Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Mandy33319 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52810 | ||
Hi all, have a current "hot" debate going with some friends, and decided to come back and glean some thinking from the "fine" minds on the forum. :) This concerns Psalms 22, and its use as prophecy. All along, I've always been taught, and believed, that Psalms 22 was the strongest of all prophecies for one main reason: 16 "...they have pierced my hands and feet." Now, I'm not so sure. Here's some of the observations of those I've been discussing this matter with: 1. The New American Bible says: "So wasted are my hands and feet." 2. The New Revise Standard Version says: "My hands and feet have shriveled." 3. The Jewish Masoretic says: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." 4. In most of the other translations, it is unclear who does the piercing--the dogs or evil men who have the speaker encircled. If dogs, then biting would have done it. If men, then with what? Swords, knives, spears? 5. It seems apparent that the speaker is on the ground, either prone or at best, in a crouching defensive position. Nothing suggests that the speaker is up a tree, on a cross, etc. 6. There is no "hammer and nail" connection. 7. The piercing could have been caused by bites of the various metaphors and similes of animals. 8. It's a sentence taken out of context since the speaker is also said to have been despised by his own people, as well as by all mankind. This wouldn't fit Jesus, since he was only hated by the Pharisees. The Romans were basically neutral; Jesus own people adored him; and the rest of the world didn't even know he existed. 9. They have given me other "prophecies" that they say are taken out of context. Example: Matthew 22: 14--15. And Matthew 2:23 10. The speaker appears to have been saved by God, but Jesus was not spared. 11. It would make no sense for Jesus to beg to be spared, to be asking Himself to save Himself; and especially in light of the foreknowledge that he must die, in order for the Salvation plan to work. 12. That what appears to happen is that the Gospel writers wrote their books with an OT blueprint. They knew what Jesus was supposed to fulfill so they made sure he did. 13. Only Luke has Jesus show his hands and feet. John has Jesus show his hands and side, but not his feet. 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus. 15. Normally, it took forever to die from cruxifixion; Jesus died really fast. 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene. ------------------------------- I'm sure they're going to come up with more ideas, but if anyone can refute some of the above, it would help. Thanks, Mandy |
||||||
2 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52818 | ||
Hi all, have a current "hot" debate going with some friends, and decided to come back and glean some thinking from the "fine" minds on the forum. :) This concerns Psalms 22, and its use as prophecy. All along, I've always been taught, and believed, that Psalms 22 was the strongest of all prophecies for one main reason: 16 "...they have pierced my hands and feet." Now, I'm not so sure. Here's some of the observations of those I've been discussing this matter with: 1. The New American Bible says: "So wasted are my hands and feet." 2. The New Revise Standard Version says: "My hands and feet have shriveled." 3. The Jewish Masoretic says: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." 4. In most of the other translations, it is unclear who does the piercing--the dogs or evil men who have the speaker encircled. If dogs, then biting would have done it. If men, then with what? Swords, knives, spears? 5. It seems apparent that the speaker is on the ground, either prone or at best, in a crouching defensive position. Nothing suggests that the speaker is up a tree, on a cross, etc. 6. There is no "hammer and nail" connection. 7. The piercing could have been caused by bites of the various metaphors and similes of animals. 8. It's a sentence taken out of context since the speaker is also said to have been despised by his own people, as well as by all mankind. This wouldn't fit Jesus, since he was only hated by the Pharisees. The Romans were basically neutral; Jesus own people adored him; and the rest of the world didn't even know he existed. 9. They have given me other "prophecies" that they say are taken out of context. Example: Matthew 22: 14--15. And Matthew 2:23 10. The speaker appears to have been saved by God, but Jesus was not spared. 11. It would make no sense for Jesus to beg to be spared, to be asking Himself to save Himself; and especially in light of the foreknowledge that he must die, in order for the Salvation plan to work. 12. That what appears to happen is that the Gospel writers wrote their books with an OT blueprint. They knew what Jesus was supposed to fulfill so they made sure he did. 13. Only Luke has Jesus show his hands and feet. John has Jesus show his hands and side, but not his feet. 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus. 15. Normally, it took forever to die from cruxifixion; Jesus died really fast. 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene. ------------------------------- I'm sure they're going to come up with more ideas, but if anyone can refute some of the above, it would help. Thanks, Mandy |
||||||
3 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | John | Mandy33319 | 52807 | ||
Hi all, have a current "hot" debate going with some friends, and decided to come back and glean some thinking from the "fine" minds on the forum. :) This concerns Psalms 22, and its use as prophecy. All along, I've always been taught, and believed, that Psalms 22 was the strongest of all prophecies for one main reason: 16 "...they have pierced my hands and feet." Now, I'm not so sure. Here's some of the observations of those I've been discussing this matter with: 1. The New American Bible says: "So wasted are my hands and feet." 2. The New Revise Standard Version says: "My hands and feet have shriveled." 3. The Jewish Masoretic says: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." 4. In most of the other translations, it is unclear who does the piercing--the dogs or evil men who have the speaker encircled. If dogs, then biting would have done it. If men, then with what? Swords, knives, spears? 5. It seems apparent that the speaker is on the ground, either prone or at best, in a crouching defensive position. Nothing suggests that the speaker is up a tree, on a cross, etc. 6. There is no "hammer and nail" connection. 7. The piercing could have been caused by bites of the various metaphors and similes of animals. 8. It's a sentence taken out of context since the speaker is also said to have been despised by his own people, as well as by all mankind. This wouldn't fit Jesus, since he was only hated by the Pharisees. The Romans were basically neutral; Jesus own people adored him; and the rest of the world didn't even know he existed. 9. They have given me other "prophecies" that they say are taken out of context. Example: Matthew 22: 14--15. And Matthew 2:23 10. The speaker appears to have been saved by God, but Jesus was not spared. 11. It would make no sense for Jesus to beg to be spared, to be asking Himself to save Himself; and especially in light of the foreknowledge that he must die, in order for the Salvation plan to work. 12. That what appears to happen is that the Gospel writers wrote their books with an OT blueprint. They knew what Jesus was supposed to fulfill so they made sure he did. 13. Only Luke has Jesus show his hands and feet. John has Jesus show his hands and side, but not his feet. 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus. 15. Normally, it took forever to die from cruxifixion; Jesus died really fast. 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene. ------------------------------- I'm sure they're going to come up with more ideas, but if anyone can refute some of the above, it would help. Thanks, Mandy |
||||||
4 | What's the "real" purpose of "tongues"? | 1 Cor 14:22 | Mandy33319 | 49647 | ||
What is the "real" purpose of speaking in tongues? In Acts 2: 4 thru 11, tongues are described as known languages. Paul, in Cor 14, isn't exactly a fan of this practice. The way I read what Paul is saying is that he actually discourages it. For instance,...in verse 27: "...someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. 28: "...but if no one is present who can interpret, they must not speak out loud. They must speak silently to themselves and to God but not publicly.." And perhaps this is even more of an example that Paul is not a fan: Cor 14: 23 "...Therefore, if an unbeliever, or someone who doesn't have these abilities, comes to church and hears you speaking in tongues, he is likely to think you are crazy. 24..."But if you are prophesying when such a person comes in, what you say will convince him that he is a sinner, and his conscience will be judged by everything he hears..." |
||||||
5 | How did the Trinity concept come to be? | Acts | Mandy33319 | 49458 | ||
Just a thought or two about the Trinity, even though some suggest it's "old" stuff on the forum: correct this if it's wrong, but wasn't the concept of Trinity "voted" upon by the Church in the 3rd or 4th Century AD? And there was a lot of controversy, some people may have died, some were imprisoned, some exiled? | ||||||
6 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49085 | ||
If this has been asked before, forgive me (tried to look for it in "Search"), but here's the gist: Concerning the status of the ark animals--before the flood, no animal or human ate meat. Correct? But after the flood, meat eating was introduced. But a couple of problems: a) it takes a special kind of intestines and stomach for meat b) and if meat-eaters were eating meat, what would that do to the "eatees", who wouldn't have had too much time to reproduce, it would seem... In other words, a biological problem, along with a logistical problem. Going around and around with this in our family, so finally resorting to a little extra opinions. Hope some of you can help...thanks. | ||||||