Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: dwilliamson Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | destruction of earth | Gen 8:21 | dwilliamson | 219838 | ||
Hello templescroll The full quotation (KJV) from Genesis 8:21-22 is as follows: "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease". In 2 Peter 3:9-13 the following is noted: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness". Gods promise in Genesis 8 is that "everything living" will not be destroyed, and this is qualified by "as I have done". A further expansion of the promise is given in that "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease". However, as per the quote from 2 Peter 3, there is no soubt that God will judge the world again - not by a flood, but by fire. So, to answer your question "Would an inevitable destruction of the earth and its inhabitants by nuclear war or global melt down prove the non-existence of God or His impotence?" If there was a nuclear war in which there was widespread destruction upon earth I personally feel that this would in no way "prove the non-existence of God". Indeed, if we examine the book of Revelation, I believe that it reveals to us that there will be widespread death and destruction upon earth during the Tribulation period. As to global melt-down - the passage in 2 Peter 3 confirms that the "elements will melt with fervent heat" - this moves on to a later period when God will renew the earth and the heavens again. I hope this helps to clarify. This reply is a bit scattered but i hope understandable! David |
||||||
2 | Types of angels | Ex 4:3 | dwilliamson | 217607 | ||
There are "elect angels" (1 Timothy 5v21) and "fallen angels" (Jude 1v6). I take it that it is the elect angels which your query concerns. There is the Archangel Michael (Daniel 10v21, 12v1; Jude 1v9; Revelation 12v7). Another "angel" that is named in Scripture is Gabriel (see Daniel 8v16, 9v21; Luke 1v19,26). The "cherubim" appear to be a class of angel - first mentioned in Genesis 3v24, they seem to represent in some way Gods righteous character. They are mentioned on numerous occasions throughout the Scripture - "two cherubim of Gold" covered the "mercy-seat" in the tabernacle. The "seraphim" of Isaiah Ch6 are another class of angelic being it would appear. Possibly (and I say possibly because I dont know!) the "living creatures" of Revelation Ch 4 are another class of angel. Also in Colossians Ch 1v16 the Scripture states concerning the Lord Jesus "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." I take it (from the background and context of these verses)that the "invisible" things of which Paul writes are further described as "thrones...dominions...rulers...authorities" and these are all grades of angels. I take it that the use of the term "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament is a reference to a Christophany rather than an "angel" per se. I'm sure others will have more information to add. Hope this is helpful. Regards, David |
||||||
3 | Possible typo | Num 24:9 | dwilliamson | 219858 | ||
EmmyJo If you look on an on-line dictionary, you will find that "couched" is a word! :-) It means something similar to "crouched" to be honest but it is a word in its own right. I checked it up online and came up with the following definitions (among many others): "to crouch; bend; stoop". "to lie in ambush or in hiding; lurk" So, in summary - I don't think your expensive Bible has a typo! David |
||||||
4 | Star of Bethleham | Matt 2:1 | dwilliamson | 219840 | ||
Hello again templesccroll I think that is an unusual interpretation of Matthew 2 to say the least. The magi are said to have "worshipped" when they saw the child - something that Satan would never lead anyone to do! It is worth noting that the "star" is never referred to in scripture as the "star of Bethlehem". The reason for this is important I believe. The star is referred to as "his star in the east" (v2) and also in v9-10 we read "the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy". The order of events seems to me to have been as follows: 1. The magi saw a star in the east. This star somehow (possibly through their knowledge of OT prophecy and the fact that the Messiah was widely expected at that period) caused them to recognise that the "King of the Jews" had been born. 2. The magi began their journey to Jerusalem - evidently assuming that the King of the Jews would be in Jerusalem - however they discovered a false king in Herod. 3. The "chief priests and scribes of the people" correctly advised that the Messiah would be BORN in Bethlehem. 4. The wise men, sent on their way begin to move toward Bethlehem and then "the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy". I believe that the star directed the wise men NOT to Bethlehem but to Nazareth. It would appear that the Lord was no longer the "babe" when they arrived, but rather a "young child". He was a child of "two years old" or "under" (see v16). When we compare with Luke Ch2 we discover (v39) that, from the earliest history of the child Jesus upon earth He was in Nazareth - "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (this was a matter of days after the birth of Jesus). 5. Thus, it was from Nazareth that Joseph, Mary and the child journeyed into Egypt, and it was to Nazareth they returned. 6. The magi returned to their own country without telling Herod where the young child was - thus Bethlehem became the object of his anger, rather than Nazareth. 7. The flight into Egypt as commanded in a dream to Joseph was to put the Lord completely beyond the reach of Herod and to fulfil the Scripture "Out of Egypt have I called My Son". I realise there are some difficulties with this interpretation of the order of events but I think there are difficulties whatever way we consider the passages and seek to dovetail them. I stand to be corrected! David |
||||||
5 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | dwilliamson | 219563 | ||
Rick Very interesting discussion! May it not be that Mary, remembering her status as betrothed to Joseph, was seeking to avoid all the publicity that would undoubtedly ensue when news broke about the birth of John? She herself would have been 3 months pregnant at that time, and no reason could be given which would be acceptable to those who would enquire! Noting Marys character and the fact that it would appear that she had not yet revealed her state to Joseph - would it not be consistent with what is revealed of her to assume that he would be the first (apart from Elizabeth) to know of her situation? Thus, as Elizabeth hid herself, so did Mary. And when the time came for John to be born, Mary went back home and was again in contact with Joseph, at which time "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost". Just a different thought on the passage. In Him David |
||||||
6 | The Gospel of Christ | Romans | dwilliamson | 217558 | ||
In the Acts the Gospel is Preached. In the epistle to the Romans the Gospel is Explained. In Galatians the Gospel is defended. The epistle to the Romans is a watertight argument concerning the "righteousness of God" as revealed in the "Gospel of God...concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1v1-3). Very broadly speaking the subjects dealt with in Romans are as follows: Ch1-3 reveals Condemnation Ch4-5 reveals Justification Ch6-8 reveals Sanctification and Glorification Ch9-11 reveals Election Ch12-16 reveals Consecration. For a proper understanding of the Gospel doctrinally, a study of Pauls letter to the Romans is essential. Regards, David |
||||||
7 | Need interpretation for these verses | Rom 2:12 | dwilliamson | 217738 | ||
Hello eascusa Hope you dont mind if I answer these questions in 2 separate notes, one for each question. As to question 1. The context of Romans 2 is important to the understanding of these verses I believe. In Romans Ch1v18-3v20 Paul is showing that all people, whatever their background, are "guilty before God" (Romans 3v20). He first deals with the Gentile world in its idolatery etc in Ch1v18-32 and shows how they have rejected the witness of God in Creation - thus they are guilty. Then I believe (some people may have a slightly different understanding than this) he deals with self-righteous people whether Jew or Gentile Ch2v1-16. Then finally, from Ch2v17 through to Ch3v20 he deals with the Jew exclusively, giving a final summing up in the last few verses. Now, in the section of which you speak there are 2 types of people considered - the Jew and the Gentile. The Gentile is "apart from the law" in the sense that the law was not given to him as it was to the nation of Israel. The Jew however doess have the law. How will God deal righteously in judging both? Those who have not the law will not be judged by the law per se, but rather because they have not responded to the entreaties of their Conscience - see v15 "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another". On the other hand, those who do have the law will be judged by their response to the Commandments contained in it which they were aware of and still refuse to obey. Hope this is helpful In Him David |
||||||
8 | agreeing with chuch | 1 Cor 1:10 | dwilliamson | 218818 | ||
Hello Alachi Welcome to the forum. In 1 Corinthians 1v10 we read that Paul desired that the church at Corinth be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment". This is the ideal position in relation to any church, God desires unity - BUT this is only possible as the church itself is in agreement with the Word of God. The final court of appeal for every Christian is the Word of God - so Paul reminds his readers in 1 Corinthians 14 that if a person claims to be spiritual he should "acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14v37). To summarize - if our "church" is in accord with the word of God it is very important for us to agree with it, if it is not so then we should disagree! It is worth noting however that the manner in which we should disagree would be depend on the level of error we feel to be prevalent in our local church. For example, if there is fundamental error concerning the person and work of Christ we would be better elsewhere. If there is a difference of opinion merely on the interpretation of scriptures which are very difficult to be understood then perhaps we should pray that all will come to the right understanding over time and concentrate on being a help in our local church. Hope this is helpful - if you had something more specific in mind perhaps we could give a better reply. David |
||||||
9 | Un-repented Sin | Heb 6:6 | dwilliamson | 217515 | ||
Dear Vintage I've just read your question (Ireland is a bit behind you guys). I think the context of 1 John is important to your question. "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (KJV). Before we were saved we are referred to as being "enemies", "ungodly, "sinners" (Rom 5)etc. Having trusted Christ as Saviour we are now in the family of God (John 1v12). In the first epistle of John, John is dealing with the family of God, thus when He speaks of forgiveness it is forgiveness within the sphere of the family. Prior to conversion our sin would bring upon us penal judgement, now however we are in the family of God and "we have an advocate with the FATHER" (1Jn 2) - note, it is not with "God" as distant from us (ie. relationship with the Father is never broken, He is still our Father). The Advocate who is in the Fathers presence pleads (by virtue of His being there) the value of His blood on our behalf. So, although sin is extremely serious and should be confessed and forsaken immediately, NEVER is relationship broken between the child of God and His Father. One has put it like this "There is nothing stronger than the link of Union, there is nothing so slender as the link of Communion". When we sin against our Father we are out of communion and need to be forgiven and restored to that communion, but our Union with Him as being in His Family is never broken. Hope this is helpful. In Him David |
||||||