Results 21 - 36 of 36
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: ateo Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Aspilos,How was Rome divided?ateo | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60381 | ||
EdB, I know. I read it. Thanks for your reply. The reason I was asking Aspilos is that I thought he believed it was divided differently. It turns out I was wrong. ateo |
||||||
22 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60384 | ||
Radioman2, So what's your point? The abomination that causes desolation was a shrine, if you will, to the Greek god Zeus. It was set up by Antiochus IV in167 BCE. ateo |
||||||
23 | Aspilos,How was Rome divided?ateo | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60389 | ||
Aspilos, De nada. ¡Hago lo que puedo para ayudar! ateo |
||||||
24 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60499 | ||
Aspilos, At your request I noted the 4th beast in Daniel 7. What follows is my opinion of it. The 1st beast is unquestionably Babylon. The 2nd is Persia. The 3 ribs represent the 3 empires swallowed up into the Persian empire, namely, Babylon, Lydia, and Media. The 3rd is Greece. The 4 heads are the 4 kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided. The last beast is the Seleucid kingdom. The 10 horns represent the 10 Seleucid kings which followed. They were Seleucis I, Antiochus I, Antiochus II, Seleucis II, Seleucis III, Antiochus III, Seleucis IV, and 3 that were subdued by the little horn. The little horn was Antiochus IV. ateo |
||||||
25 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60503 | ||
EdB, You said, "Your contention that Lydia..." I wouldn't think of it as a contention but rather as a suggestion. More on that later. Let's take our discussion about the "inferior" empire out of the Biblical context for a moment. By your reasoning our gov't in the US was inferior to the communist gov't of the former Soviet Union, simply b/c our gov't exercises less control over its people than did the USSR's. I don't think anyone of sound mind would agree with that, though. However, I think most people would agree that Iraq, for example, is an inferior nation to us b/c of our military superiority over it. They say it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong, and that's what I'm going to do. Since I posted on Thursday night, I've tried to study more about Daniel and what the image in chapter 2 could have represented. I think I may have stumbled onto a better suggestion. What if the 2nd empire was Media and the 3rd was Persia. Notice that Isaiah 13:17 predicts that God would stir up the Medes against Babylon. Also, Daniel 8:20 refers to "the kings of Media and Persia" and not the kings of Media-Persia. So, is it possible that Daniel was acknowledging them as 2 separate nations? WBS ateo |
||||||
26 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60560 | ||
EdB, When Daniel tells Neubchadnezzar in verse 38 "You are that head of gold" the usage of the word head seems to be anatomical in nature. The head was at the top of the image, therefore, the 1st empire had to necessarily be the head. I'm not trying to make Greece anything. I'm reading the story and, to the best of my ability, trying to see which scenario fits best. In my opinion everything in the book of Daniel points at Greece. Let's suppose for a moment that you're right, i.e. Rome is the last nation. Why does Daniel tell us about specific visions that concerned 3 of the 4 nations, and yet, doesn't even give us a name for the 4th? ateo |
||||||
27 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60562 | ||
EdB, In my post I forgot to return the question to you. Why are you trying to make Rome the 4th nation? ateo |
||||||
28 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60634 | ||
EdB, As always I appreciate your speedy response. I must admit I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Sadly, I feel I should bail on this topic for now. The reason is that I don't think I can do it justice, and anything I say from this point on would be repetitive. Graduate school keeps me very busy, and I don't have time to research enough. However, stay on your guard, because when I have more free time, I will probably be eager to pick up right where we left off. :-) On a different note, when I decide how to phrase it, I'm going to post a question. So this is a special invitation for you to join the discussion. Finally, I will summarize my argument one final time and offer you a chance to respond. As I'm casually reading through Daniel 2, it seems obvious that the 1st empire is Babylon. In my never-be-humble opinion, "head" is used anatomically, not as a reference to the head of Babylon. The 2nd nation must be inferior, and I see it as a military inferiority. The last nation was divided, which clearly Greece was. Lastly, if Rome is truly one of the nations in this vision, why is it the only one never named throughout the book? I'll let you have the last word. ateo |
||||||
29 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67242 | ||
Does anyone have an explanation for Jesus' two genealogies, other than one being Joseph's line and the other Mary's? | ||||||
30 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67515 | ||
Paator Glenn, "Were you once a Christian?" Yes, but what's the relevance? This question has been discussed in great detail by others on this website. I just happen not to agree with their explanations. That's why I was hoping someone would tell me one I hadn't read already. ateo |
||||||
31 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67518 | ||
Chris, Thanks. I read the site you referenced. It gave the same explanation others on this forum have given, namely, that one line was Joseph's and the other was Mary's. Since I don't buy this line of reasoning for a second, I was hoping someone could give me an explanation I hadn't heard before. ateo |
||||||
32 | What explanation would you like? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67556 | ||
Charis, "Friend, what explanation would you like to hear?" I don't have a particular one in mind, and hence, the reason for the question. The problem I'm having is that people who believe this explanation have no moral qualms about changing the wording of the Scripture. The author of Luke never mentions Mary in the genealogy, yet they see nothing wrong with "helping" the writer tell the story. "...unless you are abnormal! :-),..." I certainly consider myself to be normal. However, there are those who would STRONGLY disagree! :) "Something (usually someone) hurt you, so you blame God, the Bible, and-or the church." Nope. It's not that complicated. However, I'm not allowed to give the details on this forum. But, if you want to discuss it 1-on-1, feel free to e-mail me anytime at jl_huff2002@yahoo.com. ateo |
||||||
33 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67559 | ||
Pastor Glenn, "The relevance is by not having a relationship with God, there is no hope of understanding His word..." That doesn't make any sense, though. By your reasoning, I understood when I was a Christian, but now I've suddenly lost that understanding. Regardless, it seems as though you're intentionally avoiding the question. Since you don't think I can understand what the Bible is talking about, why don't you fill me in. This conversation is probably getting a little too controversial for this forum, and that was never my intention. That said, if you'd like to discuss anything with just me, please feel free to send me an e-mail anytime. (jl_huff2002@yahoo.com) ateo |
||||||
34 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67560 | ||
Searcher, It sounds like you're using the same arguments others have. I don't buy it b/c the writer in Luke doesn't mention Mary in the genealogy. I don't think it's intellectually honest to change the wording whenever the spirit moves you. Regardless, I'm really more interested in hearing other views about this question than I am debating the same thing I've heard over and over. ateo |
||||||
35 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67586 | ||
Hank, "...what makes you think that there are 'other views' on the genealogy of Jesus..." There may not be. I'd just like to know if anyone has thought about it, and if so, what conclusions have you drawn? To give you an example, a Christian friend of mine seemed to think that "son" doesn't literally mean son, but rather descendent. I'm not going to argue his point b/c I can't remember all of his explanation. But, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not the first to raise this question here. Are you attacking others the way you are me, or is it something personal? What are you so afraid of? "...you're willing to reveal your motive in being here ..." I thought my user profile spelled it out clearly, but I'll give it one more shot. I'm here to discuss Biblical ideas. I'd be lying if I said I'm not interested in learning how Christians deal with "difficult" passages, but that's not the only thing I'd like to discuss while I'm here. In the meantime I think you should understand that free speech is not limited to those who agree with you. If you, or anybody else for that matter, don't like my questions and answers, then you don't have to participate. Find another topic to discuss. "...buzz off!" Ah, Christian love, it never ceases to amaze me. ;-) ateo |
||||||
36 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Rom 1:18 | ateo | 67587 | ||
Emmaus, I won't justify your facetiousness with a comment. It's obvious that you, as well as others, would like to see me go. Therefore, I'll take my ball and go home. This will be the last post I give. ateo |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |