Results 1 - 20 of 26
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Pam D Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Hebrew Expert needed for Gen 3:7 | Gen 3:7 | Pam D | 159359 | ||
Hebrew expert needed for Gen 3:7. I have Analytical Key to the Old Testament Vol 1 by John Joseph Owens, but I don't understand some of what it says. Next to "Then were opened" it says: consecutive -Niph'al imperfect 3 feminine plural What does it mean when it says "consecutive", What is "Niph'al" and what does the "3" mean? I'm trying to find out if Eve's eyes were opened first and then Adams or if both of their eyes were opened at the same time. Thanks for any help. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
2 | Is this a guess on your part? | Gen 3:6 | Pam D | 159351 | ||
Is this a guess on your part from reading the English translation or are you a Hebrew expert? | ||||||
3 | Hebrew expert needed - Gen 3:6-7 | Gen 3:6 | Pam D | 159295 | ||
Hebrew expert needed - Gen 3:6-7 Were Eve's eyes "opened" immediately after she ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil before Adam had eaten it? OR Were both their eyes opened at the same time - AFTER Adam ate the fruit too? Thanks for any input! |
||||||
4 | Hebrew expert needed - Gen 3:6-7 | Gen 3:6 | Pam D | 159252 | ||
Hebrew expert needed - Gen 3:6-7 Were Eve's eyes "opened" immediately after she ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil before Adam had eaten it? OR Were both their eyes opened at the same time - AFTER Adam ate the fruit too? Thanks for any input! |
||||||
5 | planets mentioned anywhere in bible? | Gen 1:1 | Pam D | 158410 | ||
Are the planets mentioned anywhere in the Bible and the fact that God created them? Thanks. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
6 | Where bible say God created the planets? | Gen 1:1 | Pam D | 158390 | ||
Where does it say God created the planets? | ||||||
7 | Critique this Predestination view? | Bible general Archive 2 | Pam D | 145302 | ||
Please critique this view on predestination. If someone could take each part and point out anything that is wrong, I would be so appreciative. 1) Men have free will to choose to be saved or not - (1Kings 18:21; Josh 24:15; Deut 30:19; Jn 7:17; 2Thess 2:10; 2:12; Ro 1:20). 2) The bible teaches we are chosen through belief in Jesus (2Thess 2:13,14; Eph 1:5,11; Jn 5:40). We are chosen through Gods foreknowledge of who would choose Christ (1Pe 1:1-2; Rom 8:29). 3) God issues a universal invitation (Matt 11:28; Isa 55:1); God is not partial (Rom 2:11); God does not want anyone to perish (2Pe 3:9; 1Tim 2:3-4; Ezek 33:11); God is grieved over mens wickedness (Gen 6:6). 4) God wants men to “seek” (Greek “pselaphao”) Him (Acts 17:26-27). According to Thayers lexicon “seek” in Rom 3:11 and Acts 15:17 is a different Greek word ("ekzeteo") and it can mean “seek Gods favor” or “seek to please God”. (although Thayers does not assign it that meaning in those passages) 5) Natural man can not understand the Bible (1Cor 2:12-14), is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1), but NOT physically dead. Man can know God through creation (Rom 1:21) or suppress the truth (Rom 1:18, 21, 25). 6) The sinners will is not enslaved to the sin nature. The Holy Spirit can draw to Christ ONLY those who allow him to have his way with them (Acts 7:51, Jn 6:44). Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. The Spirit “calls” those He foreknew would choose life (Rom 8:28-30). Those who are seeking God through their natural senses, who do not suppress the truth are “called” (Rom 1:18,21,25). The gospel is the power of God ONLY to those who believe (Rom 1:16). 7) Faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9), it includes knowledge of the truth, the power to embrace that truth and the confidence to hold on to it. Faith does not involve the choice - You have to make the choice (1Kings 18:21; Josh 24:15; Deut 30:19; Jn 7:17; 2Thess 2:10; 2:12; Rom 1:20). 8) Free will continues in the new birth only in relation to fellowship with God not with regard to eternal security. Believers are eternally secure (Believers can not lose their salvation). Thanks so much for any help. I know this may take a while to do. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
8 | I found errors in the bible - help! | 1 Chr 16:1 | Pam D | 103949 | ||
Question: Question 1: 1Kings 15:9-10 says that Asa reigned as King of Judah for 41 years. 1Kings 15:33 says Baasha became king of Israel in the 3rd year of Asa’s reign of Judah and Baasha reigned 24 years. This would mean Isreal's King Baasha only reigned until Judah's King Asa’s TWENTY SEVENTH year of reign. How can 2Chronicles 16:1 say that in the THIRTY SIXTH year of Asa’s reign Baasha the King of Israel came up against Judah? Question 2: How come 2Chronicles 14:1,6-7 says there was peace for 10 years at the beginning of King Asa’s reign and then after he defeated the Eithiopians (2Chron 14:9-15) there was peace again for 20 years, but 1Kings 15:15,32 both say that there was war between Asa king of Judah and Baasha king of Israel all their days? Thanks for any help anyone can give me regarding these questions. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
9 | I found errors in the Bible - help ! | 1 Kin 16:11 | Pam D | 103901 | ||
Question 1: 1Kings 15:9-10 says that Asa reigned as king of Judah for 41 years. 1Kings 15:33 says Baasha became king of Israel in the 3rd year of Asa’s reign of Judah and Baasha reigned 24 years. This would mean Baasha only reigned until Asa’s 27th year of reign. According to 1Kings 16:8-12, Baasha would have been dead by the 28th year of Asa's reign. How can 2Chronicles 16:1 say that in the 36th year of Asa’s reign Baasha the King of Israel came up against Judah? Question 2: How come the 2Chronicles passages quoted below say there was peace for 10 years at the beginning of King Asa’s reign (2Chron 14:1) and then again for 20 years after he defeated the Eithiopians (1 Chron 15:10,19), but 1Kings 15:15,32 both say that there was war between Asa king of Judah and Baasha king of Israel all their days? 2Chron 14:1 Asa became king. The land was undisturbed for 10 years during his days. 2Chron 14:6 There was no one at war with him (ASA) during those years because the Lord had given him rest. 2Chron 14:7 Asa said to Judah, ...the land is still ours, because we have sought the Lord our God; we have sought Him, and He has given us rest on every side. 2Chron 14:9-15 Asa defeated the Eithiopians. 2Chron 15:10 Asa and the people assembled at 15th year of Asa’s reign, sacrificed to the Lord... 2Chron 15:19 And there was no more war until the thirty fifth year of Asa’s reign. 1Kings 15:16, 32 And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. ???? Thanks for any help anyone can give me regarding these questions. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
10 | Was Simeon part of N. kingdom? | Josh 19:9 | Pam D | 103056 | ||
Was Simeon part of the northern kingdom? The bible says, at the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, Israel was split into the Northern Kingdom of Israel consisting of 10 of the tribes of Israel (1Kings 11:35) and the Southern kingdom which included Judah and Benjamin (1Kings 12:23) According to Map 4 in my Life Application Bible (it shows the land that God had given to each tribe), Simeon is located in the middle of Judah. Did the tribe of Simeon continue to live in the middle of Judah, but were loyal to Jeroboam and the northern kingdom? Thanks for any help you can give me. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
11 | James 1:9-10 high and low positions? | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 101986 | ||
Dear Tim, The crown of life illustration was great! I think you are right on that one. That was very helpful. But I am still struggling with the James 1:9-10. You said that for the poor guy his high position is because he is in Christ. And for the rich guy his low position is his human fraility. Why wouldn’t the two different positions be speaking of the same subject? For example, if we are right in thinking that the high position for the poor brother is his being in Christ, why wouldn’t the low position of the rich person be speaking of the same subject, his low position in Christ? Also, vs 11 says the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away. All commentaries I have consulted seem to say what you have been saying, except one - “The New Bible Commentary” edited by D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A.Motyer, and G.J. Wenham. This commentary says: “The brother in humble circumstances is encouraged to see himself from God’s perspective and take pride in his high position. ...In contrast the rich person should take pride in his low position. This is probably a deliberately ironic statement. The term “rich” in James is used only for non-believers. James does know of some wealthy Christians (2:2, 4:13) but he speaks of them without calling the “rich”. While the verse might mean that a rich man could properly take pride in having been humbled by God and brought to associate as an equal with poor Christians, it is more likely that James is saying that if the rich person looks at the same future as the “humble” brother, the only thing he has to take pride in is his “low position”, or “his passig away. .... “ What do you think? Could this explanation be right? It differs quite a bit from the other commentaries I have, which is why I feel a little nervous about it. If I may, let me ask you one more question. If you were to teach an adult class on the book of James, what commentaries would you use that would give you in-depth information on each verse? I ask because I am teaching a ladies bible study on the book of James. I have 4 commentaries (the New Bible Commentary (quoted above), the Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walvoord, the Life Application Commentary, and The Be Book Commentary on James by Wiersbe), but none really goes into the depth I’m interested in pursuing. I enjoy in-depth stuff. Thank you so much for your help and the time you put into answering my questions, especially since you have been busy with other important matters. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
12 | Various questions on James 1:9-12 | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 101904 | ||
Dear Tim, I think I understand what you are saying about vs 9-11, that Jesus puts all BELIEVERS, the rich and poor alike on equal footing so to speak because of their positions in Jesus. So don't trust in your social position or wealth. But I still don’t get what these verses are saying. Vs 9 - Is the high position of the poor brother his position in Christ? Vs 10 - Is the rich man saved? If so, is his low position the fact that he is not saved? Also it seems to be saying that HE, himself, will pass away not his stuff. I noticed that the NIV translates verse 10 very differently from the NASB. The NASB translates the verb as “Let” rather than “should”. NIV “But the one who is rich SHOULD take pride in his low position, because HE will pass away like a wild flower.” NASB “and LET the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like the flowering grass HE will pass away.” Does the translation make a difference in how we should understand this verse? Also, I'm not sure I get what you mean by a "Symbol of victory". Crowns are rewards for our service to Jesus, right? Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
13 | Various questions on James 1:9-12 | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 101903 | ||
Dear Tim, I think I understand what you are saying about vs 9-11, that Jesus puts all BELIEVERS, the rich and poor alike on equal footing so to speak because of their positions in Jesus. So don't trust in your social position or wealth. But I still don’t get what these verses are saying. Vs 9 - Is the high position of the poor brother his position in Christ? Vs 10 - Is the rich man saved? If so, is his low position the fact that he is not saved? Also it seems to be saying that HE, himself, will pass away not his stuff. I noticed that the NIV translates verse 10 very differently from the NASB. The NASB translates the verb as “Let” rather than “should”. NIV “But the one who is rich SHOULD take pride in his low position, because HE will pass away like a wild flower.” NASB “and LET the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like the flowering grass HE will pass away.” Does the translation make a difference in how we should understand this verse? Also, I'm not sure I get what you mean by a "Symbol of victory". Crowns are rewards for our service to Jesus, right? Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
14 | Various Questions on James 1:9-12 | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 101871 | ||
Dear Tim, So glad you are online and answered this question for me. Of course, it makes perfect sense now! I have a few more questions on some other stuff I am working on at the moment in the book of James. Perhaps you can help me with those questions too. In James 1:9-10, I have a few questions: What is the “high position” in which the poor brother should take pride and what is the low position the rich man (believer?) should take pride (James 1:9)? Why would a person take pride in a low position? What sort of pride is James talking about? Also in James 1:12, I was wondering what is the "Crown of Life"? Is it : 1) It is "Eternal Life" as the Life Application Bible notes says? (If it is eternal life, I don't get it. A crown is a reward, isn’t it? How can eternal life be a reward? Isn’t it a gift?) 2) A martyrs crown (Rev 2:10, Lk 6:22, Matt 5:10-12, 2Tim 3:12 - are these martyrs crowns) ? 3) Or would you agree with the Bible Knowledge commentary that "the life which is promised is probably life here and now, life in its fullness, life in its completeness." Thanks for any insight you may have on these verses. Blessings, Pam PS I have read some of your old postings and it is evident you have insightful comments on many subjects. I just ordered 2 books by an author you suggested in one of your past posts on election, Robert Shank. They just came yesterday - they were backordered. I’m looking forward to reading them. |
||||||
15 | 2Pe1:4How believer partake of God natur | NT general Archive 1 | Pam D | 101832 | ||
I still don’t get what 2Peter 1:4 means. Dear ED, Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you right away. “Life” got in the way! Every commentary I read says what you (or the MacArthur Study Bible) said, but, I still don't get it. That’s why I asked this question in the first place. I recognize that the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer. But I don’t see how this passage is saying that. Perhaps you can help me process this through. It seems to me that Peter is writing to people who are already believers (vs 1). So why would Peter tell BELIEVERS that they “MIGHT” become “Partakers of the Divine nature” when they already have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them? Could the Divine nature be refering to the Fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22)? Verse 5 goes on to say that “For this very reason (what reason?) applying all diligence, in YOUR FAITH supply ...." Here is the verse and the way I was seeing what each of these phrases mean. The verse phrases are in quotes and my thoughts as to what they mean are in parentheses. What have I misunderstood? 2Peter 1:4 "For by these” (His divine power and the true knowledge of Him) “He has granted to US” (believers) “His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them” (the promises to the church?) “YOU” (believers-vs 1) “MIGHT” (it doesn’t say “already have”) “become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE,” (??? fruit of the spirit ???) “having escaped (past tense) the corruption that is in the world by lust." 2Peter 1:5 “For this very reason” (what reason?) “applying all diligence, in YOUR FAITH supply ....” Any help would be greatly appreciated. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
16 | How should I understand 2Peter 1:4? | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100569 | ||
Dear Joe, Thank you for your wonderful enlightening answers to my questions about sanctification and related questions on what the sin nature and the new nature are. I ordered the books you suggested they didn’t have them at my local Christian bookstore) and they will arrive next Wed. I am anxious to read them. But in the meantime, I’d like to pick your brain a little further if I may. You said in your last post that the new nature is a human disposition that the Spirit is changing. How then should I understand 2Peter 1:4 which says: "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you (believers-vs 1) MIGHT become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." Thanks for any insight you may have regarding this question. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
17 | How should I understand 2Peter 1:4? | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100568 | ||
Dear Joe, Thank you for your wonderful enlightening answers to my questions about sanctification and related questions on what the sin nature and the new nature are. I ordered the books you suggested (they didn’t have them at my local Christian bookstore) and they will arrive next Wed. I am anxious to read them. But in the meantime, I’d like to pick your brain a little further if I may. You said in your last post that the new nature is a human disposition that the Spirit is changing. How then should I understand 2Peter 1:4 which says: "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you (believers-vs 1) MIGHT become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." Thanks for any insight you may have regarding this question. Blessings, Pam |
||||||
18 | Is the sin nature substance or mind set? | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100412 | ||
Question (full): Please stop arguing with Ken and answer my questions. Is the sin nature a substance or a mindset? Has the sin nature been eradicated and replaced by the new nature? Or does the sin nature remain in the believer and battle against the new nature? Is the sin nature the same thing as the flesh? What is the new nature? Is it God in me or is it a part of me that is a new creation? Is the new nature a substance or a mind set? Blessings, Pam |
||||||
19 | Is the sin nature a substance or mindset | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100410 | ||
Please stop arguing and answer my questions. Is the sin nature a substance or a mindset? Has the sin nature been eradicated and replaced by the new nature? Or does the sin nature remain in the believer and battle against the new nature? Is the sin nature the same thing as the flesh? What is the new nature? Is it God in me or is it a part of me that is a new creation? Is the new nature a substance or a mind set? Blessings, Pam PS Ken, I'm glad you found the Keswick article helpful to you. |
||||||
20 | Is the sin nature a substance or mindset | Phil 3:9 | Pam D | 100278 | ||
Dear Joe - Thanks so much for your comments. They were very helpful. As soon as I get off the web I will order both of those books that you suggest. I have another question for you. What do you think the sin nature is? Is it a substance or a mindset? I know Jesus has two natures, one divine and one human and I believe that they must be two different substances. If the sin nature is a substance, has it been replaced with the new nature or do both the sin nature and the new nature dwell in the believer at the same time and battle against one another? Blessings, Pam |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |