Results 1 - 20 of 38
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: dwilliamson Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Star of Bethleham | Matt 2:1 | dwilliamson | 219902 | ||
Temple The way in which your question is phrased leads me to wonder whether there is point in answering. I take it you fully accept the scriptural account? The wise men were searching for the One "born king of the Jews". The natural place for them to go was the royal court! They obviously were not aware of the details of Herods insanely jealous nature. Anyway, the scripture has nothing negative to say about their actions. They were a few gentiles who came to worship the King when the Jews had no heart for Him. They were obedient when they were warned to return by a different route. David |
||||||
2 | Possible typo | Num 24:9 | dwilliamson | 219858 | ||
EmmyJo If you look on an on-line dictionary, you will find that "couched" is a word! :-) It means something similar to "crouched" to be honest but it is a word in its own right. I checked it up online and came up with the following definitions (among many others): "to crouch; bend; stoop". "to lie in ambush or in hiding; lurk" So, in summary - I don't think your expensive Bible has a typo! David |
||||||
3 | Star of Bethleham | Matt 2:1 | dwilliamson | 219840 | ||
Hello again templesccroll I think that is an unusual interpretation of Matthew 2 to say the least. The magi are said to have "worshipped" when they saw the child - something that Satan would never lead anyone to do! It is worth noting that the "star" is never referred to in scripture as the "star of Bethlehem". The reason for this is important I believe. The star is referred to as "his star in the east" (v2) and also in v9-10 we read "the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy". The order of events seems to me to have been as follows: 1. The magi saw a star in the east. This star somehow (possibly through their knowledge of OT prophecy and the fact that the Messiah was widely expected at that period) caused them to recognise that the "King of the Jews" had been born. 2. The magi began their journey to Jerusalem - evidently assuming that the King of the Jews would be in Jerusalem - however they discovered a false king in Herod. 3. The "chief priests and scribes of the people" correctly advised that the Messiah would be BORN in Bethlehem. 4. The wise men, sent on their way begin to move toward Bethlehem and then "the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy". I believe that the star directed the wise men NOT to Bethlehem but to Nazareth. It would appear that the Lord was no longer the "babe" when they arrived, but rather a "young child". He was a child of "two years old" or "under" (see v16). When we compare with Luke Ch2 we discover (v39) that, from the earliest history of the child Jesus upon earth He was in Nazareth - "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (this was a matter of days after the birth of Jesus). 5. Thus, it was from Nazareth that Joseph, Mary and the child journeyed into Egypt, and it was to Nazareth they returned. 6. The magi returned to their own country without telling Herod where the young child was - thus Bethlehem became the object of his anger, rather than Nazareth. 7. The flight into Egypt as commanded in a dream to Joseph was to put the Lord completely beyond the reach of Herod and to fulfil the Scripture "Out of Egypt have I called My Son". I realise there are some difficulties with this interpretation of the order of events but I think there are difficulties whatever way we consider the passages and seek to dovetail them. I stand to be corrected! David |
||||||
4 | destruction of earth | Gen 8:21 | dwilliamson | 219838 | ||
Hello templescroll The full quotation (KJV) from Genesis 8:21-22 is as follows: "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease". In 2 Peter 3:9-13 the following is noted: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness". Gods promise in Genesis 8 is that "everything living" will not be destroyed, and this is qualified by "as I have done". A further expansion of the promise is given in that "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease". However, as per the quote from 2 Peter 3, there is no soubt that God will judge the world again - not by a flood, but by fire. So, to answer your question "Would an inevitable destruction of the earth and its inhabitants by nuclear war or global melt down prove the non-existence of God or His impotence?" If there was a nuclear war in which there was widespread destruction upon earth I personally feel that this would in no way "prove the non-existence of God". Indeed, if we examine the book of Revelation, I believe that it reveals to us that there will be widespread death and destruction upon earth during the Tribulation period. As to global melt-down - the passage in 2 Peter 3 confirms that the "elements will melt with fervent heat" - this moves on to a later period when God will renew the earth and the heavens again. I hope this helps to clarify. This reply is a bit scattered but i hope understandable! David |
||||||
5 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | dwilliamson | 219567 | ||
Rick My understanding of the subject is evidently slightly different than you. I'll have to look into it again! I appreciate that betrothal was much stronger than our "engagement" but I believe that during the betrothal period: 1. The husband and wife did not live together. 2. There was no intimate physical relationship. What the betrothal period allowed for was (among other things) any previous misdemeanour by either party to come to light prior to the "marriage". Thus allowing for the "putting away" which was being considered by Joseph before he was informed as to the cause. Well, as has been said in relation to this section there is no definitive 'thus saith the Lord' answer as to the timing of Marys return to Nazareth. We are left to our own impression so we can't be too dogmatic! As you have clearly said "He soon found out from an authoritative source that everything was OK." And what faith and obedience he showed when he "took unto him his wife and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son and called His name Jesus". In Him David |
||||||
6 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | dwilliamson | 219563 | ||
Rick Very interesting discussion! May it not be that Mary, remembering her status as betrothed to Joseph, was seeking to avoid all the publicity that would undoubtedly ensue when news broke about the birth of John? She herself would have been 3 months pregnant at that time, and no reason could be given which would be acceptable to those who would enquire! Noting Marys character and the fact that it would appear that she had not yet revealed her state to Joseph - would it not be consistent with what is revealed of her to assume that he would be the first (apart from Elizabeth) to know of her situation? Thus, as Elizabeth hid herself, so did Mary. And when the time came for John to be born, Mary went back home and was again in contact with Joseph, at which time "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". Just a different thought on the passage. In Him David |
||||||
7 | Spiritual gifts? | 1 Cor 12:10 | dwilliamson | 219319 | ||
I dont know whether this should be posted as a question or note following up your answer Bradk. We know that there are lists of "gifts" given in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4. Without moving beyond the realm of exposition too far - Can I ask the forum members whether they believe these lists to be exhaustive? Are all spiritual gifts recorded for us in the scriptures? Thanks David |
||||||
8 | agreeing with chuch | 1 Cor 1:10 | dwilliamson | 218818 | ||
Hello Alachi Welcome to the forum. In 1 Corinthians 1v10 we read that Paul desired that the church at Corinth be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment". This is the ideal position in relation to any church, God desires unity - BUT this is only possible as the church itself is in agreement with the Word of God. The final court of appeal for every Christian is the Word of God - so Paul reminds his readers in 1 Corinthians 14 that if a person claims to be spiritual he should "acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14v37). To summarize - if our "church" is in accord with the word of God it is very important for us to agree with it, if it is not so then we should disagree! It is worth noting however that the manner in which we should disagree would be depend on the level of error we feel to be prevalent in our local church. For example, if there is fundamental error concerning the person and work of Christ we would be better elsewhere. If there is a difference of opinion merely on the interpretation of scriptures which are very difficult to be understood then perhaps we should pray that all will come to the right understanding over time and concentrate on being a help in our local church. Hope this is helpful - if you had something more specific in mind perhaps we could give a better reply. David |
||||||
9 | free will or predestine ? | Bible general Archive 4 | dwilliamson | 217808 | ||
Hello Joel There are many passages in scripture in support of a "free will" as it is referred to. The expression itself is unscriptural in that it implies that the will is not affected by other influences. Whether we believe in human responsibility or not (and I do - very strongly) we can't help but see that the will of man has been and is affected by the fall. As to Scriptures that support a "choice" on the part of man see the following: For example, every appeal by God for the sinner to "believe" automatically assumes that the person who receives such a command CAN respond to it. It is worth noting that on each occasion that this appeal is given, the word "believe" is in the active voice, it is never passive. The fact also that the appeal to "believe" or to "call" etc is shown to be universal in character (rather than to the "elect" only) is shown in such well known scriptures as: John 3v16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Romans 10v11-13 "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", 1 Timothy 2v3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth". God holds MAN responsible for not believing - see John 3v18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." In the consideration of Scripture (see for example Romans 1-3) God holds man responsible for HIS OWN ACTIONS. When the Lord Jesus was here he made a statement concerning Jerusalem which is worth noting in Matt 23v37 and Luke 13v34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" Notice here that the Lord says "I would have gathered...but ye would not". This implies a free-will on the part of those who rejected Him. To be honest, the principle of choice is a part of the whole fabric of scripture. Man is responsible for the choices he makes in every sphere - because he has been given a "will" which can be exercised in one of 2 ways - obedience or disobedience to God. This is by no means an overview of the argument for man having a choice, it is just a few verses which spring to mind that imply such a thing. In all of this we are not setting aside the fact of Divine Purpose. In Him David |
||||||
10 | Need interpretation for these verses | Rom 2:12 | dwilliamson | 217739 | ||
Hello again eascusa As to question 2. In 1 Corinthians Ch 5 Paul is writing concerning how discipline should be carried out in the local church. The person who has sinned in this chapter is a person who was in the fellowship of the local church - a place of privilege and protection. Because of the severe nature of the sin committed, he is to be excommunicated from that fellowship - see v13 "put away from among yourselves that wicked person". Now, in putting such a person away from the church I believe they are "delivering him unto Satan" in the sense that he is put out into the sphere where Satan has control - i.e. the world. God who judges those who are without (see v13) uses even the attacks of Satan to discipline his people in order that they be restored to fellowhip first with God Himself and then with the church. So, what is intended result from this discipline? The answer is "for the destruction of the flesh" i.e. So that the fleshly nature which has so taken over the life of this believer might be nullified in its power over him. And "the spirit saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" i.e. That his spiritual life might be recovered in view of the Judgment seat of Christ. Again hope this is helpful. In Him David PS. I should note that the translation I have used is the KJV. |
||||||
11 | Need interpretation for these verses | Rom 2:12 | dwilliamson | 217738 | ||
Hello eascusa Hope you dont mind if I answer these questions in 2 separate notes, one for each question. As to question 1. The context of Romans 2 is important to the understanding of these verses I believe. In Romans Ch1v18-3v20 Paul is showing that all people, whatever their background, are "guilty before God" (Romans 3v20). He first deals with the Gentile world in its idolatery etc in Ch1v18-32 and shows how they have rejected the witness of God in Creation - thus they are guilty. Then I believe (some people may have a slightly different understanding than this) he deals with self-righteous people whether Jew or Gentile Ch2v1-16. Then finally, from Ch2v17 through to Ch3v20 he deals with the Jew exclusively, giving a final summing up in the last few verses. Now, in the section of which you speak there are 2 types of people considered - the Jew and the Gentile. The Gentile is "apart from the law" in the sense that the law was not given to him as it was to the nation of Israel. The Jew however doess have the law. How will God deal righteously in judging both? Those who have not the law will not be judged by the law per se, but rather because they have not responded to the entreaties of their Conscience - see v15 "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another". On the other hand, those who do have the law will be judged by their response to the Commandments contained in it which they were aware of and still refuse to obey. Hope this is helpful In Him David |
||||||
12 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217728 | ||
BradK Thanks for your reply to my query. Sorry for my delay as I have been so busy this last few days. I will say that I never thought that you were anything else than sincere and desirous to uphold sound doctrine. I agree with much of your post but not with the following: "He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct." [A.T Robertson, Word Pictures] I do agree with further statements such as "The words “made Himself nothing” are, literally, “He emptied Himself.” “Emptied,” from the Greek kenoo, points to the divesting of His self-interests, but not of His deity." and "In His incarnation He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He was God manifest in human flesh (John 1:14)." [Bible Knowledge Commentary]. My issue with what is taught at times concerning the Lord Jesus is that human reasoning is put beyond Divine revelation. Consider the following: 1. We acknowledge that the Lord asked questions of men BUT read EVERY chapter in Johns Gospel and note the references in every chapter which reveal the infinite knowledge of the Lord. There were no limitations as to His knowledge. 2. We acknowledge that the Scripture says He was "crucified through weakness" BUT he still managed to "uphold all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1). There was no limitation as to His Power. 3. The Lord presently has a "fleshly body" in the sense that it is a body of "flesh and bone" and he sits "on the right hand of the majesty on high" BUT He still promises (as He did upon earth) that "where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18v20). There was no limitations as to his "place". Thus, He is both God and Man - he passed through the experiences true to humanity, but He never relinquished His Deity to do so. This is one of the facts that should draw out worshio from our hearts! J B Watson noted ""How do both deity and humanity dwell in one Person at the same time? How can Christ on the one hand be God and yet be verily man? How did the divine attributes dwell with those that are proper to manhood? How, if He is God and is thus omniscient, does He learn? I do not know. This is a revelation for faith; it is not a subject for prying and investigation. It is one before which we are intended to stand with worshipping hearts and not one into which we are intended to look with our poor cheap microscopes. Nay, here is the revelation - perfect God - perfect Man - one Christ" [J B Watson, Our Matchless Lord p. 22] The same writer noted "The Bible is full of truths which we do not have the intellectual power to reconcile". This is what I believe. Thanks In Him David |
||||||
13 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217719 | ||
Medchill Thank you very much. My brother Andrew does log off completely, then I go into the computer at a completely different time and log in under my id. The home screen shows "Welcome dwilliamson" but then when I post the author is shown as AWilliamson! The reason this post is under dwilliamson is because I am using the work computer. Confusing! Any further advice, let me know. Thanks. In Him David |
||||||
14 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217680 | ||
Hello Tim, I thought that these might come up! As to the Matt 24v36 passage - I'll get back to you later as I'm not at home at the min. As to the Luke 2v52 passage I have no problems at all. Wisdom is the practical application of knowledge. The Lord grew in the experiential application of knowledge throughout His pathway upon earth. There are things that were not experienced prior to His coming that He experienced upon earth - we know that from the Hebrew epistle. You are aware that it has now been stated that the One Who is "God with us" (Matt 1) was not omnipresent and was not omniscient. At this rate it will not be long before someone declares that He was not eternal or omnipotent. And then I ask you (I speak as a fool) is He God at all? I submit that when the Lord became incarnate He was not God minus anything, He was God plus holy humanity. That is the way Scripture speaks of His incarnation. (Heb 2, Matt 1, Luke 1, Romans 9 etc). Will post later DV. In Him David |
||||||
15 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217677 | ||
Dear BradK I am sorry to have to disagree with you on both counts. I am in work presently and dont have the time either to discuss this very important question at the moment but possibly another thread should be started on this. Briefly. I don't believe that we can say that the Lord had limited attributes of Deity upon earth - to have limited attributes of Deity is necessarily to be less than God. The attributes of Deity are what mark God out to be Who He is! So if a Person is not Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Eternal etc we can safely say that such is not God. Philippians 2 must be kept in its context. There are a number of examples in that chapter of "the mind of Christ" - Paul is seeking to inculcate an ATTITUDE within the church at Philippi and he gives examples of that attitude. What is that attitude? "look not every man on his own things but every man also on the things of other". It is an attitude whereby we seek the benefit of others. Now how does this apply to the Lord? He is eternally "in the form of God", personally He cannot change but He does change His position. Knowing all that He is, recognising that He is equal with God in position, He "empties Himself" - this cannot be of Deity or He is not God - the point is simply that He does not act for Himself but rather for others! This stoop for the benefit of others is then described in the further statements "took upon Him the form of a servant etc..." Personally I would appeal - Do not read into Philippians 2 more than what is intended in the context. How could our Lord be an example by the setting aside of attributes? He is an example because, although He IS what He is, He is willing to stoop to think upon "the things of others". Another statement you have made is "He was limited to a fleshly body, so that He wasnt omnipresent while on earth". Can I ask - when God lived among men in the Tabernacle in the wilderness "within the veil, between the 2 cherubim" did that mean that He was not Omnipresent? Did that mean He was nowhere else? "The Word was God...the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1). Not meaning to cause any arguments on this most sacred of subjects - the Person of Christ - but I do feel we need to be careful limiting Him in any way. One final thing - I know that there are Scriptures which are often quoted at this point which appear to limit Him - these again must be read in their context and against the background of the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ is God. In Him David |
||||||
16 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217674 | ||
BradK I believe that the "sign gifts" are no longer active today. However, without trying to bring you off on a tangent here - Could you clarify/qualify the statement you have made "Christ was limited while on earth"? Thanks David |
||||||
17 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | dwilliamson | 217673 | ||
Thank you Lexus That's an interesting point in relation to the Garden of Eden/Paradise. I would agree that God's original intention will always have it's fulfilment. Someone has said "God's first thought is His final thought!" While Satan appears to have gained a victory by the entrance of sin, God will see to it that every vestige of sin is removed from His creation. (See Romans 8v19-21 "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.") This balance of things in Gods purpose is interesting - See eg. 1 Corinthians 15v21-22 "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." I hadn't perhaps related that to the immediate context because the promise of eternal life spoken of here was "BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN" (KJV). I think the answer has been given to my mind by Searcher in a previous post - I will think about what has been said on this forum but! Thank you brother In Him David |
||||||
18 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | dwilliamson | 217666 | ||
Thanks very much Makarios. In Him David |
||||||
19 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | dwilliamson | 217654 | ||
Makarios Thanks for that. I think I'm right in saying that John usually refers to "eternal life" in the present. He is speaking of the fact that we have received the same life as the Father - the quality of life! Paul on the other hand refers to "eternal life" in the future because he is thinking of the time when we will enter into all the fulness of that life and enjoy it without restriction. I can't just understand your final statement "This eternal life is in Christ, who was before the world began (John 17:5) and is through Christ alone - this is the promise of eternal life to us before the world began." I'd appreciate it if you would clarify exactly what you mean as it sounds interesting! Are you saying that Christ (in glory, prior to His Incarnation) is Himself the promise of eternal life? In Him David |
||||||
20 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | dwilliamson | 217653 | ||
Searcher Thats the way I had thought of it. As you say "The promise was there, but not written, because there was no writing." In a sense we could say that the purpose in Gods heart was as good as a promise - it definitely would be fulfilled! There is no doubt, as others have said , that there is reference to eternal life (in one form or another) in the OT - but my query was regarding the fact that it was promised "BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN". Thanks In Him David |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |