Results 1 - 15 of 15
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: maxpower Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193907 | ||
Lionheart, I hope you did not take the comment on relevance to mean that I thought any portion of God’s Word could be irrelevant; my meaning was, that when we alter His Word, it becomes something else and thus irrelevant. See my response to Steve on the boring issue; I hope I clarified that, there. On the ‘if’ word; I’m a mathematical thinker, in its simplest form that is, Boolean if you know the meaning (sort of an if ‘a’ then ‘b’ approach). But, I see your point; it’s those easily spelled words that can get us in the most trouble. I’ll keep an eye on that one. Thanks for the positive comments, they’re appreciated. MP |
||||||
2 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193906 | ||
Steve, Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm sure Jim feels the way most of us, who have the audacity to post here do; there's no sense holding an opinion if it doesn't have to be pried kicking and screaming from your hands, especially when it concerns what we’ve come to know as ‘non-essentials’. How’s that for mixing metaphors, I’m sure you get my meaning. I was too hasty in my comment on Numbers, I really should have said it was those first few chapters; the Lord will have to forgive me, but OUCH they’re hard to read. Of course, the value of all scripture is immeasurable but the Lord knows I can’t just sit and read them. For me, they’re strictly a reference. Besides there are so many other places I can spend hours feeling the heat of His Word. It’s a matter of taste really and should not be misconstrued for an opinion of their inherent value. Love the ‘junk room’ reference; it fits, since we know that everything that’s in there is of value, we just have to dig around until we find what we are looking for. MP |
||||||
3 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193890 | ||
Jim, 1. Precedent, both in Law and reason is granted weight, even great weight, when considering the validity of a previously held idea; or in this case interpretation. 2. I did not say anything about boring; that would be your observation. The book of Numbers; now that’s boring, but obviously quite relevant. While it is an oversimplification to say, it is “irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth.” Given the entire scope of the argument, I stand by the statement; it would indeed be largely, even if not utterly, irrelevant. 3. I did not offer how it had been taught as support the facts under consideration. In fact it would only be by inference that teaching was even mentioned. 4. The observation was, “there is a glaring absence of divine purpose;” I am open to hearing one. 5. I apologize, if these arguments originate with you, I’m sure you’re more offended by the ABC statement than I am at the revision of the book’s message. 6. You ignored the conjunction that created a joint assertion. The observation is, the people called her a Moabite, which is a designation used to indicate an enemy, and she called herself a foreigner. I did not disavow that you acknowledged the title of Moabite; in fact that is a major point of the discussion. Instead the point was, the transaction that took place in verse five and following, of the second chapter, is evidence that she was not of Israeli descent. 7. Actually, I would not agree, unless I was reading the KJV, where the translation is almost exclusively ‘stranger.’ While your explanation, again, stands to reason, it does hold consistent with scripture. For instance, you ignored verse fourteen, “Rachel and Leah said to him, 'Do we still have any portion or inheritance in our father's house? Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners (strangers)...” (Gen 31:14,15) Here, even were we to accept the translation ‘strangers’ as you suggest, Rachel is indicating by her statement, concerning inheritance, that her father no longer considers them blood. So, in the same manner, if Ruth is not Boaz’s blood she is not of Israel. If that’s a little thin for you, let’s look at a few instances from the KJV where the word is translated stranger: “…thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (De 17:15) “And his master said unto him, ‘We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel...’” (Jud 19:12) “Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of thy people Israel...” (2Ch 6:32) From these verses we may adduce with such probability, as almost to amount to certainty, that when the Old Testament refers to a ‘stranger’, as is done in the instance in question, it is correctly translated ‘foreigner’; not of Israel, and that Gen 31:15 actually supports that assertion and does not contradict it. So, Elohim – God not judges; Nokriah – foreigner not ‘previously unknown to me’. I’d say on these two alone there is enough to maintain she was not of Israel and was thus converted. Where she lived could of course be fodder another discussion… As Always, MP |
||||||
4 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193830 | ||
Jim, Actually I would argue that seeing that we are two thousand years into Christian history, generally speaking, things that are generally accepted are generally correct. If not, I would think that any real hope for clarity had been lost, long ago. ;) That not withstanding, yes there are references to the area between the rivers as the land of Moab. And, we could ignore the fact that elohim is not translated in the Ruth as judges, verse one does not contain elohim but shaphat. We could also assert that even though it is translated God, or some form thereof, thousands of times and judges in three verses, it should be changed to judges. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’ (2:6), a designation used in Judges 3:28 to indicate an enemy, and that she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land. Paul certainly did not; he may have been a Roman citizen, but he was an ‘Israelite’ (Rom 11:1) not a foreigner. So: We could ignore all that and say she was a Reubenite or Gadite, she lived in an area sometimes referred to as the land (or plains) of Moab, and she seemed to think there a difference between her people, one tribe of Israel, and Naomi’s, also an Israelite. If this is our interpretation, there was nothing notable about her intermarrying within Israel, moving from one area to another within Israel proper, and coming under the governance of a different judge; accept in her mind. All things being equal, I’d say we have just discovered the first irrelevant book of the bible; since there is nothing worthy of note in the marriage of one Israeli to another. After all, the only significant information in this record is the genealogy, which is of course set down in other places. OR We can accept what has always been taught; that Ruth was a Moabite, descendant of Lot, foreigner to the covenants of God; the translators were correct in there translation of Elohim, and that she lived in the kingdom of Moab, not the land between the two rivers where Reuben and Gad settled. This being the case we can further accept that she turned from idols to serve a living and true God; that she was accepted and redeemed by a righteous man of the tribe of Judah, became mother to Obed and great grandmother to David, king of Israel. In so doing she became another, in the checkered past of the Messiah, to demonstrate God mercy in redeeming His people. So, she became an example of God’s grace despite the judgment of Deuteronomy 23:3; and in so doing fulfilled the scripture “that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow…” (Gen 19:29) Therfore, in her, we see God working out what Moses heard on the mount, “…The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...” (Ex 34:6) Previous to this, I have not considered that the book of Ruth might be just the ‘rags to riches’ story of an ancient Israeli woman, and after this posting I’m sure I will not again. It has always been an outstanding illustration for the young in faith, of the brilliance God’s providence and His mercy. So while it may be argued that there is practical evidence for both positions, even the practical favors the latter. Additionally, there is a glaring absence of divine purpose in the former argument and that should be weight enough for people of faith to reject it. Not to mention, the former sounds more like what ABC news would present as a rational explanation for the non-supernatural recordings of ancient mythology. Carry on... MP |
||||||
5 | Why did God hate Esau? Romans 9:13 | Mal 1:3 | maxpower | 193820 | ||
The statement is rhetorical; when speaking in the past tense, one is 'looking back', even if the speaker himself, is not subject to time. Therefore, “But you say, ‘How have You…,’ … ‘Yet I have loved…’,” is, in a manner of speaking, looking back. |
||||||
6 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | maxpower | 193709 | ||
Jim, I can appreciate your dilemma with the ‘land of Moab’. Indeed the references regarding the land or plains across from Jericho are not what the scripture indicates as Moab in other passages; most especially that which was not given Israel as a possession. The reference to the Amorite kingdom which was given to Rueben and Gad as the ‘land of Moab’ in Deuteronomy 32:49, et al is likely due to the history noted by Moses in Numbers 21:26-31. Here he speaks of a previous war where the Moabites lost part of their land to the Amorites; this is the land between the Arnon and Jabbok rivers. That noted, it is generally accepted that the story of Ruth occurred at a point in history shared by the timeline covered by the book of Judges. Now, the book of Judges records a dispute between Israel and Ammon which notes the following: Speaking of Israel at the time of the Exodus the author notes, “Then they [Israel] went through the wilderness and around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came to the east side of the land of Moab, and they camped beyond the Arnon; but they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab.” When the scripture says here, ‘they did not enter the territory of Moab,’ it is plain that the people of the day considered the ‘land of Moab’ to be what was at that time the nation of Moab and not what was previously the Amorite kingdom; that is the land taken from Moab. So when the book of Ruth refers to the land of Moab, it is reasonable to accept that the author refered to the nation, not the previously owned territory. As for Ruth’s lineage; to begin with it generally accepted that she was of Moabite descent. From the text, as the ‘Moabitess’ she must be considered descendant of Moab. And when she said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God,” (Ruth 1:16) she removes all doubt. For certainly no Israelite would deny that her god was the God of Israel and swear Him allegiance with the same breath. As for the ordinance of Deuteronomy 23; God’s love for David appears to have leapt forward to James’ proclamation, where he notes in chapter 2 verse 13; “mercy triumphs over justice.” How fortunate for us, lest the Son of David not be welcome in the assembly of the LORD… MP PS - Thanks that was fun... |
||||||
7 | Why did God hate Esau? Romans 9:13 | Mal 1:3 | maxpower | 193688 | ||
The simple answer is found in the book of Hebrews; “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; … that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.” (Heb 12:15-17) Looking at it more deeply we see, this passage refers to Genesis 25:30-34; Esau selling his birthright, and 27:30-40, where we find the consequences of that faithless transgression. For, after Jacob had obtained the blessing Esau came to Isaac and said, “Let my father arise and eat of his son's game, that you may bless me.” But Isaac’s reply regarding the blessing Jacob obtained by deception was, “Yes, and he shall be blessed.” So, “When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, ‘Bless me…’ But Isaac replied to Esau, ‘Behold, I have made him your master… Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?’ Esau said to his father, ‘Do you have only one blessing, my father?’ …So Esau lifted his voice and wept. Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, ‘Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, And away from the dew of heaven from above.’” We see here that the repentance Esau sought for, ‘with tears,’ was not his own but that of his father, that he might obtain the blessing. So a millennium and a half later when God looked back on the outworking of both this blessing and curse, He spoke these words through Malachi, in response to Israel’s transgressions; “But you say, ‘How have You loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ declares the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.’ … Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the LORD is indignant forever.’” (Mal 1:2-4 Paul has used this example as evidence of God’s sovereign choice, that of believers whom He loves, and the unbeliever whom in the hindsight of His judgment, He has hated… Scary but none the less true, especially in light of Rom 11:17-24 MP |
||||||
8 | Is demonic possession relevant today? | Acts 19:13 | maxpower | 193659 | ||
Michael, Proof that demons were still present on the earth after the ascension and that they inhabited people There's the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18; The "man in whom was [an] evil spirit" Acts 19:13-16; Those confronted by Phillip Acts 8:5-7; by Paul Acts 19:12; by Peter Acts 5:16 I'd say your friend doesn't have a leg to stand on... MP |
||||||
9 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | maxpower | 193515 | ||
MJH - I believe this passage is one of the great illustrations of Paul’s brilliance in his presentation of the Gospel. Another would be Acts 17:16-31 (esp. vs. 23), where just like chapter 21, Paul assimilates himself to those around him that he might obtain the greatest hearing of God’s message. While the Mosaic covenant was quite insignificant, even an offense, to most Gentiles, it was obviously not to Jews. Paul did not mind walking in accordance with that which he had, his entire life, held so dear, especially if it afforded him an opportunity to preach the Gospel to his countrymen. So, he recognized and had already been confronted with the conflict that arose where freedom and legalism clash, even the legalism of God’s own covenant. Now Paul new, that the Law was good (Rom 7:12), so it was understandable to him that Jewish believers would indeed become more ‘zealous for the Law,’ once converted to faith in Christ. I believe the scriptures make clear that the Jews, beginning with Peter (Acts 10:9-48), were quite resistant to the type of freedom from the Law, that believers had in Christ, and that this resistance created the division described by these verses (Ch 21, etc). But, Paul realized from the beginning that believers, especially Gentile believers, had no obligation to be under the Law in order to obtain and maintain salvation. At his point we can view the events of vs. 22-24 in one of two ways; that this inner circle of believers had come to understand fully the Gospel that Paul preached; that possibly they were, like Paul, making an effort to create an acceptable environment for him to present the Gospel to his Jewish brethren. Or that they still perceived a difference between Jewish and Greek believers, which may be indicated by vs. 25; and were simply trying to prevent a riot. Either way the Holy Spirit’s intent on merging these two peoples into ‘one new man’ (Eph 2:15), is quite clear throughout the New Testament, most notably in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, his letter to the Romans, as well as illustrations peppered throughout all his writings. This transition from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ was evidently quite painful for all, to the extent that even the aged Peter may have been still awed by the magnificence of this grace, evidenced by his comments in 2 Peter 3:14-16. Being that Paul’s intent was that all men hear and receive the Gospel, and that he had special affection for his countrymen, it is no surprise that he would take most any measure to gain an audience. Forgive me, but this is just a long-winded way of saying what he wrote so adequately of himself in 1 Cor 9:19-23: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it" P.S. How long it was before Paul realized exactly, the implications of his message, and, whether James, in his zeal for righteousness, was ever more than a passenger in this quest is of personal curiosity to me but doesn’t seemed to be indicated anywhere in the scriptures. mp |
||||||
10 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | maxpower | 193451 | ||
While it is well argued that the moral law has an application as a sentry for believers, the ceremonial law has no application (for righteousness sake) to those who have placed their faith in Christ. For this reason the writer of the book of Hebrews indicates, “For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.” (Heb 7:18) Further, Paul wrote to the Colossians, “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch’,” (Col 2:20-21) insisting that, “these are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom ...but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Col 2:23) This further illustrates, that adherence to rules of the flesh, no matter the source of rule, do not convert the ungodly to the godly. Further, Mark writes, regarding Jesus, “And He said to them, ‘Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ Thus He declared all foods clean.” (Mar 7:18,19) By this He set the foundation for what Paul clearly taught; that, “…we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom 3:28) In short, ‘Yes, any time,’ since this command has no application to believers in the way of righteousness. For what reason would we be seeking to observe these statutes, other than for the sake of righteousness. If, therefore, we are seeking to be justified by the observance thereof, then "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Gal 5:4) So, in this sense the Law of Moses ‘is not’ still valid, given that Paul also wrote, “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘the righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…” (Gal 3:11-13) |
||||||
11 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | maxpower | 193254 | ||
Wow, all these responses and yet no real answer that I could see. I'll give it a shot, despite the inauspicious warning below. I think you could look at this question two ways and benefit from both. First, from the tempters point of view. Of course his point is simple; to destroy our Lord, just as he did with Adam. In other words his point was just to get Him to sin. Given that Peter wrote, “the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour,” I believe he would, for obvious reasons, especially target our Lord. In fact, the book of Job indicates quite well, that the devil’s tempting ways are not daunted, even by the impeccable nature of our God. Since, God Himself, testified against him saying, “…although you incited Me against him to ruin him [Job] without cause” [Job 2:3] By way of commentary, although I may get my wrist slapped for this, I’d like to add this. I heard a line in a movie once that described our adversary so well I’ve never forgotten the gist of it. A couple of screenwriters, James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd wrote this, about the antagonist in one of their films. “He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!” [Paraphrased] I think that sums his (the devil) mind set up pretty well. In summation, given that the only weapons of his warfare are the temptations that achieved our demise, quite naturally he would assail our Lord with them, for the same purpose. Now, since the adversary is just a tool in the hands of the master craftsman, another way to look at it would be, from the Almighty’s point of view. From here we might gather, that He suffered this temptation for our benefit. The writer of the book of Hebrews said, “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” [Heb 2:18] A purpose for His temptation could not be clearer; since He was tempted, he can come to our aid. Also it was written, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin,” [Heb 4:15] indicating clearly that He can “sympathize with our weaknesses;” thus the benefit to us is more than just aid or empathy; its identity. So, “He Himself was tempted.” What an agony that must have been for Him; to go from one who “cannot be tempted by evil,” [Jas 1:13] to the one “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.” [Phil 2:6,7a] For what reason? Again, for our benefit. |
||||||
12 | # of times Forgiveness is in bible | Bible general Archive 3 | maxpower | 193239 | ||
Kelli Jo, As Makarios wrote the word appears seven times. However, you may be interested to know that the Hebrew word translated forgiveness appears three times - translated forgiveness, forgivenesses, and pardon. While the Greek word appears sixteen times as - forgiveness, remission, deliverance, and liberty. At least that's as near as I can tell. |
||||||
13 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193238 | ||
Cheri, Thank You for the warm welcome and interesting discussion... |
||||||
14 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193228 | ||
Hey Cheri I'm with you on the 'Apostle' thing; at least until He knocks me off my high horse - HA I have to say, while I offered the response I did, I agree whole heartedly that we should be much more adamant about our standing in Christ. Just as you noted, how Paul testified that we are new creatures and that the “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new,” especially us… But, it’s easy to remain in sin if were just sinners, and maybe we need to admit we struggle to let go of that old man’s appetites. If we’re bound for glory, perhaps we need to heed your advice. After all, if, “the Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God”, why should we protest!!! Enjoy... MP |
||||||
15 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | maxpower | 193224 | ||
Hi Cheri, This is a great topic; perhaps the reason you hear people speaking that way comes from statements like Paul’s, in 1Timothy, It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (ch1:15) Notice he wrote ‘among whom I am’, not I was. So, you will have to change ‘never’ to ‘hardly’ ;) Also, I like to look at it in this way: for the most part the Holy Spirit in the scriptures speaks prophetically, that is looking forward to our destination. For instance, when the angel spoke to the cowering Gideon, calling him ‘mighty man of valor’ he did so seeing the deliverance that was coming by Gideon’s hand. But, Solomon in Ecclesiastes warns us, “Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself? Do not be excessively wicked and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them.” (Ecc 7:16-18) From this, we see he is not speaking so much about our behavior, as how we view ourselves, especially when we approach God, if you will. So when Peter begins his second letter, “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” (2Ptr 1:1) it seems that he is, in fulfillment of Solomon’s words, remembering both the sinner, signified by Simon, his mother’s son, and the saint, signified by the new name given him by his Lord, which of course was Peter. So I don’t think we a calling Him a liar when we remember how much we depend on Him to remain in His grace. |
||||||