Results 61 - 80 of 172
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: InGodITrust Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | How did Christ escape inherent depravity | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 191102 | ||
Restate, Hope I can help. The sin nature, or the consequences thereof, are passed down through the seed of the male. Therefore Jesus did not receive the seed of a man but was conceived by the Holy Spirit. InGodITrust |
||||||
62 | How did Christ escape inherent depravity | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 191116 | ||
Jeff, Amen bro...glad to be of service. Have been very busy "praise God," away from the Forum. God bless, InGodITrust |
||||||
63 | When is a child guilty of sin? | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 191137 | ||
Searcher, I think we have an under aged person here. I addressed all these questions yesterday. Perhaps if wolfcreek does not own up to his age and the rules of the Forum we should report or ignore his questions. That's my take on this.. InGodITrust |
||||||
64 | OT men how did they get saved? | OT general | InGodITrust | 189746 | ||
Greetings lindah, By believing in the One true God, the One and only. Not necessarily by keeping all the Torah, (Old Testament Law) The law cannot and never has saved anyone. By true belief in Jehovah God, they went to their graves and when Jesus died on the cross He desended into Sheol testifying to them that He was indeed the Messiah. They then assended with Him into the Heaven where God the Father resides. Before the cross, there was two places of the departed dead. One was Abraham's bosom the other Hades. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19; if not look it up. Gotta go, InGodITrust |
||||||
65 | What are the teachings of these things | NT general Archive 1 | InGodITrust | 187947 | ||
Yowege, It would take enormous space and effort here in this forum. I suggest you go to this web site. I have had many such questions answered there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page For Him, InGodITrust |
||||||
66 | symbol of fish | NT general Archive 1 | InGodITrust | 187969 | ||
justsomebody, The fish symbol, here's what I was able to find: The fish was an early symbol of Christian faith that endures today on bumper stickers and businesses as a sign of Christian faith. The fish is thought to have been chosen by the early Christians for several reasons: the Greek word for fish (ICHTUS), works nicely as an acrostic for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior" the fish would not be an obvious Christian symbol to persecutors Jesus' ministry is associated with fish: he chose several fishermen to be his disciples and declared he would make them "fishers of men." It is said that during the persecution of the early church, a Christian meeting someone new would draw a single arc in the sand. If the other person was a Christian, he or she would complete the drawing of a fish with a second arc. If the second person was not a Christian, the ambiguity of the half-symbol would not reveal the first person as a Christian. The second fish symbol above is the ICHTHUS fish, with the Greek word for fish written out to emphasize the symbolic acrostic described above. Although the word looks like IXOYE, the letters are from the Greek alphabet, so the "I" is actually an iota, the "X" is actually a chi, the "O" is actually a theta, the "Y" is an upsilon, and the "E" or "C" at the end is a sigma. Taking the first sound from each of these Greek letter names, we get the transliteration into our alphabet of ICHTHUS. Today, when Christians (in the West) do not need to worry about persecution, the Christian fish symbol often has "Jesus" written inside or includes a cross symbol. And of course, there have been many spoofs and variations of the popular Christian symbol, such as the famous "Darwin fish" (with legs). The fish is also a symbol of baptism, since a fish is at home in the water. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/symbols/fish.htm Yours truly in Him, InGodITrust |
||||||
67 | Abraham a father at 134 | Genesis | InGodITrust | 187920 | ||
chach, Isaac was heir to the promice, in that the Jewish nation would come through Abraham in his son Isaac. I would assume any other children he had would be in the same category as Ishmael. This would put them "outside of" God's chosen people the Jews. They would then be considered "gentiles" and would not be in the lineage of Israel, thus, outside of God's chosen people. So, the Bible would have no reason to continue their history or significance. Anyone else have a better explaination as this is all I can come up with? Seeking to serve Him, InGodITrust |
||||||
68 | Abraham at 134 | Genesis | InGodITrust | 187922 | ||
chach, I guess, the obvious, if he could not father children through his first 99 plus years, then it was obviously a miracle of God that at 100 he could. The fact that he went on to father other children is not as relivant (I suppose). There are a multitude of things God chose not to include in Holy Writ. The story God wanted recorded is Abraham's faith and life. The answer to prayer in fathering Isaac, the lineage of Isaac and history of the Jewish nation. I agree it is also amazing that Abraham continued to father other children but the Biblical significance seemed unimportant to be included in Biblical history. Best answer I have at the moment.... InGodITrust |
||||||
69 | Abraham at 134 | Genesis | InGodITrust | 187936 | ||
John, Oooops, you are exactly right.......terrible getting old, it was Sarah's womb.....sorry.... Hope I addressed the rest of chach's question correctly... Thanks for the info, guess I was concentrating on the rest of the question and lost focus. Back at ya John. InGodITrust |
||||||
70 | did queen of sheba converted | Genesis | InGodITrust | 191134 | ||
surfmuso, To the best of my knowledge, over the years, I have been told she did not. Blessings, InGodITrust |
||||||
71 | gap therory | Gen 1:1 | InGodITrust | 187970 | ||
chach, Good question, and full of debate unless you take the Bible "literally." Last time I heard, the answer was around 6000 to 6500 years. By those that take the 24 hour periods in Genesis as "literal." Secular scientist that use "carbon dating," for one, are in trouble with most creationist scientist. There seems to be many problems with carbon dating. Experiments have been done on bones that were years old and the carbon dating showed them to be thousands of years old. This ought to get some responses by others! Best I can do for now.......... InGodITrust |
||||||
72 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189064 | ||
Buzzard86, Blessing Buzzard, The most accepted answer to that question is fallen angels that occupied human bodies. These would be of those who followed Satan in the initial rebellion. One third of the angelic beings fell along with Satan. God bless, InGodITrust |
||||||
73 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189070 | ||
John, God loves you and so do I; greetings my friend. I took the easy way out and responded with "the traditionl answer." In times past I had looked into this controversial issue and felt satisfied with the over all argument. It's my understanding that, at times, the Bible refers to "the sons of God," as His creations before the fall of Satan and those that followed him. Without going to (all the trouble) restudy this subject I will just let whomever follow up with their observations................Okeedokee?? God bless ya my friend, InGodITrust |
||||||
74 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189158 | ||
Greetings John, I hate to throw a monkey wrench into your assumptions but I have heard several times over the years by Biblical scholars that the Bible refers to "sons of God" in a very general way at times. The way this is resolved is what God would have said "before" the fall. All of His creations were then referred to as "sons of God" This is the traditional view held by most going way back in Church history. I know it does not agree with what we normally would think of as sons of God, but in the beginning before sin, they we all "sons of God." The term "sons of God," is a generic term (usually) as God Himself created each and every one making them all "sons of God." I did not look up all the arguments over the last few days so forgive me if I "got in the middle." Much love and grace to you, InGodITrust |
||||||
75 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189166 | ||
Dear Azure, Thank you, but I do believe, that my reply (not because I think so) is the correct one. Anyone who traces all the uses of the term "sons of God," would have to conclude it is a generic term since God the Father of all creation would naturally refer to His creatures as "sons of God." The very term implies, all by itself, God is the Father, meaning the Begetting One, who created all things before sin ever entered the scene. I rest my case, even if (God forbid) I am wrong. Blessings abundantly to you Azure, InGodITrust |
||||||
76 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189174 | ||
Hopalong, As I indicated earlier, here is the traditional position on the matter: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?” Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 tells us, "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate). The three primary views on the identity of the "sons of God" are that (1) they were fallen angels, or (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender, or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem. The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were "giants" or "heroes of old, men of renown." Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment. The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons. View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters, apocryphal, and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis. I rest my case, although it probibly won't sit still! InGodITrust |
||||||
77 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189176 | ||
10-4, I agree, it is a hard subject to reckon with, "I reckon!." God bless ya John, InGodITrust (all others pay cash) |
||||||
78 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189226 | ||
Greetings OldPilgrim, You got me "flat-footed." My knowledge and studies are confined to New Testament doctrine. I am very weak in the Old Testament. Found out about my Jewish heritage only 5 months ago. I am anything but a scholar, but thank you for the thought!! Also, it is my understanding that the Jewish authorities did not translate the Septuagint into Greek until sometime around 500-600 bc. As far as a suitable Greek word one can only speculate. Right or wrong, whenever I am trying to draw a conclusion to controversial Scriptural issues, I try to look back through history to what those of reputation interpreted it to be. That, in light of what modern scholars of good reputation have found discovered in their studies. With all the technology we have today it behoves us to compare that with history. Usually, if a present day Bible teacher or scholar does not have "most all of his ducks in a row," I don't consider them necessarily reliable. A big mistake Bible students make is that they don't compare "the source." Just because so and so said it, does not make it worthy of consideration. We live in a day and age where "every Tom, Dick, and Harry," have their own opinion. Usually to the great detriment of Scriptural accuracy. Unfortunately, here on the Forum, that is too ofton the case. My opinion or yours or anyone else's is not worth much if we do not balance everything out and consider, most of all, the source in which we conclude our opinion. Wow, I did not mean to get on my high horse, guess I did so as I just came in from church! Sorry I could not be of help in your sincere quest to find an answer. Frankly when it concerns this subject, there may not be one. You have a really good point though, one should very seriously consider Jewish sources, no matter if Messianic or not, when it concerns Old Testament interpretation. Much blessings to you my friend, InGodITrust |
||||||
79 | when did they realize their guilt? | Gen 42:21 | InGodITrust | 191097 | ||
Ezy, I think that I have heard this question raised many times and do not believe there is a Biblical answer. InGodITrust |
||||||
80 | when did they realize their guilt? | Gen 42:21 | InGodITrust | 191098 | ||
Duplicate question | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |