Results 21 - 40 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: quvmoh Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203294 | ||
I don't want to get into a debate over something such as this, but Angels do not fit the criteria you describe here. Angels don't have dominion over anything. Angels are servants to God. Jesus even says that Angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Hebrews, I believe is the book, comes right out and tells us that humans are higher than Angels. If you follow the term "Son(s) of God" through the scripture, you see it is referring to Either human followers of God and Jesus or to Jesus himself. Its simple reading of the context of scripture. To insert Angels as the meaning of this phrase in this passage is a blatant misuse of the Context of Scripture. Quvmoh |
||||||
22 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203302 | ||
But look at the context of the passages. In Genesis 6, in the chapters leading up to it you have the geneologies of Seth and Cain, which have names listed in both ones. You also have afterwards, God preparing for the Flood because Man was wicked. There is no serious mention of Angels at all until Abraham, save for the Angel with the Flaming sword guarding Eden. It makes far greater sense within the Context to interpret this passage as when the two family lines fused into one than two assume that Angels came down for a brief moment to have sex. In Job chapter 1 and 2, the first 5 verses of Job talks about Job and his family gathered together for prayer and worship of God, and Job praying for his Sons. Yet that seems to always be conveniently tossed aside and ignored when leading into verse 6 and beyond. In Luke 20, the context clearly points to humans set up in verses 27-24. Also, I don't know what translation you are using, but in the NASB there is a clear change of thought when it comes to the "sons of God" phrase, and clearly points to the Saved Humans. Luke 20:36 "or they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." The passages in Romans 8 and Galatians 3 both clearly identify Human believers in Christ. I'll even add one for you. 1 John 3:1 "See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called Children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know him." And another that clearly refutes Angels as being identified as "Sons" or "Children" of God. Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten you.'?" Then you have this later on .. Hebrews 5:5 "So also Christ did no glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him 'You are My Son, Today, I have begotten you.'." I'm sorry, Tim Moran, but I cannot in good conscience believe or promote "sons of God" phrases used in the Bible to being in reference to Angels. The Context simply does NOT support it at all. Quvmoh |
||||||
23 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203308 | ||
As I stated earlier, I'm not wanting to argue. I was merely using the passages you quoted to better strengthen my own claims. Quvmoh |
||||||
24 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203309 | ||
I was clarifying the context of the passages he gave, showing that the context supports what I had previously said. I didn't intend to come across as harsh, merely trying to strengthen the support of my claims. Quvmoh |
||||||
25 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203313 | ||
um .. what?? The passage in Luke is stating that angels don't marry, nor die. He's not calling them "sons". He's calling the humans in heaven the "Sons". As for the Nephilim, I have one simple little tiny question. How many Nephilim did Noah take onto the Ark? Quvmoh |
||||||
26 | "sons of God saw daughters of men?" | Genesis | quvmoh | 203314 | ||
I mean no offense to Tim or anyone if I come across as a bit strong. I realize this isn't a critical issue in regards to salvation, but I am convicted to ensure that Context is not taken lightly and that my own claims are within context and well founded. Quvmoh |
||||||
27 | jews,gentiles,ethninticity??? | Genesis | quvmoh | 206249 | ||
Well .. the logical solution comes from Noah. He had three sons. Now while that might seem like a stretch at first given the amount of time needed for a small group of people to expand into a nation or larger, there is also another aspect to consider. When it comes to the Bible and time, the old testament makes use of family trees and genealogies. Calculating these genealogies strictly and literally will give you a date for the age of the earth of roughly 10,000 years. However, science tells us different. Those who calculate the genealogies like this are using what is termed the "closed genealogy system". However, the Bible gives us clues that these genealogies may not be strict and literal, but perhaps telling us who the important members of the family line are. For example, the close of genesis to the start of exodus gives enough time for a hand full of people, namely Joseph, his brothers, and their wives, to procreate into a group estimated at over 3 million. That figure is one I heard once in relation to this topic. Anyways, that takes a significant amount of time, not just a couple centuries. Also, given how popular Joseph was, there had to have been a considerable amount of time to have passed for his name, even if legend, to have been forgotten by the nobility. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the explanation needed. Noah and his sons and their families ultimately spread throughout the world. Enough time could have easily passed for the racial differences to appear. quvmoh |
||||||
28 | jews,gentiles,ethninticity??? | Genesis | quvmoh | 206258 | ||
There are two primary trains of thought about this. Open genealogies or closed genealogies. The strict and literal that I referred to is the closed genealogies. However, the open says that the genealogies are really outlines, giving us the important figures of the family line which even skip a generation or two between named. Norman Geisler's book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics goes into far greater detail about this topic than I can provide. As for the figure of 3 million, its an estimate based upon the figures presented in the book of Numbers as well as in Exodus. Exodus 12 says that the journey started with 600,000 men, aside from children, and obviously not including women. The figures in numbers present a total of 2 - 3 million. The introduction to the Book of Numbers in the NASB study Bible gives 2 million as the population count. I've heard it higher from sources like Josh McDowell on tv and others. quvmoh |
||||||
29 | jews,gentiles,ethninticity??? | Genesis | quvmoh | 206276 | ||
I'm not an advocate of evolution in the least. In fact, I'm a creationist. I'm not saying I have the answers, all I'm saying is that there is plenty of time for God and Nature to develop a single family into the multitude of nations and races we have now. quvmoh |
||||||
30 | witnessing to church going homosexuals | Gen 9:25 | quvmoh | 202905 | ||
Greetings, Usually I keep quiet, only reading the comments. However, I feel it is my christian duty to respond to this. There is a saying that floats in my mind. "Care for the Sinner, but hate the Sin." While I would welcome a person into my congregation who has a need to hear the word, I would NOT, under any circumstances, promote, tolerate, embrace, or condone any act that the Bible clearly declares as sinful. While I respect science, progress, and learning, I must disagree with the noted Medical and Psychological associations and say that Homosexuality is a choice. Ultimately, a choice is made to participate, whether that choice is made freely or forcefully. If we compromise our beliefs to accept what the Bible, our primary source of knowing the Will of God, mandates as wrong, then what will be next? What is the next compromise we make? In closing, I'll end with another saying that floats in my mind. "Give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk." Quvmoh |
||||||
31 | When/ why did Israel separate into 2 | 1 Kings | quvmoh | 202960 | ||
Israel split because of Solomon's son Raheboam. I think it's in 1 kings. Basically, he didn't listen to his elder and wiser advisors and made the wrong people made. Israel split because of it and formed two nations. Israel with 10 of the tribes, and Judah with two .. the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. quvmoh |
||||||
32 | who was Ezra | Ezra | quvmoh | 203049 | ||
Ezra was one of the three people important in rebuilding Jerusalem after the Period of Exile ended with King Xerxes of Persia allowing the Jews to return to Israel. Zerubabbel rebuilt the temple, Nehemiah rebuilt the city walls, and Ezra rebuilt the religion. In fact, the Old testament canon we have today is largely in thanks to Ezra. He started the process by collecting the manuscripts that taught the law. By the time that the Greek Septuagint came out, the Old Testament Canon was largely established. Ezra also helped establish and reaffirm the close adherence of the Mosaic Law that would later become the Sanhedren spoken of in the New Testament. Quvmoh |
||||||
33 | who was Ezra | Ezra | quvmoh | 203053 | ||
Its more Old Testament history than anything else, but the books of Ezra and Nehemiah both go into detail. Quvmoh |
||||||
34 | Careful Bible Study -- Not Mysticism | Jer 23:16 | quvmoh | 206897 | ||
Your thoughts on this is? How does this one man's comments apply to us today and apply to the Bible? What does the author say afterwards about these observations? What is his advice concerning this? No offense intended, Doc, but .. So what? Quvmoh |
||||||
35 | Careful Bible Study -- Not Mysticism | Jer 23:16 | quvmoh | 206901 | ||
What is wrong with what the response I gave? I want further insight about the copied article. How does it relate to us as Christians Today? How does it relate to the Bible? Why did the poster feel compelled to put that up on the forums? I apologize if my response is offensive. It was not intended to be such. It is intended to get more information. Was the post intended to educate us? Was it intended to encourage conversation? Was it intended to show how resourceful the poster is and how extensive his library is? There is nothing provided but a copied article with the original author's name given. There is nothing else there. No comments. No insights. No scripture verses aside from the one where it is filed in to. Not even a comment about how to copied article relates to the verse in Jeremiah. I applaud Doc on his resourcefulness and the extensiveness of his library. However, how does the copied article relate to this verse in Jeremiah? While it is becoming a Christian not respond at all, it is equally becoming of a Christian to explain what is provided. Quvmoh |
||||||
36 | Careful Bible Study -- Not Mysticism | Jer 23:16 | quvmoh | 206902 | ||
Hank, You're right about one thing. I don't know who Sinclair Ferguson is. I haven't read any of his works and I wouldn't know him if he walked up to me on the street and shook my hand. My post is not to criticize Sinclair Ferguson, but against Doc. What is posted was well thought out and well organized, and I assumed copied well. But I ask again .. So what? As I replied to WOS's comment, How does this article relate to the verse in Jeremiah? I don't know where this article comes from because there isn't a book cited, nor is there a website given, nor is there a date .. nothing. Zilch is given, Hank, about where this comes from other than a Name. All I am asking for is an explanation or insight about how this copied article relates to Jeremiah 23 or vice versa. Is that too much to ask for? This article implies by the title that Bible study is important. How can I study and take it to heart if I don't even know anything about the article or Sinclair Ferguson? What is the context? quvmoh |
||||||
37 | Careful Bible Study -- Not Mysticism | Jer 23:16 | quvmoh | 206922 | ||
... | ||||||
38 | Careful Bible Study -- Not Mysticism | Jer 23:16 | quvmoh | 206955 | ||
... | ||||||
39 | Binding and Losing? | Matt 16:19 | quvmoh | 205980 | ||
Greetings, This passage is where Peter openly confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Now, the context isn't Jesus speaking to Peter alone. Notice in verse 13 that he is speaking to all his disciples. Also notice that verse 18 ends with a period. So verse 19 begins a new thought, as it were, still in the context of speaking to the Disciples together. Now, also look at Acts 1:7-8. Here, Jesus has raised from the Dead. He's speaking to his followers and tells them that He has the Authority and will give them the Power. These are two different words in the Greek. Basically, Jesus is saying, I have the Authority and the Ability, but I'm giving you limited power to do these tasks I have for you. This passage in Matthew 16:19 is reflecting this. Jesus is saying, I will have these keys and the power to use them. I will let you have access to them. There is only one set of keys, and Jesus has them. It would be like a Dad tossing his teen age son the car keys on occasion. They still belong to the Dad, and the teenager will return them to the Dad, but in the mean time, they are in the teenager's possession. quvmoh |
||||||
40 | Binding and Losing? | Matt 16:19 | quvmoh | 205990 | ||
After looking back, Agreed, Jesus was directing most of his comments to Peter, but as I pointed out, the context shows that Peter wasn't there by himself. The other disciples were there as well. On a number of occasions, Jesus tells the disciples that they will receive access to greater abilities through the Holy Spirit. So while it's directed at Peter, it does not negate the fact that others were listening and would have applied the message to themselves as well. Peter wasn't the only Disciple after the Resurrection to have performed miracles and wonders. quvmoh |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |