Results 1 - 20 of 67
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Clarification on Kingdom parable. | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225099 | ||
Doc, thanks for the reply. But your answer seems to miss the point that the other times Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven, he does not use the same Greek word. In the others he uses the present active verb. Only in this parable does he use the passive voice. Rather than saying, "The Kingdom of God is like..." this parable depicts the Kingdom of God as receiving the action, and also in the past continuing tense (Though I am unsure exactly how to word this. It's all Greek to me, but from what I've studied, this parables wording is certainly unique.) Further more, why add the additional phrase "compared to a 'human' King." Why add the seemingly unnecessary word 'human' unless it's meant to further drive home the point. "The kingdom of heaven is being made to be like a human king who...." Or, maybe the Greek is better said, "The kingdom of heaven has been made to be like a human king who..." Like I said, I don't know how to word the tense correctly, but the voice being passive is indisputable where as in all the other kingdom is like parables, the voice is active. Certainly not trying to start anything. I just heard this in a sermon today and I'd like clarification. |
||||||
4 | The real Kingdom of God is Like? | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225094 | ||
The Greek: Should it more accurately be translated "the Kingdom of Heaven [is being made to be like] a human king who..." Is not the homoioo (G3666) in the passive tense therefore, it is the Kingdom that is being made to be like. In context of the flow of this section of scripture. Is not Jesus using this parable to show what the Sanhedrin is causing the Kingdom to appear as to be like... rather than saying the Kingdom of Heaven is actually like this. This parable does not fit the mold of the previous parables of the Kingdom and this is the only one where "homoioo" is used rather than "homoios esti". Is it possible that Jesus is saying that the current leaders of the Temple have made the Kingdom to be like this parable, rather than saying, this is what my Kingdom is actually like? It is difficult to understand this parable as a description of the genuine Kingdom of the Real God! MJH |
||||||
5 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | John 16:7 | MJH | 215783 | ||
Why did Jesus need to depart before the Spirit could come? | ||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213665 | ||
I have a question about the Greek word used in Rom. 14:14. Hoping not to cause trouble here, I simply want to get further clarification from someone who knows Greek more than I. I've studied some the word koinos(G839) and akathartos(G169. koinos, from what I can tell, means common. Akathartos means ritually (Levitically) unclean. The LXX uses akathartos in Lev 11 and elsewhere, but uses koinos when describing things that are made common based on their use. To explain further: If I spoke of a Cray fish, I would use akathartos every time, because this is clearly unclean by Lev. 11 standards. There is no disputable issue with that. But if I were to speak of Lamb purchased at the market, I may uses koinos (common) because the Lamb is suspect; it could have been used in Idol worship. If it were known to be used in Idol worship, then it would certainly be koinos, or common. Therefore, if I speak of something that would otherwise be perfectly fine, but something renders it otherwise, it would be koinos. Am I right in that? A search of the words in the NT shows that in each case, koinos is used like I describe above. And akathartos is used as I describe above. Why then do nearly all translations use the word "unclean" in Rom. 14:14 rather than the word "common" as would be more literal? MJH |
||||||
8 | 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 |
||||||
9 | Samuel serving where he shouldn | 1 Sam 1:1 | MJH | 213361 | ||
Samuel was an Ephraimite (of the tribe of Ephraim). Yet, we see him ministering before the LORD in the Tabernacle. His famous vision comes to him while he is sleeping where the Ark of the LORD is. He is clearly in the Tabernacle and serving in some way (with a linen ephod) in the Tabernacle. My question is why? He isn't from the line of Aaron, so my understanding is that he shouldn't be in the Tabernacle itself. He is also not of the tribe of Levi, so he shouldn't be serving as a help either. I understand that Israel was corrupt at this point and pretty much nothing was being done right, but this was God's chosen servant (soon to be). Any comments? BTW, I am "listening" my way through the history books and I might have some questions like this for a while. They may be minor, but of interest to me none the less. MJH |
||||||
10 | 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 |
||||||
11 | 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 |
||||||
12 | 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 |
||||||
13 | Thoughts on Hegg? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211633 | ||
Cheri, I'm curious what you don't like about Hegg? Writing style? Speaking style? Theology? Just curious, because he is so good at backing things up and even being overly willing to spell out other scholars thoughts that don't agree. I don't see him as trying to force people to follow him or agree, but rather studying a lot and presenting in as clear and concise a manner as possible what and why he believes. (well, maybe not concise) Now I sound like a sycophant. Sorry. But hey, he is a Calvinist, and that's where I came from too...gotta love that! MJH |
||||||
14 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200828 | ||
What of the Mosaic Law applies to me a Gentile Christian? I have been seeking an answer to this question for the last six years and have often been frustrated at the slow pace in finding good answers from people who have different views. I could use some help. While I have come a long way in my search and have ended up where I never expected when I started, I felt that it would have been more effective for me to have had quality articles written in support of each view. I have been surprised by the fact that it is very difficult to find any article written to answer this specific question. The best I could do was find mentions of it in passing, or in bullet point form. Maybe even a short 1-2 page paper giving the overall points of a theological viewpoint, but as of yet, I have not found one excellently written article which covers the topic thoroughly, and uses primary sources when applicable. In fact, most positions are so poorly written, that when confronted, the author is at a loss. Therefore, I am collecting the best of the best theological scholarly papers on this question from every main view point that has substance. If anyone here knows of good articles supporting any view well, I’d love to know of them. I have found none so far…only mediocre articles. MJH |
||||||
15 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200687 | ||
Are there any Greek scholars out there? I'd like to know if the Greek of this verse can be translated as below. I'm not asking if you think in should be, but rather can it be translated this way without violating the rules of Greek? "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law by nature, do what the Law requires, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves" Note: the main change is in where to apply the word "nature." If I can find someone to verify (double source) this possible translation for me, that would be helpful since I am ignorant of Greek syntax and structure. Also, every known English translation puts "nature" the same way . . . "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law, do by nature ..." Thanks, 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 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193401 | ||
I was wondering if anyone had any input on the meaning of the first Jewish believers in Jesus being called "the Way?" I have had my opinion in the past and I have just heard a new one that sounds even better, but I'd like confirmation. I thought I would through this out here and see if any one confirms my thinking. Thanks for any ideas.... MJH |
||||||
18 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185307 | ||
I am a facilitator for a new Bible study group called "Torah Club." My job was to make sure the group melded well and not to be the answer man. I left them in early January and everything seemed to be going well. Now the group has a problem. The question is about the Sabbath and when it is. One member insists the Sabbath is on Saturday and the others are unsure (apparently). Now, I know that the Sabbath is Saturday, that isn't really a debate. The seventh day has always been the seventh day. But the question is which day ought we to observe as the (or a) Sabbath. I have my own beliefs in this area, but how might I guide the group so that they can continue to function as a community equally striving to learn God's Word. And to do this while accepting others who either are not as far along as them, or maybe have a different understanding of God's Word? My own study group, we do not all agree on a lot of things, but it just doesn't seem to be a problem. Some times its fun to poke at each other based on our differences. I'd like this group to have that same acceptance of each other and Monday night I will be meeting with them to help them achieve this. Any suggestions? MJH |
||||||
19 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181756 | ||
I was wondering if any of you thought Jesus actually used the Greek language in this verse? I am not sure how else this would make sense. The play on words works in Greek, but does it work in Hebrew? Jesus was in a Greek pagan region, and I suppose it is possible he used Greek supposing some locals were there at this time who didn't speak Hebrew, but it is perplexing to me. Any thoughts? MJH |
||||||
20 | The pronoun "Him" is God or Son? | John 3:16 | MJH | 179270 | ||
In John 3:16, can the pronoun "Him" refers to "God" rather than to "Jesus"? I do not know Greek, and wondered if any one who did could let me know if the "Him" could refer to the noun "God" at the beginning of the sentence or can the only possible understanding be that the "Him" refers to the "Son"? I am only looking at the possible translation from the Greek to English. Thanks, MJH |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |