Results 141 - 160 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87693 | ||
You know "TheCurtman", Moslems insist, in the words of the Koran (5:76-79), that “there is no God but one God,” and we Christians heartily agree, for the Bible itself declares, at 1 Corinthians 8:6, that “there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.” In the Koran God is “Allah,” for in Arabic the word Allah means “the God.” The Bible gives us his name, saying “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”Mark 12:29.(Quote of Deut. 6:4) But when Christians use the expression “the Son of God,” Moslems vehemently protest, “God has no son.” They quote the Koran, which says, at Suras 4:169; 6:101; 19:36: “God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a son!” “How, when He hath no consort, should He have a son?” “It beseemeth not God to beget a son.” Of course, it would be foolish for anyone to limit the power of God by saying, ‘God cannot have a son.’ Truthfully, the Koran proclaims, “Verily, God is Almighty.” (2:19) He is the Creator of the universe, of heaven and earth and of the creatures in them. As God said to Abraham, that man of faith recognized by both Christians and Moslems, “Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah?” A person who really is in submission to the Omnipotent God must agree with the prophet who said, “With God all things are possible.”—Gen. 18:14; Matt. 19:26. No Moslem denies that it is God who created humans and endowed them with power to have sons. Yes, God created Adam with power to have sons. Now, was it a blind man who invented and made the first camera? Or was it a deaf man who first thought of and fashioned the telephone? No, reasons Sir Isaac Newton, the English mathematician, physicist and astronomer. He said, “Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, or the ear without knowledge of sounds?” In support of the obvious answer the Bible says: “Understand, you who are unreasoning among the people; and as for you stupid ones, when will you have any insight? The One planting the ear, can he not hear? Or the One forming the eye, can he not look?” (Ps. 94:8, 9) The One who gave man power to have sons, can He not have a son? “Verily, God is Almighty.” The logical answer is an indisputable Yes, and that is why Abraham believed when God told him that he would have a son. With just elementary insight a reasoning person must agree: God can have a son. Truthfinder |
||||||
142 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87691 | ||
Hi Jibbs, Yes, I would be glad to explain the translation of the Greek of John 1:1. Since the apostle John purposly refrained from using the definite article "ho" in this instance, he had to have meant something else other than "ho theos". Also the context states that the Word was with "ho theos" indicating that it(the Word) was not the one and the same as the God. If I were with Mary then it would most certainly be nonsensical to conclude that I was Mary. Notice the list of Greek scholars' translations of this verse that agree with me: Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr.(kai the·os' en ho lo'gos) 1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany. 1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. Truthfinder |
||||||
143 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87676 | ||
Hi Tim, You keep ignoring that if one or two verses say there is only one God and then the other verses I have shown you, identify others such as angels and certain men as gods, then the only way to understand Is. 44:6 and 45:5 is the way I explained them. Otherwise you are ignoring those verses that identify these others as "elohim" gods or mighty ones. One example: At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him´, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh´ ha ´Elo·him´, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo him´ indeed is used not as false gods but "elo him" and is rendered “angels” in the(LXX)and “godlike ones” in the NWT. Truthfinder |
||||||
144 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87644 | ||
Hi Curtman Yes, you are exactly correct as far as I am concerned. Isa. 44:6 and 45:5 tells us there is only one God (mighty one) to us that should be viewed as the Supreme God, Almighty God, The Father. To view any other God in his place is wrong. It is interesting that you ask this question, because the making of more that one god as the sole GOD is exactly polytheistic. Remember what the words “elohim and “theos” mean. Anything venerated, a mighty one. Remember too that paying honor to such ones in a relative sense may be both proper and righteous. However polytheism is most certainly idolatry. Egypt’s religion was polytheistic, characterized by over 500 gods, and possibly twice that many. “Throughout Egypt generally the company of gods of a town or city were three in number,” says Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge. In time, a principal triad developed, a holy family composed of Osiris, the father; Isis, the mother; and Horus, the child. Polytheism resulted in several gods’ claiming to be ‘the sole god.’ But priests and theologians evidently saw no problem in believing in one god and at the same time viewing him as existing in a multitude of forms. Author B. Mertz comments that this “is only another example of that pleasant inconsistency which is so characteristic of Egyptian religion.” When the Son of God, Jesus is viewed as the sole God as the Father only should be viewed, is exactly polytheistic. Recognizing Jesus as a Mighty One (Elohim) is not polytheistic as long as he is not viewed as the Almighty One. Worshipping Jesus as the Son of God is relative and proper but worshipping him as the sole God in stead of as the Son of God is not. Jesus is the one that said, “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” Mat. 4:10 quoting Deut. 10:20 Actually the phrase “other gods” appears 84 times in the Bible and 5 times as “other god”. To error is to say all these are false gods (mighty ones. The Bible plainly says they are gods. Satan is a god, plain and simple. 2 Cor. 4:4. What kind of god is he? He is a "false" god. But just because he should not be worshipped as the Almighty God does not make him “no god”. To illustrate: John 8:12 tells us that Jesus is the “light” of the world. But what happens when we read Mat. 5:14? Are Jesus’ disciples “false lights” “not lights” of the world? Of course not. They were still “lights” but not in the same sense that Jesus was and still is the “light” of the world. 1 Tim 1:17 identifies Jesus’ Father as the “one true God”. Additionally to whom did Jesus say he was ascending to when he said, “to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”—Joh 20:11-18. Polytheism is idolatry, thus Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus’ Father is Almighty God. To say otherwise is an invention of man and contradicts scripture and takes away the due honor to our heavenly Father Jehovah. Truthfinder |
||||||
145 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87530 | ||
Hi Glenn, If Goodnewsminister is expounding on scriptures and I see that they don't contradict other verses I support him on those arguments. If Herbert W. Armstrong does the same I likewise support him on those arguments. If the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does the same I likewise support them on those arguments. If the contrary is true then I simply express my understanding using scriptural proof texts. If T. Morant uses a textural proof for an argument and I understand that other scriptural texts contradict them, I have presented some of them. I have yet to find any contradictions in the Bible for the way I believe but if one believes the trinity then there are many. By the way, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. Truthfinder |
||||||
146 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87522 | ||
Well, hi Tim, Since elohim/theos means a mighty one, anything that is venerated, anything that is honored, how can you say Jesus is not "a god" (an honored one, a venerated one). Certainly he is. Also, truth dictates that the true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. (1Ki 8:49; Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24) His throne is in heaven. (Isa 66:1) He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) “All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him,” and he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.—2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4 You wrote: "the Scriptures themselves are quite clear" then why the controversy? IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11. What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].” Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27. Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching? To me they are indeed clear and logical and the Son of God is not the Almighty Jehovah but his son. Truthfinder |
||||||
147 | Is antichrist a man or a spirit? | 1 John 4:3 | Truthfinder | 87511 | ||
Hi Prazn, Although there has been much effort in the past to identify “the antichrist” with an individual, such as Pompey, Nero, or Muhammad (this latter person being suggested by Pope Innocent III in 1213 C.E.), or with a specific organization, as in the Protestant view of “the antichrist” as applying to the papacy, John’s inspired statements show the term to be broad in its application, embracing all those who deny that “Jesus is the Christ,” and who deny that Jesus is the Son of God who came “in the flesh.”—1Jo 2:22; 4:2, 3; 2Jo 7, NE, NIV; compare Joh 8:42, 48, 49; 9:22. Denial of Jesus as the Christ and as the Son of God of necessity embraces the denial of any or all of the Scriptural teachings concerning him: his origin, his place in God’s arrangement, his fulfillment of the prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures as the promised Messiah, his ministry and teachings and prophecies, as well as any opposition to or efforts to replace him in his position as God’s appointed High Priest and King. This is evident from other texts, which, while not using the term “antichrist,” express essentially the same idea. Thus, Jesus stated: “He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.” (Lu 11:23) Second John 7 shows that such ones might act as deceivers, and hence the “antichrist” would include those who are “false Christs” and “false prophets,” as well as those who perform powerful works in Jesus’ name and yet are classed by him as “workers of lawlessness.”—Mt 24:24; 7:15, 22, 23. In view of Jesus’ rule that what is done to his true followers is done to him (Mt 25:40, 45; Ac 9:5), the term must include those who persecute such ones, which means it would include the symbolic “Babylon the Great” and those described as the “evil slave” in Jesus’ parable.—Lu 21:12; Re 17:5, 6; Mt 24:48-51. John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who “went out from us,” abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes “the man of lawlessness” or “son of destruction” described by Paul, as well as the “false teachers” Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who “disown even the owner that bought them.”—2Th 2:3-5; 2Pe 2:1 Kingdoms, nations, and organizations are similarly shown to be part of the antichrist in the symbolic description at Revelation 17:8-15; 19:19-21.—Compare Ps 2:1, 2. In all the above cases those composing the antichrist are shown to be headed for eventual destruction as a recompense for their opposing course. Truthfinder |
||||||
148 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 87509 | ||
The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.” The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied. In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches! Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?” How could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.” However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS). In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it? Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13. Needless to say, the trinity doctrine is not a Bible teaching. Truthfinder |
||||||
149 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Truthfinder | 87460 | ||
Hi Goodnewsminister, Have you left the forum or are you coming back to dialogue perhaps with a few of us that agree with almost everything you've said? I have patiently sat back and read the replies, rebutals, but wanted to join and support you but perhaps waited too long. I understand frustration when we find so few that cannot understand/accept even the basics of Biblical truths as you have presented. Come back, be patient, and let's continue expounding these basics and if even one individual listens it will be worth the time and effort. Truthfinder |
||||||
150 | Was Jesus' spirit abandoned? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Truthfinder | 83420 | ||
“E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) (Mt 27:46; Mr 15:34) Hi Dan58, You write: I still don't understand in what sense Jesus was abandoned by God. I don't see whether or not Jesus' spirit was separated from God. I haven't checked the discussion on other verses that has already been posted. Would someone summarize the issues raised in other threads?Jesus’ question was a quotation from a psalm of David. (Ps. 22:1) If we look at David’s case, the question related to a momentary condition of abandonment. Surrounded by enemies, David found himself in a situation that made it appear that he was completely forsaken by his God, Jehovah. The tremendous strain resulting therefrom moved David to ask why it had happened despite his being unaware of any guilt. But David had not lost faith, for in the same psalm he prayed: “Do make haste to my assistance.” Ps. 22:16-19.So, in the same sence, when uttering the words of Psalm 22:1, Jesus keenly sensed that his Father had momentarily withdrawn his protection and “forsaken” or released him into the hands of his enemies, to die as an accursed criminal on a stake. (Gal. 3:13) In asking “why,” Jesus did not imply that he did not know the reason for this abandonment nor was he expecting an answer from his Father. The situation is comparable to that of a Christian who knows the reason for human suffering but is moved, under the weight of intense difficulties, to ask “why” either silently or audibly. The questioner thereby reveals that he has no reason to think that the suffering is due to his transgressions. Thus, besides fulfilling Psalm 22:1, Jesus’ outcry evidently served to confirm his innocence and focused on the real purpose for his suffering. (Matt. 27:46) compare also John 12:27, 28, 33. Truthfinder |
||||||
151 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Truthfinder | 83418 | ||
Very good, I for one agree with your thoughts. Might I add mine? John 5:18, Revised Standard Verson: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” I agree it was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28) John 10:36 says, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS. Philippians 2:5, 6 comes into play here. The KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” Not only the NWT but also the RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought. But which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) Compare Genesis 3:5 where Satan told Eve that she would be equal to God if she were to eat of the forbidden fruit. Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.” -John 14:28. I thus see no contridiction. Note what The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa´zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon´] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437. Truthfinder |
||||||
152 | What did Jesus do under the earth | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83417 | ||
Nothing, he was dead. For esurrection means a raising up from the lifeless condition of death or out of the grave for those there. Truthfinder |
||||||
153 | # of Apostles? 12 and Paul? or more? | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83416 | ||
I find 17 all total. 12) Original 12.Matthias was selected and was thereafter “reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Ac 1:23-26) He is thus included among “the twelve” who settled the problem concerning the Greek-speaking disciples (Ac 6:1, 2), and evidently Paul includes him in referring to “the twelve” when speaking of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances at 1 Corinthians 15:4-8. 13) “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·po´sto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” Heb 3:1 14) Matthias was selected to replace Judas Iscariot and was thereafter “reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Ac 1:23-26) 15) The apostle Paul and 16) Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “your envoy [a·po´sto·lon] (same Greek word for apostle) and private servant for my need.” -Php 2:25 17) Galatians 1:19, Paul states that he visited with Peter and adds: “But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” James (not the original apostle James the son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alphaeus, but the half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an “apostle” in the wider sense, namely, as “one sent forth” by the Jerusalem congregation Truthfinder |
||||||
154 | Where is eden located? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83415 | ||
The traditional site is in eastern Turkey, about 140 miles (225 kilometers) southwest of Mount Ararat and a few miles south of Lake Van. Truthfinder |
||||||
155 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83414 | ||
Well said again, Student7300, but allow me to elaborate a bit. Human sin and imperfection were, of course, preceded by sin and imperfection in the spirit realm, as Jesus' words at John 8:44 and the account in chapter 3 of Genesis reveal. The dirge recorded at Ezekiel 28:12-19, though directed to the human "king of Tyre," evidently parallels the course taken by the spirit son of God who first sinned. The pride of "the king of Tyre," his making himself 'a god,' his being called a "cherub," and the reference to "Eden, the garden of God," certainly correspond to Biblical information concerning Satan the Devil, who became puffed up with pride, is linked to the serpent in Eden, and is called "the god of this system of things." see 1Ti 3:6; Ge 3:1-5, 14, 15; Re 12:9; 2Co 4:4. Truthfinder |
||||||
156 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83412 | ||
Well put Student7300, The context clearly shows that the Hebrew here is Not referencing Satan, but is a descriptive designation applied to the “king of Babylon.” (Isa 14:4, 12) The Hebrew expression is thus properly translated in the NWT, Ro, Yg) “shinning one” and comes from a root meaning “shine.” (Job 29:3) The rendering “Lucifer” (KJ, Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate and is in error. The “shining one” is represented as saying in his heart: “Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting.” (Isa 14:13) Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the “mountain of meeting.” So, since stars can refer to kings (Nu 24:17; Re 22:16), “the stars of God” must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion. The “king of Babylon” (the dynasty of Babylonian kings), reflecting the attitude of Satan the god of this system of things, indicated his ambition to lift up his throne “above the stars of God” by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally to dethrone them. Like stars that shed light, the “king of Babylon” shone brightly in the ancient world and could be termed “shining one.” Truthfinder |
||||||
157 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Truthfinder | 83325 | ||
Hi Graceful, Was God’s son Jesus, a spirit person like his Father, before coming to earth? (Php 2:5-8), but later “became flesh,” residing among mankind as the man Jesus. (Joh 1:14) Completing his earthly course, was he “put to death in the flesh, but [was] made alive in the spirit.” (1Pe 3:18) His Father resurrected him, granted his Son’s request to be glorified alongside the Father with the glory he had had in his prehuman state (Joh 17:4, 5), and God made him “a life-giving spirit.” (1Co 15:45)?? Did Jesus thus became again invisible to human sight, dwelling “in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.” that 1Ti 6:14-16 speaks of? Truthfinder |
||||||
158 | revelation 13 | Revelation | Truthfinder | 83323 | ||
Hi, Nunbers in the Bible. One. This number, when used figuratively, conveys the thought of singleness, uniqueness, as well as unity and agreement in purpose and action. Two. The number two frequently appears in a legal setting. Agreement in the accounts of two witnesses adds to the force of the testimony. Two witnesses, or even three, were required to establish a matter before the judges. Three. While the testifying of two witnesses to the same matter established proof sufficient for legal action, three made the testimony even stronger. The number three, therefore, is used at times to represent intensity, emphasis, or added strength. One of many examples: “A threefold cord cannot quickly be torn in two.” (Ec 4:12) Four. Four is a number sometimes expressing universalness or foursquareness in symmetry and form. It is found three times at Revelation 7:1. Six. This number at times represents imperfection. The number of “the wild beast” is 666 and is called “a man’s number,” indicating that it has to do with imperfect, fallen man, and it seems to symbolize the imperfection of that which is represented by “the wild beast.” The number six being emphasized to a third degree (the six appearing in the position of units, tens, and hundreds) therefore highlights the imperfection and deficiency of that which the beast represents, or pictures.—Re 13:18. Seven. Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify completeness. At times it has reference to bringing a work toward completion. Or it can refer to the complete cycle of things as established or allowed by God. Multiples of seven are used in a similar sense of completeness Eight. The number eight was also used to add emphasis to the completeness of something (one more than seven, the number generally used for completeness), thus sometimes representing abundance. Ten. Ten is a number denoting fullness, entirety, the aggregate, the sum of all that exists of something. It may be noted also that, where the numbers seven and ten are used together, the seven represents that which is higher or superior and ten represents something of a subordinate nature. Example: The Ten Plagues poured upon Egypt fully expressed God’s judgments upon Egypt—all that were needed to humiliate fully the false gods of Egypt and to break the hold of Egypt upon God’s people Israel. The “Ten Words” formed the basic laws of the Law covenant, the approximately 600 other laws merely enlarging on these, elucidating them, and explaining their application. (Ex 20:3-17; 34:28) Jesus used the number ten in several of his illustrations to denote entirety or the full number of something.—Mt 25:1; Lu 15:8; 19:13, 16, 17. Twelve. The patriarch Jacob had 12 sons, who became the foundations of the 12 tribes of Israel. Multiples of 12 are also sometimes significant. David established 24 divisions of the priesthood to serve by turn in the temple later built by Solomon. (1Ch 24:1-18) Forty. In a few instances periods of judgment or punishment seem to be associated with the number 40. (Ge 7:4; Eze 29:11, 12) Nineveh was given 40 days to repent. (Jon 3:4) Another use of the number 40 points out a parallel in the life of Jesus Christ with that of Moses, who typified Christ. Both of these men experienced 40-day periods of fasting.—Ex 24:18; 34:28; De 9:9, 11; Mt 4:1, 2. Truthfinder |
||||||
159 | Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Truthfinder | 83322 | ||
Hi, Well, while on earth, Jesus Christ referred to himself as “Lord of the sabbath.” (Mt 12:8) The literal Sabbath day, which was meant to bring the Israelites relief from their labors, was “a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.” (Col 2:16, 17) In connection with those “things to come,” there is a sabbath of which Jesus is to be the Lord. As Lord of lords, Christ will rule all the earth for a thousand years. (Re 19:16; 20:6) During his earthly ministry, Jesus performed some of his most outstanding miraculous works on the Sabbath. (Lu 13:10-13; Joh 5:5-9; 9:1-14) This to me, shows the kind of relief that he will bring as he raises or resurrects mankind to spiritual and physical perfection during his coming Millennial Rule, which thus will be like a period of sabbath rest for the earth and mankind. (Re 21:1-4). Truthfinder |
||||||
160 | revelation 6:9-11 | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 83069 | ||
Hmmmmmm Radioman2, Who told you that? The Bible didn't. That is totally scarry. That is so so archaic. What is the resurrections? Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29. On the other hand, if you mean, if we are resurrected to life, whether a spirit creature or to a future earthly resurrection, then certainly. But if we don't really die, but some part of us (the soul perhaps) continues on living, simply is not true according to the Bible. Expain Ezk. 18:4; Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 9:5-10; 1 Cor. 15:53; Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29 Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [15] >> |