Results 361 - 380 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 57643 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right It's true that verse 32 tells us when the full explanation of salvation came to the jailer and his household, but that does not take away from the fact that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is all that is necessary for salvation. Steve |
||||||
362 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 58014 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right Paul didn't have to speak to the household. At least there is nothing I see to suggest that was the case. I have no idea concerning the content of Paul's message. I know from 16:32 that "they spoke the word of the Lord," and to say anything beyond that would be conjecture. Steve |
||||||
363 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 58085 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right I didn't say otherwise. You said, "Why did Paul have to..." I read that to mean he was under compulsion or obligation. I replied that there was nothing to indicate this. Steve |
||||||
364 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 58247 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right I understand what you are asking. Paul did not have to speak the word of the Lord to the jailer and his house. He just did it. To infer anything else is conjecture. Steve |
||||||
365 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 58320 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right I am certainly misunderstanding the intent of your questioning. This is the way I see verses 30-34: 1. The Jailer brings out Paul and Silas and asks what he must do to be saved. (30) 2. They told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and his household could be saved the same way.(31) 3. Paul and Silas went to his house and spoke the word of the Lord to all.(32) 4. Very shortly afterward, the jailer washed their wounds, and the family was baptized.(33) 5. Paul and Silas were fed.(34) Now, what is your question, and what is your thought process or purpose behind the question? Steve |
||||||
366 | What was the jailers response to what he | Gen 12:1 | srbaegon | 58557 | ||
Hello The Bible Is Right I asked you to restate your original question and its intent. You failed to do this, so I'll assume you are here to cause confusion and unrest. I'm done. Steve |
||||||
367 | What about repentence though? | Gen 15:6 | srbaegon | 51114 | ||
Hello TOFT Of course we need to repent. Of course repentance is involved in remission of sins. Steve |
||||||
368 | What about repentence though? | Gen 15:6 | srbaegon | 51115 | ||
Hello TOFT Of course we need to repent. Of course repentance is involved in remission of sins. Steve |
||||||
369 | Who was Abraham ? | Gen 17:5 | srbaegon | 145034 | ||
Hello greentwiga, I'm curious where you get that Abram was from northern Mesopotamia when Scripture says he was from Ur which is southern. Also, I would say that what God desires is not sacrifice but obedience (1 Sam 15:22). And we demonstrate faith by obedience (John 3:36; James 2:18). Steve |
||||||
370 | Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son | Gen 22:2 | srbaegon | 214964 | ||
Hello bibleman12, You have been given several reasons. You just do not like them. Here are more. Barnes' Notes: "Abraham must have felt the outward inconsistency between the sacrifice of his son, and the promise that in him should his seed be called. But in the triumph of faith he accounted that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead. On no other principle can the prompt, mute, unquestioning obedience of Abraham be explained. Human sacrifice may have been not unknown; but this in no way met the special difficulty of the promise. The existence of such a custom might seem to have smoothed away the difficulty of a parent offering the sacrifice of a son. But the moral difficulty of human sacrifice is not so removed. The only solution of this, is what the ease itself actually presents; namely, the divine command. It is evident that the absolute Creator has by right entire control over his creatures. He is no doubt bound by his eternal rectitude to do no wrong to his moral creatures. But the creature in the present case has forfeited the life that was given, by sin. And, moreover, we cannot deny that the Almighty may, for a fit moral purpose, direct the sacrifice of a holy being, who should eventually receive a due recompense for such a degree of voluntary obedience. This takes away the moral difficulty, either as to God who commands, or Abraham who obeys. Without the divine command, it is needless to say that it was not lawful for Abraham to slay his son." Lawrence O. Richards, The Bible Readers Companion "God did not intend for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The command was a test: a test of how far Abraham would trust the Lord with his most precious possession." James Montgomery Boice, Genesis "How could this problem be resolved? There were only two ways. Abraham could have concluded that God was erratic, wavering from one plan to another because he did not know his own mind. This had not been Abraham’s experience of God. The long wait for the son had taught him better than that. Or Abraham could have concluded that, although he—being finite and sinful—was unable to see the resolution of the difficulty, God could nevertheless be trusted to have a resolution, which he himself would certainly disclose in due time. This was the harder of the two solutions to accept, but Abraham’s experience of God led in this direction. Abraham acted in a manner consistent with his knowledge of God. That is, he trusted him, concluding that whatever God’s purposes may or may not have been in this situation, God had at least shown that he could not be his enemy. God was his friend. When the command to sacrifice Isaac was first given, Abraham did not understand how, if the command were carried out, the promise could be fulfilled. But that was all right. Abraham left the difficulty with God, which is the essence of true faith. What is faith? Faith is believing God and acting upon it. This is what Abraham did. God had shown that he could be trusted, so Abraham believed God and acted, even though he could not understand the solution to the difficulty." Steve |
||||||
371 | Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son | Gen 22:2 | srbaegon | 214965 | ||
Part 2 F. W. Grant, Genesis: In Light of the New Testament (Speaking of Abraham and Isaac as pictures of God the Father and the Lord Jesus) "Isaac is undoubtedly the living type of Christ which gives Him to us most in the work He has done for God, and thus for us. For a moment, as it were, from the solemn institution of sacrifice the vail is almost removed. Man for man it is must suffer: man, but not this man. Isaac is withdrawn, and faith is left looking onward to the Lamb that 'God will provide for Himself' as a burnt offering. But if Isaac be the type of this, another comes no less distinctly into view. It is a father here who gives his son. Abraham seems, indeed, the most prominent figure, and necessarily for the type. It is the father’s will to which the son obediently gives himself. In the anti-type, the God who provides Himself the lamb answers to the father in this case. It is the Son of God who comes to do the Father’s will. But what a will, to be the Father’s! We wonder at this strange testing of a faith God held precious. Was it not worth the while to be honored with such a history? This was his justification by works now, God bringing out into open sight before others that which He Himself had long before seen and borne witness of. And then how wonderful to see in this display of a human heart the manifestation of the Father’s! How all is measured out to Abraham! But who can fail to see that in these elements of sorrow that filled to the brim the father’s cup we have the lineaments of a sacrifice transcending this immeasurably? Let us not fear to make God too human in thus apprehending Him. He has become a man to be apprehended. . . . Through all this trial of Abraham’s we must not miss the fact that the faith of resurrection cheers the father’s heart. The promises of God were assured in him, of whom He had said, 'In Isaac shall thy seed be called.' If therefore God called for him to be offered up, resurrection must restore him from the very flames of the altar; and 'in a figure,' as the apostle says, from the dead he was received. The figure of resurrection here it is very important to keep in mind, for it is to Christ in resurrection that the events following typically refer. In fact, Isaac is spared from death; and here occurs one of those double figures by which the Spirit of God would remedy the necessary defect of all figures to set forth Christ and His work. Isaac is spared; but there is substituted for him 'a ram caught in a thicket by his horns.' Picture of devoted self-surrender, as we have seen elsewhere the ram is; he is 'caught by his horns'—the sign (as others have noticed) of his power. . . . In a figure, however, Isaac is raised from the dead; and as risen, the promise is confirmed to him,—'In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' It is Christ raised from the dead who is the only source of blessing to the whole world. The value and necessity of His sacrificial work are here affirmed. Death has passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; only beyond death, then, can there be fulfillment of the promise, however free." Steve |
||||||
372 | Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son | Gen 22:2 | srbaegon | 214975 | ||
Hello, You may be comparing apples to oranges between Abraham and this friend. Is God asking the friend to offer the family members as a burnt offering? That would be the only possible justification your friend would have. As to your question concerning God's request which would end in a person's death: God does nothing in violation of his character. If he did, he would cease to be God. We know God hates murder, and he had already promised that Isaac was the promised son through whom he would be the father of many nations. That being the case, God's command to Abraham could not possibly end in Isaac's death. One of two things must occur: God stops Abraham, or God resurrects Isaac. In either case, the immediate end of the journey is life. Now, does God command people to kill other people? Yes, he does, but only as an act of defense or as a tool of divine judgment. But that is looking at Abraham's situation from our understanding with the totality of Scripture. The capital punishment described in the covenant with Noah was to deal with retribution for unjust killing. I am willing to bet your friend does not have assurance that his family members will live physically immediately after they have been killed. Steve |
||||||
373 | Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son | Gen 22:2 | srbaegon | 214996 | ||
Hello, The reconciliation between Gen 22:2 and James 1:14 is that the passages have nothing to do with each other. James is speaking of temptations that come from within and tear us and others down spiritually. Genesis 22 is a test to prove and increase faith. We know from looking at this side of the story that God never intended for Isaac to die. In order for your friend to mimic the command to Abraham, he would have to stop at the last moment and kill a ram instead. Steve |
||||||
374 | Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son | Gen 22:2 | srbaegon | 215002 | ||
Hello, When teaching Bible in my church, I am rather strict in making the class speak accurately of the text, so no, God did not tell Abraham to kill his son. He told Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. I know it's a fine point, but I will be adamant about it (in a nice way). This is the reason I belabor the point. God's plan was to provide the substitute for Isaac. He just never let Abraham know the plan until the very end after everything had been prepared to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham built the altar, laid the wood, bound Isaac (remarkable in itself), laid him on the wood, and took the knife. Notice it does not say that the Lord interrupted as the knife was coming down or anything like that. It just says everything was prepared. At that point God reveals the substitute. So no, your friend cannot destroy his family. All he can do is make preparations and expect a substitute. If none arrives, God was not speaking to him. And really the only acceptable substitute would be Christ himself who already paid the price. Steve |
||||||
375 | Founding Fathers not allowed in land | Gen 25:10 | srbaegon | 138780 | ||
Hello He-man, The reason that Abraham bought it is found in his attitude. He was willing to wait for God to work out the particulars of the inheritance. Heb 11:9-10 (ESV) By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. [10] For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. Steve |
||||||
376 | why gen. 27: 39 differs in kjv vs nasb | Gen 27:39 | srbaegon | 214451 | ||
Hello dieselcowboy, Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Please discontinue them. Steve |
||||||
377 | Were Jacobs praryers hindered? | Gen 29:30 | srbaegon | 137044 | ||
Hello Searcher, I couldn't say whether or not his prayers were hindered, but since Scripture indicates he was to love without reservation... That's why I said I didn't know to what extent. Steve |
||||||
378 | Why ask about Jacob - Leah again? | Gen 29:30 | srbaegon | 137098 | ||
Hello Searcher, Yes to both. I think it's akin to Rom 3:19. I think Montana is trying to prove something. Steve |
||||||
379 | Why sold? Why not kidnapped? | Gen 37:28 | srbaegon | 191242 | ||
Hi Hamk, I think it comes with age. 25 to 30 years ago I could know God's mind and read between the lines of His word with the best of them. Now I have to settle for His wisdom and sure promises. Steve |
||||||
380 | Why sold? Why not kidnapped? | Gen 37:28 | srbaegon | 191252 | ||
Hello Restate, If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question? This is not a Bible discussion forum as stated in "About the Forum" which you should have already read. There you will find: "It's not a discussion group or topical survey, but an ever growing 'expository repository' that gives the layman and scholar an opportunity to share truth and contribute wisdom." If you wish to post a note concerning the text, all well and good. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [64] >> |