Results 61 - 80 of 146
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Who was Darius the Mede? | Dan 6:28 | benjamite | 57141 | ||
It seems like the experts are undecided. I looked up a couple different sources, and they only give options. Let me give you another option. Might "Darius the Mede" be another name for "Cyrus the Persian"? (Which, I guess, would mean that "he co-ruled in equal power with Cyrus the Persian".) Benjamite |
||||||
62 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35126 | ||
According to two distinct commentaries, Daniel 11:21-35 refer to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes - during the time of the Apocryphal Writings - I believe in the Maccabees (c. 175-150 BC). 11:36 then begins the description of the Antichrist's career. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
63 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35150 | ||
Did you miss this statement? "11:36 then begins the description of the Antichrist's career." This is still future from OUR standpoint (as the rest of it was also future from Daniel's). This actually continues through the end of the chapter, and is prophetic, in relations to the end time. The reason why I mentioned the commentaries is because there are so many different viewpoints regarding Daniel's prophecies. I have not checked all the commentaries (which should be obvious), but most of the more reliable ones which I have read agree on the history so accurately depicted in Daniel (but written several hundred years beforehand). The "history" part - from our standpoint - continues up through 11:35. Benjamite |
||||||
64 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35186 | ||
Charles C. Ryrie, in his Study Bible - Antiochus through v. 35, and then Antichrist 36ff (notes on Dan 11:21-35, and 36-45) Of v. 32, 33 - "Some Jews resisted [Antiochus] and were martyred". Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown, in "Commentary on the Whole Bible", on Dan 11:21ff, and 36ff, basically says the same. (Although, they say of v. 36ff, "The willful king here, though primarily Antiochus, is antitypically and mainly Antichrist." The people of verse 32-33 are "the Maccabees and their followers". A.C. Gaebelein, in his commentary "The Prophet Daniel: A Key to the Visions and Prophecies of the Book of Daniel" (19th edition), says, "While there is no difficulty to prove the historical fulfillment of verses 2-35 it is impossible to locate anything in history which corresponds to verses 36-45." (p. 179-180) Of v. 32ff, "This has reference to the noble Maccabees. There was also suffering and persecution." John F. Walvoord, in "Daniel: the Key to Prophetic Revelation" (c. 1971, 1989 Moody Bible Institute), sees 11:21-35 as referring to Antiochus IV, followed by 11:36ff as referring to the Antichrist (see notes on 11:21-23 and 11:36). Of verse 32, he says, "The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied in verse 32, indicating how he attempts to corrupt them; but the strong reaction of the Jewish people is indicated in the expression 'but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.'" I hope you don't mind "4 for the price of 2" - I had a little more time to do research for my response. Who are the "many scholars" that believe the split is in v. 31? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
65 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35189 | ||
Blessings Makarios, I copied and pasted much of my response to "Love Fountain". Charles C. Ryrie, in his Study Bible - Antiochus through v. 35, and then Antichrist 36ff (notes on Dan 11:21-35, and 36-45) Of v. 32, 33 - "Some Jews resisted [Antiochus] and were martyred". Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown, in "Commentary on the Whole Bible", on Dan 11:21ff, and 36ff, basically says the same. (Although, they say of v. 36ff, "The willful king here, though primarily Antiochus, is antitypically and mainly Antichrist." The people of verse 32-33 are "the Maccabees and their followers". A.C. Gaebelein, in his commentary "The Prophet Daniel: A Key to the Visions and Prophecies of the Book of Daniel" (19th edition), says, "While there is no difficulty to prove the historical fulfillment of verses 2-35 it is impossible to locate anything in history which corresponds to verses 36-45." (p. 179-180) Of v. 32ff, "This has reference to the noble Maccabees. There was also suffering and persecution." John F. Walvoord, in "Daniel: the Key to Prophetic Revelation" (c. 1971, 1989 Moody Bible Institute), sees 11:21-35 as referring to Antiochus IV, followed by 11:36ff as referring to the Antichrist (see notes on 11:21-23 and 11:36). Of verse 32, he says, "The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied in verse 32, indicating how he attempts to corrupt them; but the strong reaction of the Jewish people is indicated in the expression 'but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.'" I hope you don't mind "4 for the price of 2" - I had a little more time to do research for my response. Benjamite |
||||||
66 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35197 | ||
This is a short follow up to my last response. How do we know that in v. 21 it is the antichrist who is called a "vile person" (KJV) or "despicable person" (NASB)? Why must this refer to him and not Antiochus IV? You say that it is one of twelve titles given to the Antichrist, where else is this title given to him? (Assuming that I see "despicable" or "vile" as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in this verse.) A follow up to that question is, must the Antichrist have 12 titles? | ||||||
67 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35217 | ||
I accept what you are saying and will comment on this point "Premillennialists maintain that neither Antiochus Epiphanes nor the Romans under Titus in A.D. 70 AD exhausted Daniel's prophecy, which still awaits fulfillment." I would say that the part from 11:36 onward awaits fulfillment. By the way, three (maybe all four) of the references I cited are, in fact, pre-mil - Ryrie, Walvoord, and Gaebelein. Gesundheit, Benjamite |
||||||
68 | Where is this king from? | Dan 11:36 | benjamite | 35726 | ||
Assuming that this hasn't happened yet, is this king from a third kindgom or is he, indeed, the King of the North? (With v. 40 starting with the King of the South coming against him, and then this King of the North retalliates and overpowers the King of the South.) | ||||||
69 | Where is this king from? | Dan 11:36 | benjamite | 35762 | ||
Okay, can I ask you to explain further? I mean are you taking Russia to be "the kingdom of the North"? Are you taking the Antichrist to be a third ruler? (outside of the kingdoms of the North and the South.) What verses would you look at? | ||||||
70 | Where is this king from? | Dan 11:36 | benjamite | 35763 | ||
So basically, you are saying, in essence, that the king here, and in verse 40, is a king (or "are kings") of the North. |
||||||
71 | Where is this king from? | Dan 11:36 | benjamite | 35783 | ||
Fine, but that is not what I meant. There are those (I believe it was in the Jerome Biblical Commentary) who describe 40-45 as referring to Antiochus IV, but point out that it didn't take place (and also that this "author" of Daniel 11 was wrong about what would happen to Antiochus). Given that some see these verses as referring to both Antiochus and/or the Antichrist, I was allowing for these "kings" as opposed to just the Antichrist "king", I do, however, see from 36 onward as referring just to the Antichrist. | ||||||
72 | Where is this king from? | Dan 11:36 | benjamite | 35906 | ||
Okay, Thanks. Benjamite |
||||||
73 | Why is Me capitalized? | Zech 2:9 | benjamite | 35640 | ||
"From verse 8, we see that the text reads, "For thus says the LORD of hosts..." In my Bible, the quote continues through verse 9 into 10, then picks up again with verses 11-13. It does not refer to Zechariah, but to God. It is interesting to note however that the Lord of hosts (from verse 8) is sent by the Lord of Hosts in verse 9. Do you think that this could possibly be an Old Testament revelation of the Trinity? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
74 | Struggling with divorce question | Matt 19:9 | benjamite | 32973 | ||
Realizing that divorce is always a sensitive issue. 1. I'd like to revisit 1 Cor. 7:11, if I may. It indicates that the one who leaves should remain unmarried. It does not apply to you. 1 Cor 7:15, you are not under bondage. 2. We must look at divorce in the light of Malachi 2:16. Divorce is wrong, as believers or not. However, in one sense, what we did as unbelievers doesn't matter. Unbelievers sin, by their very nature. 3. If you don't mind my saying so, you don't sound "convinced". If God meant for you and your current husband to be together, now, after your first marriages, neither of you would be guilty. Questions to think about, (I do not expect a response on these, nor do I ask for one.) 1. Why are you worried about it now? (after the fact) 2. Does your husband share your worries? 3. Have you prayed about it with your husband? I hope you find the answers you are looking for. May God bless, Benjamite |
||||||
75 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | benjamite | 57573 | ||
I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. On the one hand, you have Moses (by some accounts c. 1500-1400 B.C.). What the Lord prophesied about the Christ, through Moses and the other prophets, is true. (Luke 24:27, et. al.). As an aside, since I quoted from Luke, I would also mention that he was not an eyewitness, Luke 1:1-4. This is not meant to discredit Luke, by any means - simply an observation. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Tim 3:16) We also have the testimony of those who beheld Christ's glory (John 1:14). If your question looks at what modern people think, I would see if their modern thoughts align with what the Bible says. |
||||||
76 | Was JESUS a king? | Matt 27:11 | benjamite | 49392 | ||
Yes, while Jesus was on the earth, he was a King. He still is King. (see also Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3; John 18:33-40) Note also that the Romans convicted Him of being a king. Note the inscription on the cross. (Matthew 27:37, et. al.) |
||||||
77 | Was JESUS a king? | Matt 27:11 | benjamite | 49429 | ||
My understanding of the inscription above Jesus' head was that it was the charge against Him. Pilate didn't sentence Him to die because "He said he was the King of the Jews". Pilate sentenced Him to die because "He is (or I guess from Pilate's perspective, 'was') the King of the Jews". I'm not quite sure I follow you on the capitalization. My understanding of Ancient Greek manuscripts (at least from the 2 or 3 that I have seen) is that every letter is capitalized. The NASB has the inscription "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt 27:37) in capitals because it is an inscription. I looked at the Foreword to my NASB, to see what it says about ALL CAPS used in the version. It doesn't say anything about how ALL CAPS are used. Remember, Pilate washed his hands of Christ. He said "I find no guilt in this man." (Luke 23:4,14) Pilate had Him crucified anyway. As you say, Pilate had much of which to be afraid. These verses do show Jesus as King (as does Matthew 2:2). In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
78 | Mark 5:30 | Mark 5:30 | benjamite | 38401 | ||
To answer your question, the Bible speaks of Peter's shadow as healing people - Acts 5:15-16. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "involuntary" however. Remember, Jesus said that He did not come to do His Own will but the will of the One who sent Him - namely, God the Father (see John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38-39). If God the Father or the Son was not willing, the woman would not have been healed. |
||||||
79 | What is the lesson from Lk 18:9-14 | Luke | benjamite | 35637 | ||
What is the lesson? It isn't the tithes and offerings that matter the most. It is the condition of the heart. "To obey is better than sacrifice" 1 Sam. 15:22 (The Pharisee thought he was righteous, but the Bible says that there is no one righteous Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-3; and Romans 3:10ff.) "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5) "It is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12) "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom 4:5) That seems to be the lesson I get from these verses. What kind of audience will you have? (Perhaps that will help with the illustrations.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
80 | explain the first four verses of luke 4 | Luke | benjamite | 35642 | ||
Which question do you want to ask? The first four verses of Luke 4 - To show that He was God, Jesus needed to be tempted and be proven sinless. If He sinned, His ministry would be null and void. The first four verses of Luke - The first four verses of Luke indicate that this gospel was a letter written to Theophilus. Although Luke was not an eyewitness of Christ, verse 2 says that his information was given to him by eyewitnesses. Luke, however didn't just take for granted what was given to him by the eyewitnesses of Christ's life, but researched it (v. 3) and wrote it down from start (the birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1) to finish (the ascension in Luke 24). The first four chapters of Luke - Could you be more specific on the chapters? What needs to be explained? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |