations of future? | ||||||
123 | Must all the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4134 | ||
I thank Prayon for his response to my question as I first stated it. However after rereading what I wrote I feel I need to restate my orignal question in way that will lead to a more open discussion. I have heard many men explain that a particular Biblical doctrine or teaching doesn’t apply today because the writer was responding to “thus and such”. Or "this" isn’t for today because it is addressing a custom of the time that is no longer in effect. In light of the above statement will someone explain to me why God, would allow the inclusion, into the Bible, of doctrine, precepts, statutes, ordinances, or commandments that would become invalid or outmoded because of changing customs or social trends? Or why God would allow the human writer’s bias or prejudices to contaminate the writing? |
||||||
124 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4125 | ||
I asked these two questions in my response to another question, but I think they got lost so I'll ask them again. I have heard many men explain that a particular Biblical doctrine or teaching doesn’t apply today because the writer was responding to “thus and such”. Or "this" isn’t for today because it is addressing a custom of the time that is no longer in effect. Does anyone believe an all knowing, all seeing God, that produced the Bible, the living Word, would be so short sighted He would allow the inclusion of doctrine, precepts, statutes, ordinances, or commandments that are no longer valid or outmoded because of changing customs or social trends? Or that God would allow the human writer’s bias or prejudices to contaminate the writing? |
||||||
125 | Do we always have to debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 3288 | ||
The title of this forum is “StudyBible” by Lockman Foundation. Lockman is a trusted name, with an outstanding reputation. As such, one would expect, if they went to a Lockman sponsored site, they would come away with correct answers about the Bible. You can look all through this forum and see unchallenged answers that are based on opinion, half truths and outright lies. I see that as a problem! If this was a Bible Study Forum hosted on some other website I wouldn’t see a problem, I also wouldn’t bother with it, because I would expect it to be full of junk. To me the Lockman name means we are “studying” the inspired Word of God, not Philosophy, not the opinions of man, but the true word of God. I also see it as a “study” not as a debate or an effort to 'one up' someone else. A study is more than just presenting new ideas and challenging each others thinking. A study should have a beginning and reach a conclusion. If not, aren’t we in danger of falling into the trap Paul talked about in 2 Tim. 3:7 “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Isn’t our action like those spoke about in Acts 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new. While I don’t advocate censoring, would limiting comments to those that have a Biblical basis be all wrong? Would it go to far to append to an entry the disclaimer, "this person's comments are based on opinions", or that "this answer was based on something other than the inspired Word of God"? When discussions enter realms that aren’t soon to be resolved, would it not be fair to state this subject has been a point of disagreement within the church for years? “Side one” make their stand on these Bible verses and “side two” basis their view on these Bible verses. Where answers are just not possible can that not be so stated with the forewarning that any response given will be the opinion of that person and not the inspired word of God? I think this Bible Study has the potential to become a virtual “Home Group” or “Sunday School Class”. In those environments isn’t there always a moderator or teacher? Isn’t that person's function to direct and lead the group or class in a study not to censor thought, and quench learning? Another function is getting the discussion back on track and to help the group come to some kind of conclusion. Again the stated purpose of this forum was “STUDY” not “debate” and all the things debating brings with it. A discussion doesn’t always have to end with someone wrong and someone right, it can end with people walking away having a better understanding of a differing position, new thoughts on subjects and a new hunger to learn more. I also think everyone that appends to this forum has a responsibility to insure what they are saying is based on the Word of God as written in the Bible. I further believe Lockman Foundation, since they have courageously decided to host this forum, has the added responsibility to insure this forum is not disseminating incorrect or misleading information. I really don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm very concerned that someone could get a really lousy answer from this forum and believe it is true. I would hate to think someone was deceived maybe even to the point of effecting their salvation by a forum in which I participated. |
||||||
126 | Why not Jesus' words in Red? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 2672 | ||
Aside from probable savings in printing cost, and possible vision problems, why are some bibles printed without Jesus' words in red? Why do, I guessing here, some people prefer Bibles printed in all black? |
||||||
127 | Is it the New Geneva Bible or another? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 2641 | ||
I guess from what your saying the Bible your calling the "Reformation Study Bible" is the "New Geneva Bible" published in NKJV from the Thomas Nelson Publishers is that correct or is there another edition I'm not aware of? | ||||||
128 | What is the Reformation Study Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 2625 | ||
Okay I bite what is the Reformation Study Bible? Are you possibly talking about the Geneva Bible? I know Nelson started reprinting in NKJV. | ||||||
129 | Did I offend you? | Matt 12:40 | EdB | 2618 | ||
Gospelmidi, in your response I sense some issues, if I in any way offended you please accept my most sincere and humblest apology. Please excuse my tardiness to respond to the points raised, but I needed time to verify what I believe to be correct was in fact correct. The theory I presented was not my own, but I was first lead to it by a Messianic Jewish Rabbi. I was unable to contact him to verify my conjecture so I went to another very reliable Messianic Jew. That person then referred me to still another Jewish scholar and both agree that the Passover is called a Sabbath. Therefore I feel fairly comfortable in making that connection. Jews do call the Holy convocation of Passover a Sabbath. It is called Shabbat Gadol or High Sabbath or Shabbaton. Also the day before the Passover is called the day of preparation. Now as far as crucifixion taking place on Friday, let us reason together using your original premise or “Hebrew Idioms”. First let us establish some facts and then proceed from there. First we know Jesus died on the cross in the ninth hour Matthew 27:45-50. Secondly we know the on the morning of the “First day of the Week” the tomb was empty Matthew 28:1-6. Thirdly we know that Jesus said that just as Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights so would the Son of Man be. Matthew 12:40. Now those are the facts and I think we all agree to those. Now examine the popular teaching that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The Bible places time of death as some time after 3 PM and before the next day which starts at 6PM. Let’s figure Joseph and his servants was able to place Jesus in the grave within an hour of His death. We then have from 4Pm to 6Pm or one partial day. Starting at 6PM and going through 6Pm would be the Jewish Saturday or the Sabbath. So we have 1 full night and 1 full day. Then at 6PM Saturday we now begin the Jewish Sunday so we have another full night and since the Tomb was empty on the Sunday morning sometime after 6AM we will count another partial day. Lets add it up 2 partial days (going with the idiom factor we count them as 2 days), 1 full day and 2 nights. The results would be 3 days and two nights. We are short 1 night either full or partial. Since Jesus clearly said he would be in the heart of the earth 3 days and 3 nights something must be wrong, we need at least one more night. I submit the only way we can get that night is move the crucifixion back to Thursday instead of Friday. To further emphasize my point I made the statement that if Jesus was crucified on the Friday the Jews would be violating a Holy Convocation Sabbath. The point was brought up that while that was true, however the Romans held no respect for the Sabbath and the they were the ones that crucified Jesus. Scripture is very clear here, the Jews were active participants in the Crucifixion. Furthermore just walking from Anna’s house to the Temple to Pilate Quarters then to Herod’s Palace then back to Pilate and finally to Golgotha would have more than violated the allotted Sabbath steps. To say nothing of holding a trial on a Sabbath or to stage what I think we can all agree to be a demonstration. Finally a point was made that we have to study and understand the culture of the people at the time a book is written to get the full understanding of the message the book is trying to convey to it’s reader. I think this is exactly what happened. Early church scholars with little or no knowledge of Jewish tradition read that the Jews were anxious to get the men down from the crosses because of the forthcoming Sabbath. Not being aware that Passover and Feast of Unleaven Bread were Sabbaths they assumed it was the weekly Sabbath that was being referred to. Hence we have church tradition. I realize this issue has been a topic of many ongoing debates and will probably not be settled until Jesus Himself sets the record clear. Men far wiser and more learned than I have taken both sides of the discussion and it truly doesn’t effect our salvation one way or the other. I presented my thoughts on the subject so that others could, if they so decided, use it as an answer to the question about what appears to be a conflict in the Bible’s account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection story. I certainly did not to do it to challenge you or to use it as an occasion to attack you. Again if I have caused you any offense please accept my apology. |
||||||
130 | 3 days and 3 nights and Sabbaths | Matt 12:40 | EdB | 2320 | ||
There is still a minor problem. Lev. 23:5 defines the Passover. It also defines Sabbaths or other Holy Convocations. From reading this we can see that the Passover is called a Holy Convocation or day of rest. Also note the day after the Passover which is the Feast of Unleaven bread is also a Holy convocation or day of rest. For Jesus to be crucified on Friday and buried and have the women go to the grave on Sunday would mean that Jesus was crucified on a Holy Convocation Day or Jewish Day of rest. Could the Sabbath talked about in the scriptures really be the Feast of the Unleaven Bread a Holy Convocation? Jesus is a fullfillment of OT designs. I believe Jesus' trimphal entry into Jerusalem was on the 10th of Nisan, or the day of the "Selection of the Passover Lamb". I believe his death was on 14th of Nisan, the day the Passover Lamb is killed. At twilight of that day begins Passover. Jewish days run from 6pm to 6pm. Let's place Jesus' trimphal entry on 10th of Nisan or our Sunday (Palm Sunday). Then the 14th of Nisan would span our Wed and Thru. I submit Jesus was really crucified on Thrusday right before the begining of Passover, the following day was a Holy Convocation or Sabbath the "Feast of Unleaven Bread", the next day would be the weekly Sabbath. Therefore the first day the Women could get to the tomb was the first day of the week Sunday. (You really need to plot this out on paper overlaying our days over the Jewish days) Placing Jesus' death on Thursday would eliminate the problem of the 3 days and three nights. Also the fulfillment of the feast would be accomplished. But one problem remains the scriptures say Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples. There is two explainations for this none of which I can document. The first, I'm told there was conflict between the Jews as to when months started. Some would go up on to high places to see the new moon others would wait in front of the temple. I'm told the ones that used the high places were a day ahead of the ones that didn't. The second, I'm told there is a Jewish provision for travelers to celebrate Passover on the eve before passover so that they could arrive at their distination before the Holy convocation of Passover and Unleaven bread came into effect. While I admit both of these are reaching I still have to believe Jesus' death coincided with the killing of the "Passover Lamb" and that was right before twilight on the 14th of Nisan. And since all of these days are Holy Convocations or Sabbaths, I maintain we are confused by the term Sabbath Day in the crucifixion story. Looking for your thoughts. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] |