Results 41 - 60 of 145
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: ischus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What does Deut. Lev. and Numbers mean? | OT general | ischus | 115072 | ||
mokeefe: "Levitcus" comes to us from the LXX (septuagint-the greek translation of the OT) and through the Vulgate (the latin translation). Literally it means "levitical," or the Levitical book. This is because the book features Aaron and the Levitical (Priestly) duties of his tribe, the Levites, under the OT Law. The Hebrew title to the book, like many other books, is the first phrase of the book, "and he called," ("Vayikra" or "Wayyiqra"). "Numbers" also comes from the LXX and is bases on chapters 1 and 26 where they take the "numbers" of the people. The Hebrew title is more appropriate for the book as it is called "in the wilderness," ("bemidbar"). "Deuteronomy" means "second law" or "another law," and comes from the greek (deutero-second, or another; nomos-law). Incidently, this is actually a mistranslation by a copyist, who incorrectly took the phrase "copy of the law" found in Duet.17:18 to mean "second law," and translated it as such. THe Hebrew title occurs as both "words" (devarim)and "these are the words" ('elleh haddevarim). I hope this helps you out! ischus |
||||||
42 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115075 | ||
Suede, I am wondering what you mean by "a lot of the OT is history, not doctrine." If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history. It is about doctrine- who God is, who his people are, how they are saved, etc. I would encourage you to check out the other repsonses to jct's question under #115012 in the quick search box. I apologize if you were only sharing the common opinion of the OT and not your own. I may have misinterpreted your comments. I would be happy to have been wrong in this case! ischus |
||||||
43 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115176 | ||
SUEDE, We cetainly do disagree here. I do not deny that the bible contains history, but when it does, the point that the authors make is the way in which God works in history- the bible is not objective history (nor is any history, for that matter)- it is a theological interpretation of events that show God's divine work. Each section of the OT demonstrates God's desire for a relationship with his people in spite of their failures; each book shows God's love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, holiness, grace, and his universal love for all people, including gentiles and pagans. These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way. ischus |
||||||
44 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115188 | ||
What can I say, kalos? You are a breath of fresh air to me! Keep it up- You encourage me daily. Praise God for His ENTIRE word! ischus |
||||||
45 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115241 | ||
SUEDE "Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer." This is absolutely false. The Law, apart from its cultural components, is completely valid. Where do you think Jesus got his priciples from? Why did he say that Loving God and your neighbor are the foundations of the Law? I am not saying that we need to run away to a safe city when we kill someone on accident, or that we can take some food from the corners of a farmers field; I am saying that God's principles and His nature are represented in the OT in a very unique way, and the NT cannot be a sufficient substitute for this. The OT is not intended to give us information about the past, it God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. ischus |
||||||
46 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115250 | ||
Ok, looking through our notes from the beginning, I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis. I am willing to leave it at this. I don't think we are going to agree on terminology, and that is what we are stuck on. We both have our own opinion here, and that is ok with me for the time being. Is there another aspect that we can discuss? ischus |
||||||
47 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115325 | ||
SUEDE, You post a fair question. I respect your Preteristic view, and I'm sure that you are aware of the other views, so I won't discuss them with you. To get to the point, I have already stated that the Law was given as a revelation of God's nature, and that those principles apply to us today. I have also stated that the Law was also, on a different level, a very civil-social-cultural law that was meant for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to follow, since God was their Suzerain, and they were the vassals. The sacrificial component of the Law was fulfilled in Jesus, so it was no longer valid. The same can be said of the social-cultural aspects as well. However, it was obviously fine with God that they continue in these systems (excluding sacrifices for atonement) since it was central to who they were as a people and a culture. They were no longer bound to the written code, but were still required to follow its principles (as are we). Paul demonstrates this by following the Law when with the Jews, but not following it while with the Gentiles. ischus |
||||||
48 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115334 | ||
Thanks, Colin. I know the verses are there somewhere, it's just that when I'm in the moment its hard to stop writing and look them up. :) I really should do a better job of that. Thanks, for the Romans 14, and the others as well! ischus |
||||||
49 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115341 | ||
SUEDE, Yes, we agree here. What I meant, and what the people were doing here, were in fact blood sacrifices, but not vicarious ones for atonement of sin (burnt, tresspass, and sin offerings). You recall that several others sacrifices- which I label under the general heading of "Peace Offerings"- called for blood-animal sacrifice as well, such as the Thank Offering, Votive Offering, and Free Will Offering (Lev.7:11-15,28-34). I believe that these were the sacrifices being offered by the Jews. [AND] You also recall that this is the same type of offering that Paul demands of all believers, including Gentiles, but as a "Spiritual Sacrifice" instead of a physical one (Rom.12:1). ischus |
||||||
50 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115346 | ||
Ok, let me try this again- I apologise for whatever mistakes I am making to not address your specific question here. 1)They sacrifice, but not for sins...AGREED 2)It was not necessary in Paul's mind, but they did it anyway...AGREED ??????????WHY?????????? ***Illustration*** Let's say you and I live in the US and a New president gets elected after Bush. His name is Jesus. In his primary and election race, he clearly stated that "the Laws in place are important for those who are living here and must be followed, but when I becomes president I am going to join our country with Iraq, and we will become one country. They will all be moving over here in the first week of my presidency, and we will be living under a new Law, but It's one in your heart. You know it- You follow it and know when you disobey it. I do not expect for you to follow the current Laws anymore at that time, but I do want you to always live by those principles. If you still want to follow the Laws that you live under now- that's great! They are good laws, and I love them. But remember that they were only meant for you, and the other people who will now be your fellow citizens are not used to this law, and I don't want any of you to say that they have to follow it to be "real" Americans (which, by the way, you will be called Ameri-Jesus people). You are used to your law because it is your tradition and culture, it is who you are! Don't leave it behind if it is too hard for you. I know how nuch it means to you, and I know that it just wouldn't seem right without it. But remember That some of the Laws are not needed anymore, likes the ones where you have to go to the white house and put a freshly baked cake on the steps of the white house. I am president now, and I have made the biggest, best cake, and it will be put in the front lawn as soon as I am president, so no one needs to do this, ok?" 3) Read the above illustration |
||||||
51 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115390 | ||
SUEDE, You really hit me in the heart with that last post. I truly have never seen it this way before. I have checked my Greek NT and you are right about all the tenses and everything. Please allow me some time to think this over. This is rocking my boat a little and I don't just want to jettison it out of fear of a paradigm shift. Thank you for your comments, and I will get back to you later with some of my thoughts after I spend some time in study and prayer. Thanks again. ischus |
||||||
52 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115396 | ||
SUEDE, Let me tell you where I am at right now, and then I need you to clarify some things for me. I have read through Hebrews and Colossians a few times to get the flow and context, and it seems that Paul and the Hebrew writer have a similar view about those who are still practicing the Law; hence, the same forms and tenses. What I am suggesting is that perhaps they both saw those still living under the Law as "living in the past" so to speak. Since they are living as such, they are addressed as such, and are told that there is something better in the future (the present in the eyes of the author, but an unrealised truth, according to those living under the Law). There are several references in each book to the past actions of the completion, fufillment, and nullification of the Law on the cross. Obviously, you are not going to agree with these conclusions, but since I am working this out with fear and trembling, I think you should at least give my stuff a thought. :) Let me know what you see in my tentative conclusions. Thanks for putting me on the road to growth. ischus |
||||||
53 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115404 | ||
Ok, you make good points here. Can you explain to me then, in light of everything that you have said, what exactly Jesus has done already, has yet to do, and where he is at this moment? Also, can you tell me how you interpret Rev.20? |
||||||
54 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115409 | ||
A Few more for the list.... 1) what is your definition of the Kingdom that Jesus spoke about (and is it phys. or Spiritual) 2) What was Jesus' ministry about? What was his goal? 3) What did the cross accomplish, and what did it not accomplish? 4)What is God's view of the Jews and the Law today? I will look for your answers tomorrow- I am out for tonight. ischus |
||||||
55 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115554 | ||
Ok, so now I need to hear your view on the current status of Hell, Heaven, and the Kingdom of God. Are you saying that Hell and/or Satan no longer exists? How do you interpret the 1000 years in Rev. 20? What is your view of the "already, not yet" philosophy? ischus |
||||||
56 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 115969 | ||
BlackDiamond, obviously Moses did not write this part. He did not write a lot of Deuteronomy- see how it is talking about Moses from the third person for the most part. Many think that Joshua was recording these words of Moses... but the final person to write in it was many many years after Moses. See how the last few verses talk about how there has "never" been another "prophet" like Moses in all of Israel? Why would someone write this about him right after he died? This was written long after Moses, and after several prophets had come and gone, giving this person someone to compare Moses to. ischus |
||||||
57 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 115975 | ||
BradK, I agree with these general statements, and I do not subscribe to Welhaussen's views on the bible. It is clear that Moses was not the only author of the Pentateuch however, and to say that he was ignores both internal and external evidence. ischus |
||||||
58 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 116003 | ||
BradK. Why is it that some of the pentateuch is written from the first person (Moses) and that some of it is from the third person? Does this not show that someone other than Moses was writing? In Deuteronomy, do you think that Moses was writing down his speaches while he was talking? Do you think that Moses is the author of Numbers 12:3? Is it not obvious that there are two different accounts of the creation in Gen 1 and 2? Do you think Moses wrote both of these, even though one is more traditional, poetic, with much older Hebrew, and does not contain the name Yahweh, while the other is more theological and focussed and logical? You already know that I believe that the bible is God's word- my point is that he used more people than we give credit to in order to give us his word. ischus |
||||||
59 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 116005 | ||
This is truly EdB at his best! Thanks for your words here- they are both respectful and intelligent! God Bless! |
||||||
60 | How can moses say about his burrial? | OT general | ischus | 116007 | ||
Fair. :) I will bring some stuff home from the library either today or tomorrow, unless I can find something on the internet. BUT- if you do agree with me on any part of what I said please tell me and save me the trouble of spending the day in the library. :) ischus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |