Results 1 - 20 of 67
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is it cheating? | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 213402 | ||
Is it mid-terms? How many will show up to ask us to answer their test questions? MJH |
||||||
2 | Class on historical background. | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 214247 | ||
I'm putting together an outline for a class on the Historical Background to the New Testament. Are there some issues or events that you feel should be defiantly included in this class? What are some questions you have that a class like this could answer? Thanks for any input. MJH |
||||||
3 | Most confusing book of Bible? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 173957 | ||
Just out of curiosity . . . what book of the Bible is the most confusing to you? The book that makes you scratch your head in wonderment? MJH |
||||||
4 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 177170 | ||
Does anyone have an opinion on the so called, "Emergent Church?" I ask because I happen to attend a church that when I join was simply another church which happened to grow very fast, had a gifted teacher, etc... But nothing spectacular. Since then, over the past few years, the gifted teacher has become very well know, almost an icon in the so called "Emergent Church" movement, although he has never claimed that our church was an "Emergent Church." Needless to say (unfortunately) he has been attacked by several Pastors around the country. My stance among those I meet is that I am not responsible for defending my pastor or church against comments. I will talk and listen, but I am not ever going to get "defensive" and try to argue for a point. I will clarify and ask why they think what they think, but I won't get drawn into an argument. It has bothered me, however, to see that so far every critic I have read or heard has gone to the level of revering to my pastor as "Satan’s agent" or "a clear Heretic" etc... Not one critic I have read so far has refrained from using such vitriolic statements which I interpret as meaning they are so afraid that their critic isn't strong enough on content that they have to use stupid statements to try and reinforce their ideas. One pastor even stated that since my pastor's following was so large, he obviously was not of God and used the same argument to refute Rev. Billy Graham. I’d love to discuss this topic with some of you, since I have anonymity here, and I would like to know what gifted people like you all think. MJH |
||||||
5 | Scripture - more than one meaning? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 139827 | ||
Is it ever possible for scripture to have more than one meaning? I have heard the Sages of old said, "There are 70 layers to every Bible passage." I am not one to subscribe to 70 layers to every passage, but can there be more than one meaning? For example: Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers, rejected. There is an obvious plane meaning to this. Joseph was sold into slavery. But, does this narrative foretell the Messiah being sold by his brothers, rejected, only to save them in the end like Joseph saved his brothers? Is this a Messiah picture, besides the plane obvious story? I was just curious what others thought about this. I think the above example is a Torah picture of the Messiah (kind of like the snake is seen as more than a snake in Gen 2). But . . . what do you all think? MJH |
||||||
6 | Why ordain pastors? How do you do it? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 140032 | ||
This brings up a good issue that I haven't thought of in some long time. Why do we "ordain" pastors? How did this practice start? I do know the scriptures, but I wonder how closely tied to them many denominations are. The one I grew up in required Greek to be learned and 4 years of seminary to get ordained (except it rare cases.) Then there is the difference between licensed and ordained. Any insightful thoughts on this? |
||||||
7 | Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 144184 | ||
Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? Can anyone provide me with reasons to observe this holiday other than "The church says so?" I know it isn't in the Bible and I believe it started around 900 AD. But, if someone can give me healthy reasons for it, I'd love to hear them. Also, any background you want to provide would be nice. And, what do you (you personally) do on Ash Wednesday? (I'm not "against" it. But I would like to hear reasons for being "for" it.) Thanks. MJH |
||||||
8 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154594 | ||
Do you believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God? I do..... Well, at least to prove the existence of some being that is not bound by time and therefore is "spirit." I have been working on an argument along these lines for some time and would love some feedback on it. But while I am attempting to post such an argument that fits this forums space limits and is articulate, I'd love your (and anyone else’s) feedback on the question, is it possible to prove that some higher power/being exists or not. MJH |
||||||
9 | Proof of 'a' God. Your thoughts? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154819 | ||
Doc (and others) It seems that my days are far too busy to sit and articulate this well, so here is an off the cuff thought on rationally proving that 'a' god or higher power beyond the material world HAS to exist. ------------- Time may be infinite in the future. That makes sense rationally. But time can not exist infinitely in the past. There is no possibility of such an idea, because infinity past would mean that the present time we are in would never arrive. (If you can't get your mind around this idea....or others that follow, let me know and I will try to articulate them more fully.) Second. If you have material you must have time. It is impossible for material to exist without the existence of time. Material is dependant upon time. Third. Time cannot exist apart from a material substance (not as easy to understand why...but true). If there is no material world then time has no meaning nor purpose. It is non-existent by its own definition. (If you don’t grasp #3, then keep going because it may not matter.) Fourth. If there can be no possibility of infinity past and therefore time had to have a beginning, then matter or material too had to have a beginning, a start from true nothingness. Any other thought is illogical. It just can not be any other way. The mathematics would not work otherwise. Therefore; how it all happened would still be up in the air. When it all began would still be up in the air. But some non-material being HAD TO HAVE STATED IT. Some being not bound by the material world and therefore not bound by that confining fourth dimension, had to create the material out of nothing. Thought had to bring the material into being...... This leads to any number of conversations, but there it is, my premise that proves if nothing else, that at least some non-material being (a spirit being) had to start matter from nothing and begin time as we know it. My conclusions are that YHVH is that One True God and that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah that further proves by his resurrection that YHVH is who He says he is. YOUR THOUGHTS? MJH |
||||||
10 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151563 | ||
Trivia question... Good luck.... Prize yet to be disclosed for winner. What was the first sacrifice recorded in the Bible, and who performed it? Not too tricky, but most scholars get it wrong on their first stab. MJH |
||||||
11 | Who was God going to kill? | Ex 4:24 | MJH | 138573 | ||
Who was God going to kill? Had anyone else seen this verse translated differently? That God sought to kill Gershom (Moses first born son.) and that Zipporah touched Gershom’s feet with the foreskin, and that she said, "Surly you are a bride groom of blood to me" to the LORD God (as apposed to Moses)? The Hebrew is not specific. Just curious if anyone else has seen anything similar. I am still studying this one. MJH |
||||||
12 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213270 | ||
Exodus 15 begins with the song that Moses taught the people after God rescued them from Egypt. It struck me while going over this again, that this was likely the first passage that we have in our Bible that was actually written. Moses wouldn't have written the rest of the “Books of Moses” until after his time on the mountain. A quick glance at the commentaries I have don’t mention this, while only one states it was absolutely written down the same day it was sung. Can anyone confirm this, or just as good, show this to not be true? MJH |
||||||
13 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213297 | ||
Thanks for your response. I'm hoping for more feedback. Since Moses wrote much of the books of Genesis and Exodus only a few months after this event, there is no reason why he wouldn't have written down the song the day it was sung and then included it in Exodus later. I understand it’s speculation, but at the least, they did memorize the song. It's almost certain that Moses had not written anything as of yet, right? Also, as far as literacy, that’s a non-issue since we do see Moses writing soon after this. As far as for Job, chronologically, Job would have occurred during the days of Abraham (possibly). But there is no evidence that it was written until after even the days of King David. But that's a separate discussion. MJH |
||||||
14 | Does the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles? | Leviticus | MJH | 156059 | ||
wordoer, Is the Mosaic Law still in effect? If so, is it just for the Jew, or for the Gentile also? Are Gentile christians subject to the Mosaic Law? Before we can quote Lev. 19:28 as a standard, one must know if such law is meant to apply to us now. MJH |
||||||
15 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | MJH | 174595 | ||
I have recently been telling people that when a person was "unclean" this did not mean that one had sinned. It was simply of state of being in relation to a Holy God. But to be unclean for some reason was impossible to avoid (ie. a woman's monthly cycle). Also, could Jesus avoid being “unclean” his whole life? We know he was sinless, yet uncleanness was practically a certainty. These verses in Leviticus (can you believe I was reading Lev. for the fun of it?) seem to make a different argument. Does anyone have thoughts on this? One thing I also noticed was that this is in the portion that required a "guilt offering" and not a "sin offering", yet in verse 7, it is said such a person was guilty of sin. I'm confused..... MJH |
||||||
16 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193406 | ||
If the law of God said that you are not to wear a garment of linen mixed with wool because this was the garment worn by the priests serving in the Temple, then in the New Covenant where we are all a Kingdom of Priests, are we permitted to wear linen and wool mixed? Yes, any time. No, never. Yes, but only when. . . Curious what you think. My question assumes that the Law of Moses is still valid, that the prohibition was because the priests wore wool and linen mixed. MJH |
||||||
17 | Stumped and stupefied. Bewildered.... | Deut 12:13 | MJH | 213253 | ||
Deut 12:13-14 “Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see, but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.” ESV Here (and in the surrounding verses) the Text, the command of God, tells the Israelites that they are to only offer sacrifices at “the place” where he chooses. Every single commentary that I consulted repeated the same idea. Israel could not offer sacrifices at any other place than the Tabernacle/Temple. None of them motioned any exceptions. Yet, we see Gideon, Samson’s parents, and Samuel just to name three (and several more) doing just that. They not only offer a sacrifice outside and away from the place, the sacrifice is obviously accepted. To what answer is there to this riddle? MJH |
||||||
18 | 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 |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | Numbers in Hebrew letters/words? | Judg 12:14 | MJH | 140406 | ||
Does anyone see any value in the “numbering” in the scripture? Or more specifically, with the numbers associated with the Hebrew letters? For example: The word “truth” in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav (First, middle, last letter of Hebrew). Aleph equals 1, Mem equals 40 and Tav equals 400. “I am the Aleph and the Tav; I am the Alpha and Omega” 40 is always associated in the Bible as a time of testing. 400 is the time the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. 1 is the Messiah. (this one is far to long to express completely here any further) Another I’ve heard lately is that the word covenant in Hebrew equals 612. That is 1 less than the 613 laws in the Torah. When the Messiah came, he completed the Torah by being the one law that was lacking. That being, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.” John 13:34 Not that the Torah was missing this law (see Lev. 19:18), but that it was not elevated to its proper place, at the top both in theology and actions. Ultimately Jesus was “love” in the flesh, and loved us so much to be the end (purpose) of the Law. Any way, I have never bought into the numbering game, but some things I’ve read recently are quite interesting at the least. Also, this was done even before the time of Jesus. (not that this adds credence.) Anyone study this more in depth, enough to answer? MJH |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |