Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 20 of 568		Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] > Last [29] >>
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	Sabbath Saturday change to Sunday	Matt 5:18	MJH	231798
	God did not nor could not change the Law. It's a binding covenant for all time, both in this life and the life to come; however, given the changes in our status before God, certain elements of the Law would be applied differently, or all together irrelevant. (Where there is no unclean, there is no need for cleansing rituals.) Some time between 70 AD and 114 AD this change occurred. More likely after 90 AD. The why? is far too long of an answer for here, but historically it was inevitable. The New Testament doesn't answer the question for us because the writing of the New Testament, with the exception of possibly John's Revelation, was written before anyone even thought such a thing could occur. While some point to obscure Texts to show it was an Apostolic change, this is impossible when one understands first century Judaism. One of the primary reasons the Jews are said to be exiled in Babylon was for ignoring the Sabbath. They knew this, and because of this they turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden of rules to guard against it's desecration. Had the Apostles "changed" this day from Saturday to Sunday, it would have been as big of a fight and discussion as Gentile inclusion was. But nothing is said in the New Testament! Nothing. This fact alone aught to be proof enough that it never changed during the writing of the New Testament. That all being said, should you worship on Sunday or Saturday is your call. God has OBVIOUSLY blessed the church and many many devout Christians who have not only believed, but taught passionately that Sunday was the day of worship. To fail to take this into account is a massive error. So I am not telling you, nor anyone, what is right in this matter; only what is to me obvious knowing now what I know. MJH
2	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Deut 22:28	MJH	231797
	BradK, Would like to hear your understanding up the underlying question. This forum had helped me tremendously in the past, which is why I came here for feedback. MJH
3	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Deut 22:28	MJH	231796
	NOt sure about a hidden meaning, but I do know that the Torah does not condone selling or trading daughters like cattle. I understand that ancient cultures did do this, and even present day cultures demean and devalue women, but the Torah has a much higher value on a woman than that. I don't think that Jesus "changed" what the Torah taught, in that he removed or altered laws which are stated to be eternal, but that he revealed the genuine true interpretation of the Law, that is to Love your neighbor and serve others. Thank you VERY much for your adding the LXX translation. This reveals that at the least the early BC century understanding was similar to the NIV. But that doesn't mean it is the right understanding. I would also like to know what the Targumes and other Jewish writings would have to say, after all, they share the same text in this case. Where I am at, personally, is that it's logically impossible for God to institute a law that would force a woman to marry anyone (if as in this case she is a victim, not if she willingly consented), let alone her rapist. MJH
4	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Not Specified	MJH	231789
	This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH
5	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Not Specified	MJH	231788
	This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH
6	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Deut 22:28	MJH	231793
	This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH
7	Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim?	Deut 22:29	MJH	231809
	This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH
8	Job's suffering	Job	MJH	230931
	Here is another option. Job was written during the exile. If Job was to represent Israel or the remnant of Israel (not that he also wasn't a real person in the past too) then we see in Job the struggle of those asking where is God in all of this? Even the righteous suffered much during the exile of Judah. Certainly they would have had questions. Just a thought. BTW, I was recently reading about a theological discussion amoung Jewish sages concerning where God is when His people are suffering specifically during that exile. One felt God was too Holy to be near, but carred from afar. The other said God was in the suffering with His people. I found it interesting because of the parallels to Jesus' statements about, "When you care for one of these, it's as though you cared me." MJH
9	Abraham lying?	Heb 11:17	MJH	230762
	I agree with Searcher. Even if Abraham had succeeded in the sacrifice, Isaac would have rose from the dead as he was the promised child. If Isaac did die, and stayed dead, then God would be a liar, and all would be lost of them and us. This is the 10th and final test of Abraham. He'd been through a lot. The mere fact that Isaac was born of a woman who's womb had died is really no less than a resurrection itself. Of course, Hebrews 11 confirms all this to be the case. Love to learn . . . MJH
10	When did the hebrew become jew and why	Gen 11:16	MJH	230761
	Bill, Yes, that is true. The Old Testament (TaNaK) is filled with the idea that Gentiles would become members of the Assembly. The books of Moses (or the Torah) is filled with laws pertaining to the Ger, or the non-Israelite who binds himself the the LORD. Therefore, Paul is correct to state that the Gentiles have been grafted in. However, the predominate theology of the day was the belief that a Gentile had to become "Jewish" nationally (as if that were possible.) Their teaching wasn't that Gentiles convert to the worship of the One true God, but to become Israel. "All Israel is saved." was a Text (forget the prophet that is quoted) which they used to proclaim that all Israel had a place in the World to Come and any non-Israelite would need to become one to have that place. That's an oversimplification, but in the end, Paul had the Theology foreseen in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings spot on. I really have a hard time understanding the rationale with modern day Jewish theology concerning this issue. I've not had the privileged to speak with a well-grounded Jewish theologian, but I'd like to ask many questions to find out how they deal with many of these issues. I do know their writings and how they explain Ruth and Rahab; but, there is so much more it's so hard to see how it's missed. Love to learn...MJH
11	who was the first person jesus saved?	Bible general Archive 4	MJH	230697
	Saved from what. Many were saved from illness etc... Salvation in the Biblical text can mean more than just eternal life. Mjh
12	why id paul oppose circusission	NT general	MJH	230281
	The previous answer was good, only Paul wasn't opposed to circumcision (he circumcised Timothy who was according to first century Jewish law, a gentile), rather he was opposed to how it was being applied/used to be a mandate for inclusion into the Body of Christ. Originally, circumcision was the sign of the Promise given to Abraham, only the sign wasn't given until Abraham realized and accepted that God's promise wouldn't come about by his (Abraham's) strength, but by God's. (Abraham tried to make the promise come about by having Ishmael.) It's interesting that a covenant is given in Genesis 12, again in Genesis 15, but no sign of the covenant promise is provided. Not until Genesis 17 when God says Sarah will have a son is the sign given. It's no mistake that it's that part of the body that Abraham used to try and make God's promise come about that gets cut. Therefore, the original meaning of circumcision was to be a sign/reminder that the ultimate Promise will not come about by our deeds, strength, or works, but by God alone. By the first century the Jewish religious authority had ruled that non Israelites (non-Jews) would not have a place in the world-to-come unless they first went through ritual conversion which included 1) baptism, 2) saying the Shema (which also meant taking on the full yoke of the Law as interpreted by the Sanhedrin), 3) give (or pay for) a sacrifice at the Temple, and 4) become circumcised. Of course, making circumcision the act that earned you salvation was turning the sign on its head. The rule of the day did, however, accomplish its desired goal which was to keep the Judaism of the day pure. Paul obviously stood apposed to this understanding which placed a wall of separation between Gentile believers and Jewish believers in Jesus. (Jews can't eat with non Jews...not a good thing for a mixed community). But in relationship to Timothy, Paul did not oppose circumcision. Why? Because it removed an obvious impediment to the ministry task (hard to minister if you can't eat together or be in the same home). Also, Paul, and therefor Timothy, had a proper Biblical understanding of the meaning and purpose of the sign. It was not performed in order to earn anything, but a response of Faith that God would see to it. (Genesis 22:8) MJH
13	Who was the first person to be saved?	Gen 15:6	MJH	229961
	While Abraham may not be your first thought, given he was born centuries before Jesus, the Promise of the Messiah was first articulated clearly to him in Genesis 12, 15, 17. It was in chapter 15 where the Text clearly states that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." All of the Bible hangs upon this Capital 'P' promise which Paul in the book of Galatians refers to as "The Good News." Jesus is the Messiah who, through his death and resurrection, is the guarantee of that Promise. This is not to say that those before Abraham were not saved through trusting belief, but following the Narrative of the Scriptures, this is where we find that language first. Others: "Enoch walked with God..." Gen. 5:24. "Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." Gen 6:8. As far as those who believed first after Jesus' physical resurrection? It was most likely one of the women who went to the tomb.
14	who is Miriam?	Num 26:59	MJH	229959
	Mary the mother of Jesus was also, "Miriam." In fact, all of the Mary names in the New Testament are actually "Miriam." There's some really useful Bible Trivia for you. MJH
15	when did the church go in to operation	Acts 1:14	MJH	229958
	Israel at Mt. Sinai. The people of God agree to covenant with the LORD. After the first agreement, they disobeyed with the Golden Calf. 3,000 were killed. They re-affirm a new agreement on the intercession of Moses. Acts 2 is the giving of the Spirit to write the Teachings of God upon the heart on behalf of the intercession of Jesus. I contend that the Church began in Exodus, but certainly how we understand it now and its current formation had its origins in Acts 2. It is interesting that the same word used in Deuteronomy for "The Assembly" is also used in the New Testament for the "Church". (Using the LXX of course.)
16	why bible says the body is the temple	1 Cor 6:19	MJH	229896
	The Temple or Tabernacle was the place where God’s special Presence was. It was highly protected because for man to get too close he would die. God is Holy and we are not. The reason for the Temple was for people to have the ability to draw near to God safely. Also, God desires to dwell among His people. In the first verses of Leviticus we learn that “if a man desires” to draw near to God this is how…. It is up to us to desire to draw near and Psalm 84 is a good Psalm to read about what that experience may have been like. “My soul yearns and even faints for your courts.” “Now a people who were once far off are now brought near.” The apostle Paul (Eph 2:13). Even Gentiles are able to draw near to God, but how if they are nowhere near the Temple, and what about us in our day with no Temple? On the day of Pentecost the Spirit came with power as a symbol of a flame, the symbol of God’s presence. Remember in Exodus, God’s presence led them by fire at night and a cloud by day. Pentecost was a festival that particularly remembered the giving of the Ten Commandments where the people saw God’s voice (yes, “saw His voice”). This was the time and place when, not only did they receive the Ten Commandments, but the Law and the Tabernacle instructions. In Acts, at the very start of that Festival that remembers the time God’s Presence descended on the mountain and the giving of the Law, the Spirit comes as a flame onto each disciple. This is significant in that the dwelling of God is now present within the children of God. Even though we are still in This World of sin and death, we have a place in the Age to Come on account of Jesus actively serving as the High Priest in that venue. Prior to his sacrifice and service, the Spirit could not come in this manner (I wish I could explain why more clearly, but Jesus does say that the Spirit ‘cannot come’ unless He ascends.) Therefore, with the Spirit dwelling in us (in some mystical way) we are collectively the Temple of God. Would you bring shrine prostitutes into the Temple on earth? NO!, Then do not with your own body. Would you contaminate the Temple by treating it poorly, harshly, disrespectfully? No! Then treat your body well. I’m sure in years to come I will understand better. Maybe others can elaborate or know more clearly?
17	When did the hebrew become jew and why	Gen 11:16	MJH	229801
	A Hebrew is from Eber, Gen 11:16, or at least it is believed. The Hebrews, of which Abraham is one, led to the Tribe of Israel (Jacob). After Israel was split into two groups (Israel and Judah) the northern tribes were dispersed by Assyria. They are the lost tribes of Israel. Judah (the southern main tribe) and anyone who happened to be living among them, were taken by Babylon. The Babylonians and subsequently the Persians, allowed the tribe of Judah to remain as Judeans, or “Jews” as we come to call them. Since Judah was the main tribe left and the vast majority were of that tribe, all Israelites were referred to as Jews (from Judah). Paul, however, was of the tribe of Benjamin (The Benjamites were located inside the land of Judah). Several Levites obviously survived, and Anna in the New Testament was from the tribe of Asher. But Hebrew became Jew by way of the process listed above. MJH
18	Discontinued Account?	John 19:14	MJH	226808
	Sorry, I fixed that. When I get time I will get a bit more detailed.
19	pray before each meal	NT general	MJH	226800
	There are no commandments in the Bible about praying BEFORE we eat. There is a commandment in the Bible to bless God "after you eat and are satisfied." Deut. 8:10 It was Jewish tradition to also bless God before eating. I can not remember the rationale for it but I remember it made sense, and since Jesus practiced that tradition it follows that we would do as He did. The common blessing said during the days of the Messiah was a version of: "Blessed are you Lord our God, King of the universe, who has brought forth bread from the Land (Earth)." There is no textual evidence that this was the actual blessing Jesus said, but he certainly said some type of Blessing of God before he broke the bread. An aside: They did not ask God to bless the food. It was assumed that since the food was there, good, and ready to be eaten, that it was already blessed. To "bless God" may sound strange to our unfamiliar ears, so thanking God or praising God are certainly good options.
20	Is Nisan 14 in any version of bible?	John 19:14	MJH	226799
	Nisan is the Babylonian name for the first month of the Hebrew's religious year. This is the month of the Exodus from Egypt and the 14th of that month was the first Passover (Exodus 12.) Neh 2:1 and Ester 3:7 both record that Nisan is the first month of the Jewish (Hebrew) year. Nisan 14 is not found in the Bible, but the Passover is eaten on the 14th of the first month of Israel's year. Ex 12. The first month of their year is called Abib. Ex 13:4. Neh 2:1 and Ester 3:7, both written during the exile to Babylon refer to this month by it's Babylonian name Nisan. Therefore, by connecting these verses, we know that the Passover meal is slain on Nisan 14 and eaten that evening. Since Jesus clearly ate the Passover and was crucified the next day, he died on Nisan 15. I hope that is helpful. I'm not sure why John 19 was used since Nisan 14 isn't listed and one would need to assume a knowledge of when Passover was prepared to connect John 19 to a particular day of the month. MJH

Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here:

Support us when shopping at smile.amazon.com