Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 16 of 16
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: prosemetic Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	Let your women keep silent?	1 Corinthians	prosemetic	117108
	Times have changed. This could justify ignoring a lot of what the Bible tells us to do (or refrain from doing). If Paul were truly inspired with his writings, would he be led to treat women about one step up from cattle?
2	Let your women keep silent?	Not Specified	prosemetic	117103
	1Co 14:34 - Show Context "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." I have heard the argument that Paul only meant this for the church at Corinth, but in the previous verse he talks "all" the churches of of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33 "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." The most logical interpretation, therefore, of the following verse, when he continues to refer to "churches" (note the plural) is "all the churches of the saints"...not just the churches of Corinth or Galatia or isolated places. How then, can we interpret the passage as not applying to all Christian churches? Is this not simply a rationalization to avoid the fact that it is no longer politically correct to subjugate women (in or out of the church)? How can we ignore the teaching of the New Testament simply because it is not politically correct in our age? Can those who claim it was only meant for the women at the particular church to whom he was writing support this with evidence to that supposition? If this position is taken with regard to this issue, how can we ever know whether anything Paul said was universally true or only intended for application to the particular church to whom he was writing?
3	Let your women keep silent?	1 Corinthians	prosemetic	117105
	1Co 14:34 - Show Context "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." I have heard the argument that Paul only meant this for the church at Corinth, but in the previous verse he talks "all" the churches of of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33 "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." The most logical interpretation, therefore, of the following verse, when he continues to refer to "churches" (note the plural) is "all the churches of the saints"...not just the churches of Corinth or Galatia or isolated places. How then, can we interpret the passage as not applying to all Christian churches? Is this not simply a rationalization to avoid the fact that it is no longer politically correct to subjugate women (in or out of the church)? How can we ignore the teaching of the New Testament simply because it is not politically correct in our age? Can those who claim it was only meant for the women at the particular church to whom he was writing support this with evidence to that supposition? If this position is taken with regard to this issue, how can we ever know whether anything Paul said was universally true or only intended for application to the particular church to whom he was writing?
4	What does this mean?	Luke 14:26	prosemetic	116100
	I have studied Latin and German and, yes, I know how easily one can mis-translate the real meaning if the idioms are not known. One somewhat famous story is about a computer that translated the line "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." into Russian. A native Russian was then asked to interpret the sentence as it had been translated into his tongue. He said that the translation essentially said, "The wine is agreeable, but the meat is rotting." I was taught that not only the original writers of the scriptures were inspired, but that the translators were also inspired to correctly translate the scriptures. I am now questioning whether the second premise is true.
5	What does this mean?	Luke 14:26	prosemetic	116093
	My point still is, was the Hebrew (word or idiom) mis-translated as "hate"? Because if it is a mis-translation, then how many other mis-translations are in the Bible possibly leading us to entirely incorrect intrepretations as this verse would do (unless the reader were a Hebrew scholar that knew the original did not mean what the English says)? Prosemetic
6	What does this mean?	Luke 14:26	prosemetic	116085
	"Hate" is not a Hebrew idiom. It is not a Hebrew word at all. It is an English word that means: "(hayt) hate v.t.1, regard with strong aversion or ill will; detest. 2, find unpalatable or unappealing. --v.i. feel hatred. --n. 1, passionate dislike or ill will. 2, something hated." If the Hebrew word (before translation) meant "something less loved", then it should have been translated that way. Is Emmaus saying that the scripture was mis-translated? If so, it begs the question, how much more of the Bible as we know it was mis-translated and doesn't mean what the English translation most of us depend upon says?
7	What is meant by "it was the third hour"	Not Specified	prosemetic	114647
	Several places in the Bible it uses the phrase "it was the sixth hour" (or third hour, or ninth hour, etc.) From what point are the hours counted? I understand that the Jewish day began at sunset, so it seems logical that the "first hour" would be the first hour after sunset, but many references to such things as the "third hour" would make that during the darkness of 9 to 12 PM (as modern time is equated) and that doesn't seem to make sense with what was happening at that hour.
8	What is meant by "it was the third hour"	Mark 15:25	prosemetic	114657
	Several places in the Bible it uses the phrase "it was the sixth hour" (or third hour, or ninth hour, etc.) From what point are the hours counted? I understand that the Jewish day began at sunset, so it seems logical that the "first hour" would be the first hour after sunset, but many references to such things as the "third hour" would make that during the darkness of 9 to 12 PM (as modern time is equated) and that doesn't seem to make sense with what was happening at that hour.
9	Why do all pictures of Jesus neglect one	Deut 22:12	prosemetic	113659
	No, it does neither. It just disappoints me that so many have overlooked what I consider a very important detail. It's almost like leaving out the crown of thorns. Both are mentioned in the gospels, one is always shown (in the proper time frame), the other is always absent.
10	Evidence of different requirements?	Deut 22:12	prosemetic	113641
	Is there any evidence that one line of priests would not be subject to the same commandments as the other? It seems to me that both would have the obligation ( and desire) to observe all the commandments. Your point is well taken that we must be careful in attempting to recreate His image that we not substitute the image for the real thing and worship it. Sometimes, I wonder if we are allowing the cross to become an idol instead of a symbol.
11	Why do all pictures of Jesus neglect one	Deut 22:12	prosemetic	113640
	This is my first time to use this forum. I am still getting the hang of it. I responded to your first post before realizing there were other posts and one was your own mention of the very passage to which I referred (the woman with the bleeding which occurs in several of the Gospels). That it is translated "tassels" in at least one translation is even more substantiation of my belief that here is clear evidence of what He wore.
12	Why do all pictures of Jesus neglect one	Deut 22:12	prosemetic	113639
	Yes, and I am convinced that the story of the woman with the "issue of blood for many years" that was healed when she touched "the hem of His garment", was actually touching the sacred part of the Jewish garment, the tassels. Too bad, no artist has done enough study of ancient Jewish customs and clothing to note this. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's Passion yet. I wonder if he got it right.
13	How about leavened bread in lieu	Not Specified	prosemetic	113576
	Is it really important whether we use unleavened bread in commerating the Last Supper? If none were available, would regular bread be acceptable or would it be "eating and drinking unworthly?"
14	How about leavened bread in lieu	Bible general Archive 2	prosemetic	113598
	Is it really important whether we use unleavened bread in commerating the Last Supper? If none were available, would regular bread be acceptable or would it be "eating and drinking unworthly?"
15	Why do all pictures of Jesus neglect one	Not Specified	prosemetic	113574
	Jesus came to "fulfill" the old law. Part of the old law was the commandments to wear tassles on the "wings" (corners) of his garment and to wear (Deu 22:12 "You shall make tassels (tzit-tzitot) on the four corners (kanafim...wings) of the clothing with which you cover yourself.) Since Jesus was without sin, I must assume that He observed this commandment. Why do you suppose have I never seen a picture of Jesus in compliance with this?
16	Why do all pictures of Jesus neglect one	Deut 22:12	prosemetic	113606
	Jesus came to "fulfill" the old law. Part of the old law was the commandments to wear tassles on the "wings" (corners) of his garment and to wear (Deu 22:12 "You shall make tassels (tzit-tzitot) on the four corners (kanafim...wings) of the clothing with which you cover yourself.) Since Jesus was without sin, I must assume that He observed this commandment. Why do you suppose have I never seen a picture of Jesus in compliance with this?

Search for your Bible question and answer here: