Results 1 - 20 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Arnold Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mary - "maidservant" or "bondslave"? | Luke 1:48 | Arnold | 203633 | ||
This is a translation question. In the NASB, Jesus' mother Mary refers to herself as the Lord's "bondslave." In the KJV the word is "handmaiden" and in the NKJV it is "maidservant." The Greek word is Strong's #1399 - doule - and is defined by him as "a female slave." This is gender specific, in contrast to #1401 - doulos - which is "a slave." The latter has the masculine ending, and the former the feminine ending. Why, then, does the NASB (as well as other translations) render "doule" into English in a generic rather than a gender specific way? | ||||||
2 | What do we believe? | Jude 1:3 | Arnold | 117133 | ||
Why does the Creed say "he was crucified under Pontius Pilate"? It ties the story of Jesus down to a specific time in history; thus, it is not mythological. But that reminds me of the little boy who was asked to recite the Creed. He said, "I believe . . . in Pontius Pilate"! |
||||||
3 | Vision of a lion with eagle wings | Dan 7:4 | Arnold | 117044 | ||
Daniel | ||||||
4 | are people still living since jesus time | Luke 9:27 | Arnold | 116879 | ||
This statement apparently refers to what is recorded in the following verses, Luke 9:28-36 - what is commonly known as the Transfiguration. Three of Jesus' disciples saw him transfigured on a mountain, and this was a foretaste of his glory in the Kingdom. Thus, they saw Jesus coming in the kingdom of God before they died. | ||||||
5 | How should harpagmos be translated? | Phil 2:6 | Arnold | 116377 | ||
Why does the NASB translate the Greek word harpagmos (lexical form) as "a thing to be grasped"? The KJV translates it as "robbery": "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." While the NASB is in agreement with other modern translations (NIV, RSV, NJB, ASV), it appears that the older rendering is still possible, and that there are just a few classical sources (outside the NT) which could be used for a comparative study of the word. So on what basis is a decision made to translate harpagmos one way rather than the other? |
||||||
6 | give me all jehovah name in the bible | Ex 17:15 | Arnold | 100563 | ||
Do you mean the places where the name Jehovah is used in combination with another word? It looks like your example is Jehovah-nissi (Jehovah is my banner) from Exodus 17:15. There are two other such occurrences in the King James Version. One is Jehovah-jireh (Gen. 22:14), meaning "Jehovah will see (to it)," and Jehovah-shalom (Judges 6:24), meaning "Jehovah (is) peace." These definitions are found in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. |
||||||
7 | Do we know what it says? | 1 Cor 7:31 | Arnold | 100480 | ||
Actually, the world is not standing still. The underlying presuppositions are changing, becoming more relativistic, and therefore communication becomes more difficult. The premodern worldview held that there is an absolute truth, and this truth is revealed by divine revelation. The modern worldview, born around the time of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, held that there was still an absolute truth that held the world together, but that this truth could be discovered by reason. This lead to rationalist approaches to the Bible, which threatened to discredit it as being God's book. But now we are entering the "post-modern" era, in which even reason is frowned upon, and there are supposed to be many contradictory ways of looking at reality, each just as "true" as the other. That's why worldly scholars today do not simply build upon the rationalist tradition that was constructed over the past 200 years, but come out with new and conflicting approaches to Biblical subjects - such as who the (human) authors of the Bible really were, what the history of early Christianity really was, and so forth. In post-modernism, there is no center. Our apologetics are still fighting the battles of modernism, ignoring the whole new landscape of post-modernism. So, yes, the world is changing, and and communication is very difficult. |
||||||
8 | difference between ,church and kingdom | NT general Archive 1 | Arnold | 100343 | ||
How one answers this question has a lot to do with their view of realized vs. future eschatology. Put simply, if we want to define the two terms separately, the church is the community of those called out of the world to be God's saints, followers of his dear Son. The kingdom is the reign or rule of God, which will only be fully realized at the end of history. However, there is an overlapping of the two concepts because the church is even now under the reign of God. Futhermore, in the eschaton the glorified church will join God in his rule. So the two concepts are distinct, and yet they overlap. | ||||||
9 | Where do I find Paul's death in Rome? | Bible general Archive 2 | Arnold | 100237 | ||
The death of Paul is not recorded in the Bible. For this, we must refer to early church writers. It is possible that he was martyred around A.D. 62 at the end of the two-year period mentioned in Acts when he was under house arrest in Rome, but it is also possible that he was released and returned to be martyred in the persecution of A.D. 64 after the burning of Rome. Consult a Bible dictionary under "Paul" to learn more about the various possibilities. | ||||||
10 | what is a sacred assembly / for today? | Deut 16:16 | Arnold | 99877 | ||
These are known as the pilgrim feasts of Israel, as they necessitated a pilgrimage (or journey) to Jerusalem in order to be observed. True, the command specifies the attendance of the males, but doubtless the men would frequently bring their families with them. Remember, Jerusalem was the only location where sacrifices could be offered to God, and God's presence symbolically resided in the temple. So one's attendance there was not left to chance, but was commanded at least three times a year. The feast of unleavened bread was like an extention of Passover, though it could be counted as a separate festival. The feast of weeks became Pentecost in the New Testament, and the feast of tabernacles was the final harvest ingathering at the end of the year. There is no requirement to have such general assemblies of God's people under the New Covenant, but various denominations may have annual conventions for their members as they choose. This is the closest experience which Christians might have today that would correspond to one of the ancient assemblies. |
||||||
11 | Did Joshua complete conquest? | Josh 21:43 | Arnold | 99371 | ||
Was the conquest of Canaan completed under Joshua? Joshua 21:43 reads: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelth therein." But Joshua is quoted as saying: "Behold, I have divided unto you by lot these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes . . . And the LORD your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as the LORD your God hath promised unto you." (Jos. 23:4-5) Was there land that remained to be conquered when Joshua died? How can these verses be harmonized? | ||||||
12 | what is theocracy | Bible general Archive 2 | Arnold | 99362 | ||
Theocracy means God-rule. It is not a Biblical word, but was coined by the Jewish historian Josephus (first century), writing in Greek, to describe the kind of government which God established over Israel by Moses. Nations today which are ruled by religious leaders are called theocracies. | ||||||
13 | Is the headcovering literal? (1Cor 11) | 1 Cor 11:5 | Arnold | 99176 | ||
The headcovering is literal, and involves no more than wearing a hat or a scarf, but whether or not you should wear one is another matter. Until recently, it was common for women to wear hats when attending church, and thus the Christian custom was the opposite of the Jewish one in which it is the men whose heads must be covered during services. I haven't seen any women's hats lately; some Eastern Orthodox women still wear scarves to church. Some understand Paul's instructions to refer to a woman who is doing something in church which a man would normally do such as leading in public prayer or prophesying - which may refer to preaching and instructing the congregation. This subject really involves matters which have become controversial in the modern church - questions as to whether men and women perform different functions within the church and how much emphasis, if any, should be placed upon male headship. I think in your personal case you should consider the practices within your own fellowship. Paul concluded his remarks on this theme by saying: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:16) In others words, 'What I've told you is what the custom of the churches is.' But in our day, most churches no longer have this custom, and it is not within our ability to change the customs which are followed. So, you can't be expected to be the only woman to wear a head covering in your church. If you want to, that's fine. But I would say you, personally, are not required to do so because the church is not following the custom. |
||||||
14 | Difference between Aramaic and Greek | Dan 2:4 | Arnold | 99169 | ||
I assume the basis for your question is that Aramaic was the spoken language of Jesus, whereas the New Testament was actually written in Greek. Basically, Aramaic is more like Hebrew, but Aramaic was the spoken language of the Jews in Jesus' time. Some portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. (See Ezra 4:8 - 6:18; 7:12-26; and Daniel 2:4 - 7:28). By the time of the return from exile, readings from the Scriptures had to be translated verbally into Aramaic for the people to understand. Yet, the two languages are very close, and have the same alphabet. Sometimes this is obscured by the fact that today Aramaic words might be written in the ancient form of the alphabet, whereas Hebrew words are written in the more recent block style. But if you use a Strong's Concordance, you'll notice that Strong will give one numerical reference for a Hebrew word and then another for its Aramaic counterpart (where applicable), and the two words look practically the same. Both languages are read from right to left. Greek is another matter. The Greek alphabet looks almost the same as the Latin, which in turn looks like English. If you were to study Greek, you'd find that learning the alphabet would take no time at all, where as Hebrew (or Aramaic) would require greater effort just to learn the alphabet. You could just as easily learn the Chinese alphabet. Greek is read from left to right, just like English. As Greek was the international language of the first century, it was used by the New Testament writers instead of Aramaic. But don't forget, much of the terminology used in the NT is taken from the Greek translation of the OT from the second century BC known as the Septugagint, and it was already well established that certain Greek words had their Hebrew equivalents. The Hebrew words, in turn, had their Aramaic equivalents. So there is a consistency and continuity between the Biblical languages. |
||||||
15 | Help re. Jesus' words "it is finished". | John 19:30 | Arnold | 99005 | ||
To answer, I would refer back to the beginning of John's gospel where we read about the Word. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . ." (John 1:14) Throughout the Gospel we read about the Word made flesh, but now at Jesus' death the Word resides among us no longer. After his resurrection, Jesus was not "with" the disciples in the same sense as he had been, and certainly his dwelling in us by his Spirit is not the same sort of presence as his earthly career in the flesh. That earthly experience had served its purpose once Jesus offered up the supreme sacrifice. | ||||||
16 | Matt 22:40, Why do the prophets hang? | Matt 22:40 | Arnold | 98538 | ||
Jesus may have been referring to the way the Old Testament was read in the synagogue. Just as some churches today have schedules of readings, which must be read on specific weeks of the year, so the Jews have scheduled readings. Each sabbath, a specific portion of the Torah - the books of Moses - must be read with an accompanying portion from the Prophets. For example, the first reading for the beginning of a new year is from Genesis 1:1 - 6:8 (the Torah portion), and this is accompanied with a reading from Isaiah 42:5 - 43:10. When Jesus read from Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth, he was giving the second reading for that sabbath. (Luke 4:16-19) Due to this practice, any given Torah portion would immediately bring to mind its corresonding section from the Prophets. Also, there are ethical commands in the Prophets instructing the Israelites to turn back to the Law. There are not just predictions of the future. For example: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." (Ezek. 18:21) "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8) |
||||||
17 | types and symbols | Bible general Archive 2 | Arnold | 98409 | ||
Yes, I also was waiting for someone else to answer as I did not want to prematurely take this question away from the unanswered section. I also do not think there is any one resource. As various types and symbols come up, you just have to take them on a case by case basis. Use cross references, consult Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and read the context in which the symbol appears. Every time you identify the meaning of a symbol, write it down in a notebook. Be aware that a symbol might have more than one meaning, depending on its context. Who knows? You might be the one to write the book on this subject! | ||||||
18 | what is the name of the sons of zebedee | Matt 20:20 | Arnold | 98375 | ||
The sons of Zebedee were James and John. At Matthew 10:2 we read: "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother . . ." | ||||||
19 | Separation to the Lord? | Num 6:2 | Arnold | 97995 | ||
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD . . ." (Num. 6:2) "Nazarite" is a Hebrew word meaning a "consecrated" or "devoted one," from a root meaning "to consecrate" or "separate [oneself]." It referred to a class of people, both men and women, who renounced the pleasures of the world to be unreservedly dedicated to the Lord. They abstained from wine and grape juice, avoided touching the dead, and allowed their hair to grow long without cutting it. This was an exemplary form of sanctification, or setting apart for divine service. It could be for a temporary period of time or permanently, as in the cases of Samuel and Sampson. (1 Sam. 1:11; Judges 13:5) A Christian today, not being under the law of Moses, would not take a Nazarite vow, but there are those who promise to serve God in special capacities such as pastors and missionaries. | ||||||
20 | Reticence In The Jacob/Esau Story? | Gen 25:31 | Arnold | 97814 | ||
Reticence means to be reserved or restrained in expressing oneself. The original question was regarding reticence in the Jacob-Esau story, not a geneology. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |