Results 1 - 19 of 19
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: leabeater Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still Begs The Question... | Lev 17:11 | leabeater | 159202 | ||
I appreciate and understand the reasoning given by the New English Translators. But the point remains: there is a conflict in how the beth preposition is normally translated when used in conjunction with nephesh (life). I'll go further in saying that the NAS linguists have chosen to go out on a limb in Lev. 17:11 to support their choice of usages. Such an application begs the question, why? Why are we willing to stretch the normal usage of the beth preposition in this verse? |
||||||
2 | NAS Emendation of Leviticus 17:11? | Lev 17:11 | leabeater | 159188 | ||
While reading 1 John 1:7 "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" it struck me one day that many claim "blood" here is simply a metonym for a violent death. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1904.htm One of the reasons of my adhering to the NAS is this very reason: literal where possible is a normal way to translate from one language to another. But in some hermeneutical schools, who also value this approach to translation, literalness in meaning is abandoned when it is culturally unpopular. “Blood” doesn’t sit well with our culture. It’s exclusion from hymnody and, now, from our Bibles should cause us a degree of concern. Why, therefore, this curious translation of Leviticus 17:11 in a version of the Bible noted for its literalness? I would like to challenge the NAS translation of Leviticus 17:11. The NAS reads "it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." Both the 1977 and 1995 editions of the NAS retain this unusual construction. The KJV, NKJV, and NIV, however, enjoy what I believe to be the more accurate rendition, “it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” The literal Hebrew construction of the phrase in question appears in the following passages: Lev. 17:10f; 20:6; Num. 19:13; 35:30; Deut. 19:21; 1 Sam. 18:1; 2 Sam. 14:7; Job 21:25; Ps. 17:9; 27:12; 41:3; Ezek. 16:27; 25:6, 15; 27:13; Jon. 1:14. None of these, that I could find, translate the beth preposition (in, at, by, with, among, etc.) “by reason of” when it precedes nephesh (life, soul). This fact does not eliminate the possibility of translating the preposition “by reason of” but it certainly points to a conflict in how the beth preposition is normally translated in conjunction with nephesh (life). Other reasons can be given. But the above is sufficient to demonstrate to the committee a need to reexamine the phrase here in Leviticus 17:11 for possible emendation in future editions of what I believe to be, in most other respects, a very fine translation. |
||||||
3 | kings | 2 Kin 12:2 | leabeater | 151820 | ||
What if we took this approach: "did that which was right inthe sight/eyes of the LORD" 1 Kings 15:11 (Asa - "like David); 22:43 (Jehoshaphat - "all the ways of Asa"); 2 Kings 12:2 (Jehoash); 14:3 (Amaziah - "not like David"); 15:3 (Azariah/Uzziah); 15:34 (Jotham); 18:3 (Hezekiah - "like David" and "none like him" among Judah's kings); 22:2 (Josiah - "like David"); 2 Chronicles: 14:2 (Asa); 20:32 (Jehoshaphat); 24:2 (Joash); 25:2 (Amaziah - but not with a perfect heart); 26:4 (Uzziah) - when strong became proud); 27:2 (Jotham - but entered not into the temple); 29:2 (Hezekiah - according to all that David..."); 34:1 (Josiah - in the ways of David...") If we follow this line of reasoning I come up with Hezekiah and Josiah as two obvious picks. I'd throw in Solomon for equally obvious reasons. Which leaves ones empty spot. I'll let someone else make that choice. ;) |
||||||
4 | women can wear makeup (where found) | 1 Pet 3:3 | leabeater | 113811 | ||
Simply stated "painting the barn" is not found as an imperative in Scripture either way. You do have 2Ki. 9:30 where Jezebel used antimony (black eye liner) -- a very common makeup for this period. Jer. 4:30 uses the same Hebrew noun for eye liner. Here again, it appears this was common practice among women. Though the context of both these passage is not especially helpful to the "cause," nevertheless, it is not the adorning that is criticised. It is the behavior of the women who used it. These women made themselves beautiful "in vain." 1Pet 3:3-2 emphasizes where a woman's *focus* ought to be, not merely on the outward -- but on the inward. Now, the final passage provides "permission" in a rather odd way. If it is wrong to braid your hair, etc. then it is also wrong to put on clothes. The NAS handles 'himation' very well. It is not, as the NIV translates, "fine clothes." It simply means "clothing." |
||||||
5 | Help me solve this apparent conflict | Luke 8:15 | leabeater | 111929 | ||
2 Chronicles 16:9 the NAS translates the critical phrase which relates to your question "those whose heart is completely His." The Hebrew literally reads, "their heart *complete* to him..." The Theological Wordbook of the OT states the Hebrew world "shalom" (NAS "complete") can mean, "Completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfilment, are closer to the meaning. Implicit in sh¹lôm is the idea of unimpaired relationships with others and fulfilment in one's undertakings." It is not that our hearts are innately honest and good. It is that we can allow them to be, as TWOT understands, unimpaired by relationships that could distract from our primary relationship to the Lord. An honest and good heart is not sinless, it is in a general state of undistracted commitment to its overriding relationship: the Lord. |
||||||
6 | Here is where I'm puzzled | Luke 8:15 | leabeater | 111826 | ||
Answering your question with another question is not precisely straightforward, but you'll remember the answer better this way. Who hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus? Several times the text states "hardened," "was hard," etc. in regard to Pharaoh's heart. Who is the subject of the verb "hard-" in each of those passages where the context specifically mentions Pharaoh's heart? There is your answer. |
||||||
7 | Unequally Yoked? | 2 Cor 6:14 | leabeater | 79192 | ||
Paul defines the "unequal yoke" as marriage to an unbeliever (see response above). So, no, it does not mean two Christians who differ over "non-gospel essentials" (i.e. the core of Christianity: salvation by grace through faith). There are many examples of marriages in Scripture where husband and wife were in disagreement over doctrine (Rebekah's cicumvention of Isaac's intended blesing of Esau - Gen. 27:1ff). Yet Scripture makes it clear in most instances that both were God-fearing (i.e. saved) people. |
||||||
8 | Preacher having a living wife | Matt 19:9 | leabeater | 70719 | ||
I feel dogmatically that no Christian should ever initiate divorce or remarriage proceedings. By "no Christian" I don’t mean necessarily that an unsaved person can initiate them. My advice always to a Christian is, "You must never initiate this." Why not? Because 1 Corinthians 7 says that if a wife departs from her husband she is, verse 11, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. Those are the two options that are open to a believing person. In other words let’s say that your husband is a child abuser: where they were literally sexually abusing their own children. You cannot, as a wife, remain in the same household with a man like that. For one thing, according to the laws of our country, if you are a wife, and you are aware that your husband is abusing your children like that, and you do not report that to the authorities, they will take the children away from you. They will say, "You are not a proper mother no proper mother would allow this to go on." There is a sense in which the state is right about that: that is criminal offense that was punishable by death in the Old Testament and our society has laws against that and we cannot protect people like this. As the church we cannot protect this. We have to understand that our government has a legitimate interest in the welfare of its citizens. So, let's say that you are dealing with a woman in a situation like that. She cannot continue living with that man while he is doing that. What are her options? Her options, if I understand 1 Corinthians 7:11, are: 1.) Remain unmarried. This does not release you to remarry. 2.) Reconciation. One of those two options. For you as a Christian, as long as there is any hope that there could be reconciliation you must remain open to that. You should not initiate anything no matter how bad that person has been. Now there would be good men who would differ with me. When does the possibility of reconciliation end? It ends when that other partner remarries. The book of Deuteronomy, in one of the only passages in the Old Testament that even addresses the divorce issue, this is the very question that is being discussed. Chapter 24 takes up this question: If a man divorces his wife and she marries another man and the second man divorces her, can she go back to the first husband? The answer is, "No." |
||||||
9 | Divorce based on lack of support? | 2 Cor 6:14 | leabeater | 69716 | ||
The "unequal yoke" in 2 Corinthians 6:14, as in any other passage, has to be seen in its historical and grammatical context. To say that Paul is using the term "unbelievers" to include those who disagree with our occupation or "calling" has no biblical precedent. The form of the adjective used for unbelievers (apistois) is only used 4 times in the NT. In all four cases it refers to non-believers. Further, Paul's argument in the latter verses of 2 Corinthians 6 uses comparisons (e.g. light and darkness), which support polar opposites, not simply differing opinions over non-essentials. An inductive approach to the question on a broader plane demonstrates that marriage to non-Christians, or non-believers, is addressed in several other passages of the Bible as well (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:39). So, to broaden the meaning of the word "unbelievers" here to include those who disagree with our calling or occupation lacks objectivity. Marriage, in the Lord's view, was always thought of as indissoluble except in a very narrow band of circumstances (e.g. adultery or "fornication" in Matthew 19:9). Yet, even in this circumstance, the Bible indicates forgiveness is the preferred route (Hosea 3:1-2). The Matthew 19 passage takes a very dim view of those who divorce outside of these circumstances stating that those who divorce outside of those conditions are themselves adulterers. I do not wish to make light of your friend’s dilemma. Ideally a wife should submit to her husband in matters such as this: “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:4).” Yet I am sure there is a reason why she is so adamant about her husband’s choice. The first order of behavior, in my opinion, falls on the leader. Yet, by the same token and in this case, the wife finds herself on much more precarious grounds. I can see the husband’s argument (though I strongly disagree). How does she justify her lack of submission? Understand that I do not know the entire circumstance; nevertheless, my thinking is that the judgment bar will find the husband falling far shorter in his justifications for divorce than his wife’s objections to his calling and failure to submit. |
||||||
10 | What Pagan God(s), do masons believe in? | Gen 35:2 | leabeater | 69639 | ||
"The Masonic caveat against religious and political disputation does not prohibit the development of a Masonic theology. Rather, it prohibits any divisiveness that might interfere with its adaptation of John Calvin's proclamation of The Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man. I say adaptation of John Calvin because unlike Calvin's particular Protestant ministry, Masonry's ministry is not limited to Christianity, Judaism, nor Islam. Masonry, in fact, is not even limited to Abrahamic monotheistic religions ... in limiting itself only to an unlimited God who unlimits everyone in one unlimiting universal spirituality. That universal God, furthermore, can have a Mother God, not to be equated with Mother of God, as well as a Father God manifestation, which is not only a New Age but a very Age Old aspect of universal spirituality." My assessment of the above: Looks like so long as no one is offended by your god any manifestation is allowed. In America we live in a culture of "the offended." That is, you must not offend anyone with what you believe. Inclusivity is not only the mandate of our culture, it is the catalyst for why the pendulum is preparing to swing in the opposite direction. It will start with our economy and work its way into our political and intellectual infrastructures. Conservatism and separatism will emerge. |
||||||
11 | SOng of Songs or Song of Solomon? | Song 1:1 | leabeater | 59144 | ||
Chapter 1 and verse 1 explains: Solomon wrote it. The alternate title stems from an emphasis on the latter portion of verse 1 rather than the first two words (Heb. lit. Song [of] the songs). It seems better to title the book after its author rather than a somewhat non-descript hebraism which means, roughly, "The choicest of all songs." Some also refer to the title as "Canticles" which refers to a song or a chant (from the Latin). |
||||||
12 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17867 | ||
Clarification on "all" in 2Ti 3:16. All Scripture is profitable. To impose an interpretive system which hedges on the plain meaning of the word "all" is perilous. We're hedging on our Old Testament Bill. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is wrong thinking about law and grace. The law is no more an enemy of grace than the sacrificial system was. It compliments grace. By the way, Ezekiel makes it clear that the "legalistic" sacrificial system is going to be reinstituted. Instructive. Bill, of course, "all" does not mean "all" the Old Testament applies to Christians. No one has said in 2Ch 7:14 notes that it does. What I am saying is that inspiration and profitability is assured for the entirety of Scripture. 2Ti 3:16 is inclusive. That is, each passage, all Scripture, is profitable for counsel: whether it be teaching, reproof, correction or training in righteousness. Some passages to a greater degree than others, true. But all are profitable. That, I believe, is the plainest sense of the grammar. There isn't single verb in 2Ti 3:16. Our English supplies one. Instructive in itself. Further, Timothy's mother Eunice was a Jewess. From a child he had been brought up with the Scriptures (2Ti. 3:15). Simple math makes it impossible for this passage to refer primarily to the New Testament. When Timothy's Jewish mother taught him the Scriptures as a child she was teaching him the Old Testament. Further, "rightly dividing" (KJV 2Ti. 2:15; NAS "accurately handling") means to "teach accurately" (Friberg's Analytical Greek Lexicon). To use that verse to cleave our Bibles in two is hardly useful instruction (pardon the generalization and play on words). 2Ch 7:14 is profitable, applies to all believers of every "covenant" and "dispensation," gives us a bright beacon in a very dark day, and allows us the hope that our land can again enjoy God's healing if we, as believers, turn from our wicked ways. There are many passages in the New Testament I could have used to provide this same instruction. But none so completely fit the catastrophe we witnessed on September 11, 2001. And none was so fitting after having seen Mrs. Tyner's note to my son Joshua (see "The Answer" note in this passage). Brother Bill, I may have seemed harsh here but I assure you nothing of the kind is in mind. Thank you for your reply. John |
||||||
13 | Question of Context? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17544 | ||
Tim: First, I am so thankful that we can come here and exercise our faith. This is the sort of activity that spurs our thinking and deepens our study of the Scriptures. It also demonstrates our love for what the Lord has to say. Secondly, we can agree to disagree and, as believers, still enjoy a great deal of warmth and affection for one another. The "fundamentals of the faith" are not in question with 1Ch 7:14. So there is no risk of altering our core relationship in Christ. However, there is a misuse of context in interpreting the Bible. For example, in Mark 7:6 the Lord stipulates that Isaiah was prophesying against the tradition of the Elders being practiced in circa 28 A.D. But the immediate context of that prophecy is Is. 29:13 where it fits perfectly with Isaiah's ministry circa 740 B.C. The only reasonable conclusion we can come to in the Lord's interpretive method is that Isaiah was prophesying to both 8th century B.C. believers and 1st century A.D. believers as well. 1Ch 7:14 is not a promise of "payment," Tim, to a specific individual; it is to any people called by His name. So your anology is incorrect. Gentiles were considered to be a people called by His name if they exercised the faith like that of Naaman the Syrian, Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian and the Phoenician widow of Zarephath. Therefore we are incorrect to conclude that 1Ch 7:14 pertains solely to Old Testament saints whether Jew or Gentile. John |
||||||
14 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17463 | ||
Church. Somehow that word keeps cropping up. OK, let's look at this another way. Question 1: Would you fellowship with Abraham in glory and profit from it? Is Abraham's faith fundamentally different from yours (Rom. 4)? Question 2: Is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament (Mal. 3:6)? Does the immutability of God operate only in context? Context is determinative of word meaning. But I submit that you do not use the "rules" of language in everyday conversation in the way you are trying to apply it to your Bible. For example, when you talk about "praying" you do not attempt to distinguish between its meaning today and prayer 3 millennia ago. Question 3: Does Old Testament inspiration equal New Testament inspiration? The Mind that authored our Bible assures us that it is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16). Tell me, what profit does this passage offer to you? How do you read it? John |
||||||
15 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17452 | ||
Yes, it does apply to the church. One of the most spiritually crippling contagions of the church today is an interpretive method which dismisses much of the Old Testament and relegates it to an irrelevent status. This was not the position of Christ, the position of the apostolic company or the position of non-apostolic New Testament authors. The Old Testament is not simply an interesting historical document addressing questions of origins and geneological tables. It is inspired Scripture, it is doctrinal teaching and profitable for our instruction (cf. 2Ti. 3:16). There are literally thousands of direct quotations and allusions to the Old Testament in the New. Why? To the New Testament writers the Old Testament was preparatory to the New. To them it was essential to the New. The first century church fed on the Old Testament and what few epistles (if any) that were available to them. Matthew, the first book of the New Testament, begins with (of all things) an "Old Testament" geneological table. Why? Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit, saw the most intimate connection between Messianic promises of the Old as necessary for their counterpart fulfillment in the New. But this goes much deeper than prophetic passages. The foundation of our atonement rests on Old Testament doctrines such as that found in Lev. 17:11. I've just touched the tip of an iceberg here. There is so much more. Let me just end with this. Do you read your Bible through in a year? If you do you will find that you are steeped in the Old Testament until mid October. In the 1995 version of the NAS 23,090 verses are in the Old Testament. 8,012 are in the New. Why did God put so much of what He had to say to us in the Old Testament? John |
||||||
16 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17449 | ||
Correct. That is one application. Another might be more narrow however. Contextually the Lord was speaking primarily about Palestine. Solomon would have understood Israel as the primary application. That narrows it a bit. But we could also speak of the "land" of Ethiopia (Gen. 2:11), the "land" of Gilead (Josh. 22:13), the "land" of Egypt (1Ki. 9:9), etc. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament allows for a much higher degree of specificity such as "a piece of ground (2Ki. 8:5)." Context determines meaning. The promise given in this passage is, in my view, quite broad and therefore the meanings of the words allow for a number of applications. Further, the New Testament echoes the spirit of what is being promised here. "The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain...(Jam. 5:15-16)." Drawing from an Old Testament example of prayer James makes a New Testament application. This kind of hermaneutical example is instructive of what our methodology should be as well. Hope this clarifies the position I'm taking. John |
||||||
17 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17367 | ||
My hermaneutic: follow a literal (when possible), contextual and historical interpretation of a passage. If the "rules" of language are followed, and we entertain no bias, we can consistently claim nearly any promise given to God's people in the Old Testament as applicable to His people at any time in history. To object that "land" has a highly specified, contextualized meaning whenever it was used in the Old Testament is difficult to maintain consistently and logically. If the "rain" and "pestilence" of verse 13 can be viewed as precipitation and disease effecting any of God's people then it follows that "land" can apply to that of any of God's people as well. Yes, land was specific to God's national covenants with Israel. Specific areas of land. It's borders were given in great detail (e.g. Joshua 13ff). But here we have little contextual foothold for such a limited view of the word. It might be objected that a literal temple is in view in this passage. While true it would then follow, were we to maintain this narrow semantic approach, that we need to pray in the temple precincts (v. 15) in order that our prayers be heard. Such a view becomes untenable in view of John 4:20ff. And thank-you, Lionstrong, for welcoming me aboard. John |
||||||
18 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17299 | ||
Your reply belies your objection. You understand something of the Old Testament. Why? If the Old Testament is narrowly confined to a national/racial/ethnic group then why do you read it? If our approach to the Bible is overly compartmentalized then we find ourselves questioning doctrines such as the blood atonement (without faith in which no man is saved whether ancient or modern). 1 John 3:4 is New Testament doctrine, "...sin is the transgression of the law." Do we relegate the law to only the Old Testament? No. We are not "to die to the law" (Rom. 7:4) with our regard to its moral demands. We are dead to the law's lorship over us and remarried to the Lord of that law, Jesus Christ, who bore the penalties of that law (Rom. 7:1-7). Speaking of Old Testament law breakers Paul admonishes, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction..." 1 Cor. 10:9. Our instruction? Will we object, "But Paul, those were Old Testament Israelites"? Yes, Israel is not the church. But even this distinction, if overly drawn, is frought with hermaneutical hazards which I am not willing to cross. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Tim. 3:16. I looked up the word "All" in Greek. It means "all." So, to answer your question directly, yes. The historical context was to Israel dwelling in Israel. But the semantic meaning far transcends its immediate historical parameters and gives to God's people today a hope that provides guidance to our present national crisis. |
||||||
19 | The Answer | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17196 | ||
I found The Answer to the world's problems. How could I be such a dolt? It was staring me in the face for two days before I saw it...and it's Monday already, ugh. Saturday morning our neighbor, an elderly bible-believing woman, showed up at our front door. She spoke briefly to one of my sons. I didn't know it at the time but she had already given The Answer to my 13 year old son Joshua. The Answer hasn't gone as deep as she intended it to with him. But she did it. It was the right thing to do. Joshua needed The Answer. I needed it. We all need it. I'm holding it in my hand now. Back to the front door. By the time I got to there she was rattling on about the other children. Then Joshua walked away. So I'm standing there with her and stumbling into a conversation about her health (always a good topic with the elderly) and our mutual bodily woes. I didn't think much about why she was there. I guess I thought it was just a neighborly visit since she stops by with goodies now and then. We ended our conversation, bid one another a good day and then I went back to the laundry. I totally forgot about the incident. Later in the day my wife gave it to me. It was a 5.5 x 8.5 pastel green note our neighbor had written and given to Joshua before I got to the door. And there it was. The Answer. It read as follows: 9-22-01 Dear Joshua: My face is RED because I LIED to you yesterday when you asked if we had a tire pump. I said, "No," but we do have one. God showed me my Black (picture of a heart). I am sorry. Now, please forgive me for lying to you (God hates lies!). If you need to pump up your tires you may use our pump in our drive way. Sincerely, Mrs. Tyner This is the frightening part. I don't know if I have the courage to go through with what she started. "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 |
||||||