Results 21 - 40 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: keliy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Old Testament Literature | OT general | keliy | 214344 | ||
Greetings, nglwthnati2de Here is a site that you might find helpful: www.1902encyclopedia.com/search.html Just type Old Testament historical literature and Old testament poetical literature into the search box. Lord bless, keliy |
||||||
22 | All name of God | OT general | keliy | 214705 | ||
Hello Kim, Welcome to the Forum I have here a list of names for God from the Old Testament alone. The list in the New testament is much larger and must be arranged alphabetically. This should get you started, I'll keep working on it for you. ELOHIM......Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1 meaning "God", a reference to God's power and might. ADONAI......Malachi 1:6 meaning "Lord", a reference to the Lordship of God. JEHOVAH--YAHWEH.....Genesis 2:4 a reference to God's divine salvation. JEHOVAH-MACCADDESHEM.......Exodus 31:13 meaning "The Lord thy sanctifier" JEHOVAH-ROHI......Psalm 23:1 meaning "The Lord my shepherd" JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH.......Ezekiel 48:35 meaning "The Lord who is present" JEHOVAH-RAPHA.........Exodus 15:26 meaning "The Lord our healer" JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU......Jeremiah 23:6 meaning "The Lord our righteousness" JEHOVAH-JIREH.........Genesis 22:13-14 meaning "The Lord will provide" JEHOVAH-NISSI.........Exodus 17:15 meaning "The Lord our banner" JEHOVAH-SHALOM........Judges 6:24 meaning "The Lord is peace" JEHOVAH-SABBAOTH......Isaiah 6:1-3 meaning "The Lord of Hosts" EL-ELYON..............Genesis 14:17-20,Isaiah 14:13-14 meaning "The most high God" EL-ROI................Genesis 16:13 meaning "The strong one who sees" EL-SHADDAI............Genesis 17:1,Psalm 91:1 meaning "The God of the mountains or God Almighty" EL-OLAM...............Isaiah 40:28-31 meaning "The everlasting God" |
||||||
23 | dead sea scrolls and the return of Chris | OT general | keliy | 221157 | ||
The manuscripts generally date between 150 BC to 70 AD, so therefore are of great religious and historical significance. Being identified as around 40 percent biblical, 30 percent apocryphal and 30 percent Sectarian, they seem to have more historical significance than prophetical. By now I am curious to see what your own answer to this question will be. |
||||||
24 | different kinds of feasts in bible? | OT general | keliy | 221585 | ||
There are 7 major feasts of the Bible. 3 spring feasts 3 fall feasts, and Pentecost is in the middle. Pentecost has been fulfilled, as have 4 of the major feasts. 3 are yet to be fulfilled. Pesach (Passover) Hag Ha Matzah (Feast of the Unleavened Bread) Yom HaBikkurim (First Fruits) Shavuoth (Feast of Weeks, -Pentecost) Rosh Hashanah (Feast of Trumpets, -Jewish New Year) Yom Kippur (Day of atonement) Succoth (Feast of Tabernacles/ Booths) And there are two more which are not considered among the major seven, which are Hanukkah (Feast of Dedication) Purim (Feast of Lots) |
||||||
25 | What are three of the most important the | NT general | keliy | 213886 | ||
see Acts 18:12 | ||||||
26 | Does a baby go to heaven | NT general | keliy | 215887 | ||
Hello princeofpeace24, Yes, a baby is unable to make a choice, unable to repent and is unable to place its faith in anything, which causes a pause to consider the doctrine of infant baptism. What I have learned since then is that God really could not care less about the teachings and doctrines of man concerning His Church, which is Christ's Body. Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Our Creator loves ALL His children, and those who do not choose against Him are unlikely to be guilty of the unforgivable sin, and thereby are certainly covered by the Blood of Christ. This has always been an ongoing debate, which just shows our lack of wisdom and lack of trust. John 20:31 says, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." We would best be served by striving for our own salvation and worrying less about those who are only in the hands of God (o: Lord's Blessings, keliy |
||||||
27 | times "Jesus" is used in Bible | NT general | keliy | 221088 | ||
occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV |
||||||
28 | asking a non-member to leave the church, | NT general | keliy | 221677 | ||
Hello, tonkinj Welcome to the forum. In my church there are many non-members. In fact we were all non-members before we became members. (o: If you have a question, could you please state it specifically? keliy |
||||||
29 | why does Mark and Matthew repeat | NT general | keliy | 221716 | ||
Hi Grovy welcome to the forum. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'synoptic' as: 3) presenting or taking the same or common view; specifically often capitalized : of or relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament For this reason you may see many similarities in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Remember all four gospels were reporting on the same person, during the same time span. (mainly about a 3.5 year span) They were all authored by God as His Holy Spirit inspired four different individuals. Matthew wrote about Jesus the King. Mark wrote about Jesus the servant. Luke wrote about Jesus the man. John's gospel has less in common with the others, but there still are some similarities as John wrote about the deity of Jesus as Lord. |
||||||
30 | Leave possesions to realize GOD | Genesis | keliy | 215107 | ||
Hello Rajeeb, This question often arises out of a false teaching, about the meaning of the parable in Matt 13:44. It starts with Jesus saying, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." There are many who teach that it is "us" who need to sell all we have in gained in this life in order to have confidence about our entrance into the next, eternal life. There is a major problem with this interpretation. That is, the Kingdom of Heaven is not for sale. It is number One, a gift. And number Two, there is nothing that we can offer God that He has not given to us first. So you see, God does not need our posessions. He owns it all already. So, who is it in the parable that gave it all to buy the field? It is God, who gave His only Son. And what is the pearl being symbolized here? It is You, Rajeeb, and it is the church. There is another parable that is along the same line, in Luke 18:18. This is where ... a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus knew this man's heart. Being a ruler, he had much worldly possession. So when the ruler told Jesus, "All these (commandments) have I kept from my youth" Then Jesus simply said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." Well, all the ruler did was walk away sad. If he would have listened to the last part of Jesus' instruction, "Come follow me" -then he would have had a chance. But Jesus went on to say this is why it is hard for a rich man to enter into heaven. So His disciples asked Him, who can even be saved? And Jesus said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." This goes back again to the saying that you cannot serve both God and mammon. Mammon is being understood as wealth and possessions. Now, no one actually serves their wealth. They do not actually love money, but they do love what the money is able to 'do' for them. So, who are they trying to benefit? they are not doing anything at all for the love of money, but it is the love of themselves that keeps them chasing after money. Do you see now? No one can serve two masters. It must be God, or self. It can not be both, or you will love one more than the other. And to love self, you place God in second place by default. There are many people out there who have more money than I, Yet they also have a closer walk with Jesus than I as well. I hope this information helps you to become one of them. May He richly bless you, keliy |
||||||
31 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | keliy | 221583 | ||
Hi Hoth, Your question could get very involved but I will try to give you the short answer, and you can ask for more detail, if needed. In the beginning, refers to the beginning of creation, as we know it. Since God created time, you are correct in assuming that this is prior to the "one day" mentioned. It is not a period of time, but rather the beginning of time. The "one day" is a unit of measurement after time began. "A day is an evening and morning" is simply an explanation of the length of the time unit. keliy |
||||||
32 | Did God bless the beasts as well | Gen 1:25 | keliy | 213430 | ||
Hello Azure, I enjoy your questions because they provoke me to explore areas of my musty mind that are not visited often enough (-; As Christians we are called to live according to God's Kingdom standards. These standards are best exemplified in Jesus' Sermon on the mount where He states, in part: "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin..." Matt 6:26,28 I would presume that you are multilingual, and as such, you know that no language translates perfectly into any other language. Being flexible, language is as much an art as it is science. Let's take a quick look at the verses you mention: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed (naphach) into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh). Now, I do not want to connect myself with some religious group that proclaims spirituality in animals, but since dogs breathe, do they have their own spirits (ruwach)? I do believe that dogs have a soul (nephesh) because I have observed something in dogs that very much resembles a conscience. We could look next at the word 'blessed' (barak) which means to bring joy to, or to make one happy. But it could also mean 'adore', so I would say yes, God does blessingly adore humans and also animals. I believe God did bless all animals, but not with the same measure that He gave to mankind. He provides for all creatures but He also appointed humans as stewards of the environment that contains animals. As appointed stewards we neglect God when we pollute the land, the water, and devalue the animals. What does that mean in terms of who we are as God's children?" This is a responsibility discussed much too little in the church. "I think we owe it to God to learn as much as we can and make good choices towards His blessed animals. Lord Bless keliy |
||||||
33 | creation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220932 | ||
There are many false teachers out there, who teach that days are to God as a thousand years, and like the JW's, like to use 2Pet 3:8 as their prooftext, which says, But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. There are teachers of the 'gap' theory, the 'pre-adamic race' and on and on. There are seven earth days in the creation account and actually there is nothing in God's Holy Word that can lead us into thinking anything different. grace, and peace. |
||||||
34 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220938 | ||
Hi Rick, Actually, there was a qualifier in there, read the "if" and you will understand that getting rid of the Bible is the farthest thing from my mind. We will be judged for our interpretation, you are correct. We are also commanded to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." In this verse, 2Tim 2:15, Paul is urging us all to teach the truth directly and correctly. To cut the word straight. Following on a straight path, the equivalent of acting correctly. These words are meant to encourage ministers as well as all Christians, and with the companion verse, 2Tim 3:16, paints a clear picture of how we are to interpret and how we are to handle personal interpretations: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." There are those who call themselves Christians that actually use verses out of the Bible to promote same-sex marriage. (That is not what I call instruction in righteousness) -Can you see the danger of incorrect interpretations? When satan tempted our LORD in the desert, he used a partial qoutation in the Word of God as an attempt to thwart God's plan for our salvation. Can you see the danger in mishandling the Word? Thank you for studying with us here, may we all become enriched and draw closer to God's truth through our conversation. |
||||||
35 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220963 | ||
I find the Gk. word for interpret in 1Cr 12:30 to be diermeneuo definition: 1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language Nothing about freely interpreting, but thank you for your heart in this matter. I do enjoy your presence here and hope to continue. Being somewhat new here, Rick, you are in a slight learning curve, and one thing you will find is that free interpretation is just not accepted as well as formal interpretation. I agree with the ones who think formal is better. Lord Bless |
||||||
36 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220972 | ||
Thank you Rick, I appreciate your comments as being forthright, and I feel that when you have given personal interpretations, you have labeled them as such. Therefore I enjoy conversations with you, because we are all here to learn and grow, and this is exactly what I am doing here. You asked about what I call a 'free' interpretation, and what this falls under is the paraphrase category. Please let me explain myself. Many people today think that a good translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, then there is a noun in the translation. If the verse has six words, they don't want to see seven words in the translation. This method of translation is referred to as literal, or "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard are found near the formal end, where a literal translation would be the very end. On the other hand is a more free translation, what is referred to as a "dynamic equivalent". This is not as concerned with the grammar of the original, as it is with the basic gist, or the essence of the original. A dynamic equivalent is more interpretive, which makes it easier to read. One major complaint with this style is that it leaves too much open to the convictions of the interpretors. The New International Version and the New English Bible fall into this category. At the far free end of the spectrum are what is often called 'paraphrased'. These throw out grammatical rules and simply convert the text on a thought-for-thought basis. These include the Good News Bible, and the like. For an instance of how this type of interpretation can be damaging, let's look at Hebrews 1:3 and see who the translation says Jesus actually is. The KJV (formal equivalent) reads, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; And the NIV (Dynamic equivalent) has it: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Now for the free end of the spectrum. The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English. GNT says, (parenthesis mine throughout) "He reflects the brightness of God's glory (!) and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. Here is the RSV, He reflects the glory of God (!) and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. And this is the New Century Version: The Son reflects the glory of God (!) and shows exactly what God is like.(!) He holds everything together with his powerful word. Now, the paraphrase versions are dangerously free, because they change the description of Christ. If Christ is a reflection of God's glory, then He has no glory of His own. This makes Christ to be to God, as the moon is to the sun. The sun is the light, and the moon gives off no light but reflects the light from the sun. Is this how we want to portray Christ to an unbeliever who is seeking answers? This will only lead to confusion. God is not an author of confusion but the enemy uses this as an arrow in his quiver. A college professor used to say, "The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded!" Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU. |
||||||
37 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220973 | ||
Hi Rick, I am hoping that you understand my gist here, and that you are not experiencing too much friction in this thread. This goes back to the belief that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God. This is in the SBF doctrinal statement I reiterate: If we cannot accept the account of creation as related by God in Genesis, then we cannot trust anything in the entire Bible Is this not how this thread got from creation to interpretation? |
||||||
38 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220978 | ||
Thanks for your response Rick. I appreciate your heart for the Word even if we disagree on the symbolism in Genesis. (-; I do not think that symbolism should be a divisive issue, it's just a personal election, such as: I happen to be against infant baptism but I know many fine Christians who do espouse that doctrine, and I believe that God is probably laughing at us for the personal investments we make into these implicit issues. Also, when I was first saved, I had a hard time with the KJV. So, I had a class where I took a GNT along with a study Bible in KJV. That is how I grew to understand the semantic shifts such as suffer means permit, and so on. So what is comfortable for one may not be for someone else who is on a different spiritual level. We will find out soon enough when it will all become obvious. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1Cr (13:12) But until then, all we have is faith, hope, and love. Lord bless you and yours. |
||||||
39 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213408 | ||
Shalom Azure, I will try to not only answer the 'academic side' of your post, but I am feeling that there also is an underlying essence that could be addressed. In Gen 2:23, Adam called her "woman" -having being made from "man." (in Hebrew the term for woman is "Isha", a derivative of the name for man "Ish"). That name defined the TYPE of being she was, a "woman". The number 802 in Strong's is actually, ishshah. "woman" He then named her Eve after God expelled them from Eden. (Genesis 3:20) This name he gave her, ( Hebrew, Chava ), means "giver or source of life". It was at this time Adam identified the God-given ROLE that Eve/ Chava would have, namely to be the mother of all humankind. The number 2332 in Strong's is actually, Chavvah, "life giver" btw, The Hebrew (qara) is the word translated as called, and also as named. I would answer your first question in the negative, Was Eve subordinate to Adam only after the Fall, Because God commanded Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit before Eve came on the scene. This would point to Eve's subordination to Adam before the fall. Your second query could be answered in the positive, but with clarification. 'Did Adam's action of giving name to Eve signify his ruling power over her' No, for the reason Adam was doing the same thing he did for all the animals, he named them all. So I am not sure if I agree with your choice of words, 'ruling power'. I would say that God was the ruler, and his directives to Eve would be falling under his submission to God. He was never meant to have a despotic reign. Our God is however a God of order, not chaos. 1Cor 11:3 clears up any confusion as to authority, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. So, as Adam was first, that would necessarily place Eve in a position to obey Adam's authority, as being a helper to him, -but. My feelings are that since they were both to become one flesh, This means to me equal, yet separate. So, 'ruling power' just seems a little harsh. In Him, keliy |
||||||
40 | # of years from creation till flood | Gen 5:5 | keliy | 221008 | ||
From the studies of the genealogy, which is considered complete and with no omissions, the time between the creation of Adam and the flood of Noah has been calculated to be almost exactly 1656 years. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |