Results 1 - 20 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Just Read Mark Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lying justified? | Josh 2:5 | Just Read Mark | 208737 | ||
Was it morally acceptable for Rahab to lie, to save the lives of the Israelite spies? (I think of so many instances of people hiding others from those who intend violence... Nazi germany, Rwanda...) | ||||||
2 | Claiming victory too soon? | Josh 21:43 | Just Read Mark | 208718 | ||
Reading Joshua more closely than I have before, I find it hard to interpret what is going on. Why does this verse claim a total victory? Verses like Joshua 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-18 all show the tribes failing to take their inheritance. Even after the current verse 21:43, where victory is declared, we have Joshua instructing the tribes to take their inheritance. (23:4, Judges 2:6) We often celebrate God's fulfilled promises... what are we to make of promises that are claimed to be fulfilled, when the text itself is clear that they are not? |
||||||
3 | Hebrew and Greek Old Testament | Bible general Archive 4 | Just Read Mark | 200924 | ||
I understand that Jews, keeping the faith in cultures all around the Mediterranean, translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. They did this about 250 years before Christ. This translation -- the Septuagint -- was the version most known in the early church. Some verses have discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, and these discrepancies are carried over into the New Testament. I understand the we are to treat the original manuscripts as authoritative --- what then are we to make of the New Testament's treatment of the Septuagint as authoritative? |
||||||
4 | "throwing stones" or "making love"? | Eccl 3:5 | Just Read Mark | 196203 | ||
Eugene Peterson's paraphrase, "The Message," treats this verse as follows: "A right time to make love and another to abstain, A right time to embrace and another to part." I usually find his renderings very powerful, and when I find a strange one I usually find it actually reflects scholarship about the texts in question. In this case, however, I don't know what he's referring to. Can anyone shed background on interpretations of this verse? |
||||||
5 | Was Joseph involved in occult practices? | Gen 44:5 | Just Read Mark | 195865 | ||
I was surprised to find Joseph claiming secret knowledge through divination (Genesis 44:5, Genesis 44:15). Perhaps he was “role playing” to further test his brothers? Or had he been influenced by his wife’s family, worshiping the god On? (see Genesis 41:45 and repetitions) |
||||||
6 | Greet no one on the road? | Luke 10:4 | Just Read Mark | 179771 | ||
Why does Jesus instruct his followers not to greet anyone on the road? Isn't this advice rather unlike the "Good Samaritan" story? What does this mean for the mission of the 72, or our mission today? | ||||||
7 | Seems to change in stories? | Mal 3:6 | Just Read Mark | 176990 | ||
I agree, with confidence, that the Lord is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." This is a refrain through scripture, in praise passages or teaching passages. Yes, in narrative passages, we sometimes get another impression. I think of Moses on the mountain, petitioning on behalf of the Israelites, and God yeilding to his request for mercy. Or Abraham having a similar conversation with God about Sodom. Now, was God playing games with these two, or did God's mind change? I can see a consistent principle of character running through both of these, which runs through the whole canon, of just wrath being overcome by compassion... so maybe there isn't a change on the grand scheme but somehow, on the small scheme, God's mind changed? God's heart is shown as very complex --- such as in Hosea 11, wanting to violently purge the people, but having such a tender love that the violence is impossible. Is this an anthropomorphic moment, reading a human father's complexity into the heart of God -- or is God's heart really torn in these ways? Immutably torn? |
||||||
8 | Authority of Tobit? | OT general | Just Read Mark | 176202 | ||
I just read Tobit. I really enjoyed the narrative power of the tale, and the picture of family life it presented. I also thought the angel and healings were very cool. Certainly, there are some odd things in there. So here's the question -- Why do protestants no see it as canonical? |
||||||
9 | The Ground Cries Out... | Luke 19:40 | Just Read Mark | 170114 | ||
I will express a thought that has been a worshipful subject for me yesterday and today. I am looking for other scriptures that relate to the theme of "the ground crying out." ... Our church has just finished a lenten series, looking at the Fall. Yesterday, we were looking at Cain and Abel. I was interested that God says that Abel's "blood cries out to me from the ground." (Genesis 4:10) So, as the effects of the fall shape the 2nd generation, with the first murder, the ground is crying out with outrage and loss. The effect is that the ground no longer helps Cain... this is the exile from the Garden, pushed even further. With Paul, we see that "the creation was subjected to futility." (Romans 8:20) The universe is broken by the Fall, and yearns for redemption. So, this verse about the ground crying out with Abel's blood connects to the verse in Luke -- where, if the people's praises were silenced, the STONES would cry out in praise (Luke 19:40). The stones that suffered the Fall, recognize their Creator and Savior, and yearn for redemption. ... So, I have shared this "meditation" with you. My only question is: are there other scriptures where the earth cries out? Are there other verses that would enrich the theme I have begun exploring above? Thanks. JRM |
||||||
10 | Redeem the time? | Eph 5:16 | Just Read Mark | 169628 | ||
Does anyone know where the phrase "redeem the time" comes from? -- is it in the bible (I haven't found it with search engines) If it's not from the Bible, who coined it? | ||||||
11 | Old Testament Meaning of "Salvation"? | Deut 7:9 | Just Read Mark | 168408 | ||
In no way am I looking for exotic. Rather, this thread (from Robin's original question) has been looking at the promises the Jewish people received from God as part of the covenant. God's Word doesn't fail, so those promises are still in effect... if only the human side of the covenant would hold up (which, of course, we can't do). But --- even if we could --- and here's the question I keep trying to phrase --- was heaven even promised to the Jews? My reading of the OT (help me here) is that there are hints and echoes of afterlife, but nothing like the picture we receive from Jesus, Paul, Peter, or Revelation. So, if left only with an OT definition of "Salvation" --- I think the picture would be very THIS WORLDLY. It would have a "get right with God" (forgiven) aspect, and a "kingdom of God" political aspect (liberation from Egypt and growth in the promised land). It would not, I think, have a Heaven aspect. Except in the typological sense picked up by the New Testament writers. I am trying to understand what the question, "Are faithful Jews Saved" would mean, based on the Old Testament. Your answer, about Josephus, was interesting because it shows the extent that Jewish thought about afterlife had shifted after the last canonical book. To look at Paul's answers, as you have suggested, would answer a different question. |
||||||
12 | Jewish understanding of "Salvation" ? | Deut 7:9 | Just Read Mark | 168311 | ||
I feel rather ignorant on this. This whole thread is talking about "salvation" as if Jews and Christians have the same idea of that the word means. I see a much clearer picture of "Heaven" in the New Testament than the Old. I know the resurrection of the faithful was a very controversial issue among Jews at the time of Jesus. What, then, is an orthodox Jew's understanding of Heaven, or salvation? |
||||||
13 | Creative Misquotation | Eph 4:8 | Just Read Mark | 168113 | ||
This verse begins, "Therefore it says..." This is a cue, that Paul is about to quote scripture. The reference - as close as I can figure - is to Psalm 68:18. The Psalm has a conquering Messiah RECEIVING gifts from faithful and vanquished alike. Paul, however, has the Messiah GIVING gifts to his people. I was listening to Eugene Peterson preaching on this passage, and he called it a "creative misquotation" --- that Paul knew that his readers would know the original psalm, and that his change to the ending would have a powerful rhetorical effect. The surprise ending would show the radical understanding of God that Jesus brings us... setting the context for the discussion of gifts that follows. What do you think? |
||||||
14 | Translations of "began" or "beginning" | Acts 1:1 | Just Read Mark | 167574 | ||
I've found two divergent translations of the opening verse in Luke. "... that Jesus began to do and teach" (NASB, and others) or "....that Jesus did and taught from the beginning" (NRSV) One makes it feel like the whole Gospel of Luke was the "beginning" of Christ's ongoing ministry. The other states that Luke's Gospel runs from the "beginning" of Christ's ministry, to the point of the ascension. Can anyone shed light on which of these two translations are more accurate on this point? |
||||||
15 | Modern application of slavery texts? | Titus 2:9 | Just Read Mark | 156515 | ||
An application question. Thanks, Mark, for your thoughtful reply. The story of Joseph is certainly a wonder: the way that such horrible deeds are brought to wonderful ends, and how those ends were even fortold in dreams at the beginnning. (In a weird kind of way, the dreams sprarked the jealousies, fueling the brothers cruel actions... so there is a kind of circle here. The circle brings us, at each point, back to God.) But, with the slavery question, I would like to try a modern application. This is not slavery per se, but similar I think. In Guatemala (as far as I understand it), most people live in poverty, and one critical concern is that very few people own land. The landowners are able to treat the workers very harshly, for there is no recourse. Some churches preach that the workers should accept their lot, live orderly lives, and live in the hope of heaven. Other churches preach that the injustice of their country needs to be reformed, and call on parishoners to work toward changing the laws of their society for the good of all. Church leaders advocate for the poor in the public sphere. What are the Biblical grounds for these positions, and is one more sound than the other? |
||||||
16 | Slavery | Titus 2:9 | Just Read Mark | 156391 | ||
Did the partipants in the Underground Railroad have a way of reading this verse How do we make sense of the conflicting image of slavery in the NT |
||||||
17 | Merciful Sheep? | Matt 5:7 | Just Read Mark | 153246 | ||
Looking at the "sheep and goats" scene in Matthew 25:31-46. Are the human actions here examples of "mercy," or something else (like compassion)? Is this judgement scene an illustration of "Blessed are the merciful... ?" | ||||||
18 | What is mercy? | Matt 5:7 | Just Read Mark | 153175 | ||
The usual use of "mercy" generally involves a power relationship between the two parties. For example, the judge treats the criminal clemency. So this beatitude would relate to how we use authority, in the family, workplace, etc. A few things I have read about this beatitude, however, interpret "mercy" akin to "compassion": mercy is aiding someone who is SUFFERING. A biblical occurence of this would be the good samaratan having mercy on the wounded traveller. Help me out here. Is the broader definition part of mercy, or only the one that has a sense of authority to it? Many of the occurences of the word "mercy" in the gospel are ambiguous to this distinction, because people are crying out "Lord, have mercy." In these cases, both senses apply, for they are appealing to a higher authority ("Lord") to respond to their suffering (illnesses, possessions, etc.). JRM |
||||||
19 | Tongues in different settings? | 1 Cor 14:22 | Just Read Mark | 151054 | ||
Thanks to everyone who has responded to my question! We tend to answer questions out of our general knowledge, rather than deal directly with the text. This particular text says "Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers." Some of the responses have contradicted this (ie. tongues are for believers, or of no benefit whatsoever...) without explaining how the conclusions were arrived at. Earlier in the chapter, Paul talks about speaking mysteries in the spirit and thereby "building up themselves" (v.4). So it seems there is a place for private tongues, as an act of worship --- but that this sort of tongues should not be used in a group. In a group, we should be striving to "build up the church" (v 12). It appears tongues can function in this way if there is an interpreter (v. 5). Tongues is good, but prophecy is a more reliable way to build up the church. Do you think this is a reasonable sumation of the first half of the chapter? There is then a shift at verse 20, which leads to a statement that seems contradictory to what I just stated. Where the first part says tongues are for the believer's private use or (with an interpreter) among believers, the next verses say tongues are to benefit unbelievers, not believers. Help me out here. It seems contradictory, but I suspect I'm just not getting the whole sense of it. There are, perhaps different uses of tongues. Let's leave the events of Pentecost aside, since that seems an extraordinary blessing, beyond the normal experience of the churches. Instead, please help with this particular chapter. Yours JRM. |
||||||
20 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | Just Read Mark | 150847 | ||
Please help me to understand this verse in context, especially the verses which follow directly after. How are tongues a benefit to unbelievers, when a few verses later it says that unbelievers see tongues as "madness"? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |