Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 20 of 44		Pages: [ 1 2 3 ] > Last [3] >>
Results from: Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	can anyone here help a seeker	Revelation	rabban	192082
	...
2	God the Father as Provider or Saviour?	Rom 8:32	rabban	192080
	...
3	Why does the child sneeze 7 times?	2 Kin 4:1	rabban	192048
	Certain numbers were often seen by ancient peoples as having a special significance. This was because numeracy in numbers above ten was limited to the more educated. People on the whole had no need for counting in large numbers. The number seven was seen in many civilizations as a number related to the divine. This especially comes out in early Sumerian literature, which is especially interesting as they were the most advanced mathematicians in the ancient world. Even in recent times there have been numerous tribes in the world that could not count beyond three in, for example, South America, Indonesia and Australia. Numbers therefore gained a special significance. Thus three could indicate completeness, five could indicate covenant and seven could indicate divine activity and perfection. Ten could indicate a full set ('you have changed my wages ten times.') It is possible that the writer saw in the 'seven' sneezes an indication that God was at work, but we must not read more into it than that. (Compare the series of seven activities in Revelation). In Him
4	What was in the cup, wine?	Mark 14:25	rabban	192030
	Hi You wrote "I thought that if alcohol was ingested and entered the bloodstream, the blood would be diluted w/ a foreign substance, making it into an altered state. I thought that Jesus would remain pure absolutely, making His sacrifice acceptable." The acceptability or otherwise of Jesus offering of Himself was dependent on His absolute obedience to the will of His Father (Hebrews 10.1-14). 'He was made sin, Who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him'(2 Corinthians 5.21). Nothing that enters the body and the bloodstream renders the natural body or blood unclean (Mark 7.1--21). Uncleanness is of the moral 'heart' (center of being). When we speak of the 'blood' of Jesus cleansing, we are really referring to the atonement and 'satisfaction' obtained through the shedding of His blood. The physical blood is irrelevant. The blood in the Old Testament was important for what it symbolised, a life given out in death. Thus Jesus was purer than the driven snow, a Lamb without spot or blemish.. In Him
5	What was in the cup, wine?	Mark 14:25	rabban	192017
	While it is unquestionable that Jesus did drink mild wine mixed with water we have to remember that in those days water was in most cases almost undrinkable, unless you could go to a place where there was a spring. From there water jars would be filled and provided a limited supply of water (especially if you had to go a long way). Thus wine was the easily available cheap alternative and mixed with the scarcer water was a necessity. And it was unavoidably drunk by all, children included. The water in Ephesus was particularly bitter. That is probably why Paul said to Timothy (who was in Ephesus), 'Be no longer a drinker of water. Drink a little wine for your stomach's sake and your regular infirmities' (1 Timothy 5.23). This would suggest that Timothy did try to keep off wine, and was nobly sticking to the water that was making him ill. I do not think that this has anything to say either way about whether Jesus would enter a tavern, which is a totally different question. However, the Scriptures certainly condemn 'wine and strong drink', in other words the powerful stuff (Leviticus 10.9; Proverbs 20.1; Isaiah 5.22; 28.7; Luke 1.15). And Paul in Ephesians 5.18 warns against 'being drunk with wine' but rather urges us to be 'filled with the spirit'. Both produce singing, but of totally different kinds.
6	in Prisons	1 Pet 3:21	rabban	191892
	...
7	in Prisons	1 Pet 3:21	rabban	191859
	Jeff I will refrain from following your pattern of behaviour. I will simply reply 1). That you clearly did not read carefully what I wrote. 2). That you did not have the courtesy to answer any of my questions such as (I quote) a). All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. b). And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. c). Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? I note also that your answers are in the form of dogmatic statements not of arguments on the basis of Scripture, reference to which in your last reply is singularly lacking. You say, 'The long-held, orthodox view of the Fall is established from a common sense, logical, and contextual approach to Scripture'. That is always the refuge of those who have no arguments. I did not deny that angels had fallen (you see you do not read what people have written). I stated that you could produce no Scripture which said when it had happened. I had already given you detailed Scriptures about Satan so that is irrelevant. I appreciate that you are not a scholar and cannot therefore be expected to take a fully scholarly approach. But I do expect you to be fair. I have been checking back on some of your posts and I would remind you of what you said to one person you wrote to: "let me say that a quick lesson to learn regarding the forum is to not expect to respond to every post made to you. It may seem rude, but it's the reality of it. Very often the multiple responses are addressing the same issue and a response to the first questioner should be sufficient. In addition, there are others who can competently answer questions as well freeing you up from some of the responsibility." I had replied to the first questioner so it seems that you change your coat to suit the situation. You have admitted that you were not genuinely seeking guidance but were simply seeking to find fault. And quite frankly I do not like the way you treat your adversaries. I must therefore request that you will please avoid personally addressing any questions to me in future. Leave it to Doc to do the monitoring. I realise that you will want to have the last blast. It is your way. But please address it to the forum and not to me, for I am not interested. In Him
8	Stumpped by my son	Bible general Archive 3	rabban	191841
	Hi Speaking as a neutral may I say that I do not agree that Doc has assailed your character or used invective. I think if you look back and see how many times you have mentioned Boyle in your postings you might be surprised. I think that what Doc is trying to say is that the purpose of the forum is not in order to promote Boyle's theology but in order to expound the Scriptures. I have no doubt that that was not your intention but that is how it has turned out. May I lovingly suggest that if you have a point to make from Scripture please do so. But we are really not interested in Boyle's Law. :-))) In Him .
9	1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..?	1 Pet 3:22	rabban	191824
	Thanks Parable and Cheri
10	1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..?	1 Pet 3:22	rabban	191813
	Hi Parable, Thank you for your advice. I realise I must be a bit thick but how do I find the ID number of a note or answer I posted? Thanks Rabban
11	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191798
	Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him
12	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191797
	Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him
13	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191777
	Sorry about the triplication. I do not know how it happened. I only clicked once :-((
14	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191776
	Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with. 2). In order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His incarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban
15	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191775
	Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body.
16	IS ELOHEIM JESUS?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191774
	Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body.
17	What does "saw" mean?	Ex 24:10	rabban	191756
	I am not convinced that ayth before a noun means that it refers to a corporeal being. There is no hint of it in any of my ancient Hebrew lexicons or ancient Hebrew grammars. In ancient Hebrew ayth simply points to a definite object, whether corporeal or not. Perhaps you could cite your authority for the statement that it always refers to a corporeal Being from a RECENT authoritative and recognised scholarly source. I would be very interested to know of it. (I am not talking about modern Hebrew usage which is irrelevant for ancient Hebrew) 'Seeing God' can cover a number of situations Abraham saw, ate and chatted with God in Genesis 18. Jacob actually wrestled with God in person (Gen 32). In both cases God had taken to Himself a human body. In neither case is there any reason for suggesting that it was with the Son of God. There is no reason to think that before He became man the Son was in any way more viewable or approachable than the Father. It is purely supposition on our part. Moses saw God in a burning bush. The Israelites saw God in the pillar of fire at nights. The whole people saw God when 'the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyse of the children of Israel' (Exodus 24.17). But note references to the cloud. Some saw God as the Angel of the LORD (Gen 16; 21; etc). The Angel of the LORD is a manifesation of the LORD. We are not told anything else. Why should He necessarily be the Son? (It is not strictly correct to speak of 'Jesus - Joshua' before the incarnation. 'Jesus' was 'God made man'). Thus 'seeing' the God of Israel was not something new. And in my Bible there is no mention of a corporeal form, any more than there was in the vision of Isaiah 6. The reference to 'under His feet as it were --' may simply indicate 'below whatever they did see of Him'. There are no grounds for necessarily taking literally references to God's arms, hands or feet. They are regularly metaphors. He may have taken on a human form but it does not say so. They may simply have seen 'the appearance of fire' But what none of them had apparently seen was 'His glory' (Exodus 33.18). That was always veiled, either by a human form or by a cloud and smoke, or by some other means (God reveals as much of Himself as He wishes). Clearly we are intended to see that this manifestation to Moses in chapter 33 was like no other. Of course seeing God is never a sin. It is God who chooses whether we see Him or not. It is just that seeing God is so everwhelming that in the fullnes of His glory no human flesh could stand the sight. Dwelling in light which no man can approach to, Whom no man has seen, nor can see' (1 Timothy 6.16). And this applies to both Father and Son in the fullness of their glory.
18	in Prisons	1 Pet 3:21	rabban	191755
	Hi Jeff, I actually study the original Greek and Hebrew texts although I try to avoid citing them in forums. With so many differing translations, some of which are more reliable than others when dealing with the finer points, while others are more of a paraphrase, it is very often necessary in the case of disputed texts like 1 Peter 3.19 to go back to the exact Greek text. Strictly speaking that is the only one which is inspired. (You failed to take note of the fact that my statement was about 'disputed texts' only). I did not suggest that anyone needed to be a scholar to understand the main doctrines of Scripture. Scripture is broad based and our beliefs should not be determined by a point here or a point there. But when we are dealing with an obscure phrase like 'spirits in prison' about which there is disagreement then certainly reference to the original text is important. We have to be exact. Otherwise we are treating Scripture lightly. It is my experience that the ones who most protest about going back to the Greek text are the first to say 'the Greek text means' when arguing their own case on some disputed position on, say, the second coming, when fitting it into their own schemes. However, we have now both made our positions clear. It would seem therefore best if we leave the matter here. Others can then judge each of our positions as they will. Sincerely in Him Rabban
19	in Prisons	1 Pet 3:21	rabban	191754
	Hi Jeff I was not 'offended'. Just pointing out that it is a waste of time to argue over something that has been disputed for 2000 years and will continue to be so to the end of time, and about which people have fixed and entrenched opinions. Even the answer I gave did not deal in any depth with the points that have to be considered. But I will leave it there. (If you wish to go into it more deeply see Selwyn's detailed and scholarly treatment in his commentary on 1 Peter. But note that he is not a conservative evangelical). I know of nowhere in the Scriptures that tell us when the fall of the angels took place. We have the shadowy figure behind the snake in Genesis 3, concerning whom we are only given the briefest hint; the 'son of the elohim' in Job 1 and 2, whom most assume to be the same; the opposer of Joshua the Hight Priest (satanas - adversary) in the time of Zechariah, ditto; and the deceiver of David (1 Chronicles 21.1), again the satanas. These only indicate ONE adversary of the people of God. As far as I am concerned Isaiah 14 is speaking of the King of Babylon and Ezekiel 28 of the King of Tyre. But even then each is only speaking of ONE person. We have no real grounds for reading into them the fall of angels. The first real hint that we have of enemy heavenly powers is in Daniel 10. But we are told NOTHING about their source. Thus I fail to see where you get the idea from of a 'fall of angels'in the Old Testament which can be dated, apart from Genesis 6.1-2, where again we have 'sons of the elohim' as in Job 1-2. Otherwise we owe it to Milton not the Bible. The New Testament writers never give any hint of believing in 'a fall of angels' outside Revelation. So the same picture emerges in the New Testament until we get to Revelation, apart from the fact that there we come across evil spirits/demons. We are told nothing of their background. We are told nothing about the evil angels in Revelation 9 except that they are in the abyss. We do not know when they were imprisoned there. The scene in Revelation 12 gives the impression that it is speaking of a time around the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus your assumption about a well known 'fall of angels', which I assume that you date before Adam (for which there is no Scriptural support at all) is not obtained from the Scriptures. The only indicators we have apart from these are in 1 Peter 2.19; 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6, one of which directly connects with the Flood, and the other two of which are in a series looking back to the Old Testament (angels, flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Now as the ONLY mention of a fall of angels in the Old Testamentis found in Genesis 6.1-2 (which is by the way clearly seen in this way in Jewish tradition e.g. the Book of Enoch cited by Jude), then those references would seem to be pointing to that. There is nothing else in the Old Testament for them to refer to that is not simply the invention of men's fertile minds. Thus if Scripture is our authority 2 Peter and Jude can only refer to the angels who did not keep their separate status in Genesis 6.1-2. Jewish tradition can be cited that very much links the angels who fell at the flood with those who were cast in the pit (tradition which Jude cites) but I will not go into that. All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. God bless Rabban
20	in Prisons	1 Pet 3:21	rabban	191738
	Hi again. When approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the Greek text carefully (a little unfair I know if you do not know Greek). And when I do so I discover the following: 1). The ‘in which’ in verse 19 is a construction that nowhere else in the New Testament refers to a preceding adverbial dative. If this principle is followed ‘in which’ cannot refer directly to ‘in the spirit.’ It probably therefore means 'in the course of which'. 2). ‘He went’ in verse 19 is the same verb as in verse 22. All other things being equal this would suggest that the two must be interpreted in the same way as a literal journey of Christ (as verse 22 clearly is) occurring around the same time, e.g. ‘He went to the spirits in prison’ and ‘He went into Heaven’. 3). The ‘through water’ in verse 20 finds its best parallel in ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ in verse 22. 4). The verb ekeruxen can mean either ‘preached’ or ‘made proclamation’. Both usages are found both in the New Testament and elsewhere. Had Peter wanted to say 'preached the Gospel' he had a verb ready to hand which he uses in 4.6, which would have left no doubt. In fact the idea of triumphant proclamation to the fallen angels of His victory ties in with all heavenly beings being subjected to Him in verse 22. (It is not a question of the Gospel being preached to them. kerusso is neutral. See e.g. Mark 1.45.) 5). The term ‘spirits’, when used on its own without qualification, always elsewhere refers to ‘spiritual beings’ (e.g. Hebrews 1.7, 14; 1 Kings 22.21-23; Job 4.15; Isaiah 31.3 with 2 Kings 6.17; Ezekiel 1.12, 20, 21; 10.17; Zechariah 13.2 where a false spirit of prophesy is in mind). We may add to this the fact that the idea of spiritual beings in prison or the equivalent is found in Isaiah 24.21-22; 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6; Revelation 9.1-11, as well as in external Jewish literature. I am sorry but I do not agree that the context rules out angels. Peter has very much in mind that his hearers are being persecuted by people who believe in other heavenly beings, and wants to assure Christians that any such are already defeated foes. Furthermore heavenly beings are spoken of in context in verse 22. They will be further dealt with in 2 Peter 2. Compare also 1 Peter 5.8. To open and close the argument about what follows His resurrection ('made alive in the spirit') with a reference to the defeat of such heavenly beings seems to me very suitable. I would also point out that Peter does again refer to these heavenly beings who are in prison and that is in 2 Peter 2.4. Prisons very often were pits. Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? Fallen angels will not be saved. Neither will fallen men once they have died. The men in Noah's day had the privilege of hearing 'the Preacher of Righteousness' (2 Peter 2.5). Why should they alone get a second chance when we are told that they were evil above all men and had opted to liaise with the Devil? The proclamation was rather of His triumphant resurrection, and of God's victory over all the powers of evil. (Who knows what hopes those evil angels had?). I see no reference to the generality of mankind in verse 20. It is simply your presupposition. He is not talking about mankind, but about Noah. So if I have read you right your position is contrary to the tenor of the whole of Scripture, is not based on sound exegesis, and is ignoring the literal meaning of the language. Sorry, but you did ask :-))) Each one who reads our postings must decide for themselves what they believe that Peter teaches. I do not on my part intend to enter into controversy about it. God bless you too. Rabban.

Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here: