Results 1 - 20 of 77
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | KJV uses LXX, NET uses MT, NASB uses ? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183633 | ||
Hi In fact the KJV was translated from the MT and the byzantine Greek text, not from LXX. Nestles Greek New Testament is a published attempt at an accurate text of the original writng based on critical methods used to weed out interpolations etc. For further information about Biblical matters try http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ | ||||||
2 | Does the Bible diminish women? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183643 | ||
Of course the first point that has to be made is that in the beginning God made woman to be man's helpmeet. Each was assigned a role. It was not a case of one being 'superior' but of essential roles. It was sinful man who turned the situation into one of inferior and superior and sinful woman who sees it in that way. Bearing children and shaping the world through them was a huge privilege. Paul saw it as a supreme ministry (1 Timothy 2.15). It is still a main way in which she is to 'work out her salvation'. The strength of the church has always been the children brought up by Christian women. Why then should we see their situation as inferior? Answer because we are like the disciples arguing who is the greatest. Jesus said that we had to see ourselves as the servants of all. Thus we could argue that women were given a huge advantage. But like sinful man, sinful woman wants to be in control. God never diminishes the value of women, it is man who does that. What God did do was try and protect women in the light of the customs that sinful man has established. Women were not on the whole able to take up prominent positions in public because they had to be protected in a world which was violent and lustful. They could not go out into the world as they do today because it was not safe to do so. There were no police. Indeed even Deborah had to have her male support for this reason. Protection depended on the family and was only possible if women were cosseted. Indeed women were so valued that their purity was looked on as of primary concern. Men could be attacked but they could not be violated in the same way as women. And a violated woman would not find acceptability because she had already become another's. It must not be assumed that women in those days felt that their position was second best. They enjoyed the security that this protection afforded. It could be argued that it is women today who devalue themslves by their sexual behaviour. But it is true that as today God's purposes were very much manipulated by men to their own advantage. We must not however blame God for that. And we must remember that in those days might was right in practical living. God knew very well that if His commands were seen as too outlandish they would be ignored. (They were largely ignored anyway. That is the story of the Old Testament). His laws were intended to make a difference. They were not just theoretical ideals. He made them in order to regulate and improve a system set up by men and women (and even then the hand that rocked the cradle had unseen influence). With regard to Bathsheba she was not quite in the same position as David. He was the king which made his sin the more heinous. Thus the consequence for him was seen as important for it affected the whole nation. But she was allowed to live. She received the same mercy as David. She did not come off second best. So the truth is that most of the problem we have with a woman's 'position' is that we look from the world's point of view not from God's. We just cannot bring ourselves to believe that Jesus was actually right when He said that those who truly serve are the truly great ones. | ||||||
3 | leviticus and hebrews | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183791 | ||
Hi Leviticus oulines the sacrificial system and the activities of the priesthood, together with the details of the Day of Atonement. Hebrews reveals how all these were fulfilled by Jesus Who as God's High Priest offered Himself up as a sacrifice for us all. | ||||||
4 | Age of those entering Promise Land | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184069 | ||
Hi After Israel had sinned by refusing to go forward in order to possess the promised land God determined that none of them should enter the promised land apart from Caleb and Joshua. Thus they wandered around the wilderness region near the mountains of Edom until all that generation had died out. We are not told at what age they were seen as being disobedient (the children had no choice in the matter). It may have been the age for battle (20), or it may have been the age of maturity (12-13). In view of the crime possibly it was the former. That would mean that the oldest who entered the promised land apart from Joshua and Caleb was fifty eight. The remainder would cover all ages below that. Life in the wilderness was hard on the old. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
5 | Place in Church | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184117 | ||
Hi Does a woman have the right to be an elder or a bishop? Forgive my seeming to criticise the question but the strict answer is of course no, nor does any man. Before God we have privileges not rights when it comes to serving Him. And it is important that we remember this. It was because the church forgot this that it went into a dark history. 'GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND WE ARE ON THE EARTH, THEREFORE OUR WORDS SHOULD BE FEW. (Ecclesiastes 5.2)' and this is true for both men and women. A woman certainly has the right to be made president of the US of A but not to become an elder or bishop. So let us rephrase the question, 'does a woman have the inestimable privilege of being open to consideration for God to call her to be an elder or a bishop.' I suspect you may have stirred a hornets' nest :-))) But first we do have to ask how we define an elder or bishop. For the functions that are seen as adhering to the title have in my view an important bearing on the answer. Certainly exceptional women did in the past have positions of high importance. Deborah was a judge of Israel and a prophetess. Huldah was a prophetess consulted by the highest in the land. Priscilla (Prisca) was prominent with her husband in helping Aquila and in ministering. But Paul puts the position quite clearly when he says, 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men, she is to keep silent.' And this would appear to have in mind authoritative teaching, as he relates it to the woman having been deceived in Eden (1 Timothy 2.12-15). And that is the point. At the risk of offending half the world it should be pointed out that women think differently from men. Men are more logical in their thinking, women more intuitive. Thus they can give different perspectives. Of course this does not deny that many women can train themselves to be very logical, (and many men are very illogical) but whatever their training the basic difference is there, and can come out at any time to affect the position, both for good and for bad. It is significant that Jesus had both male and female disciples who followed Him about (Luke 8.2-3) but He only appointed male Apostles. (He did not even officially appoint leaders over the women's section). Thus it would seem that the Scriptures are saying that overall the authority must lie with men, both in teaching and in church government. For the divine order from the point of view of authority is the Godhead, Christ, the man, the woman (1 Corinthians 11.1-16). Yet that some women have an important part to play comes out above, and on the mission field where there has been many a Deborah and Huldah. Many a tribe would not have been evangelised had it not been for women. But in most cases those very women arranged for the appointment under God of men to have authority in the church. They acknowleged the important principle that God had laid down through Paul. It is therefore I suggest on the basis of these principles that we must come to our answer. Certainly Paul did not visualise women bishops/elders as authoritative leaders of the local church for he said that they were to be the husband of one wife. But in all this it must be emphasised that this was not so that men could lord it over women. It was a matter of each having their proper function in the purposes of God. As Timothy pointed out in the same context women had a vital function which men have little part in. It is in child-bearing and rearing that she will be able to ‘work out her salvation’, the salvation that God has worked within her (1 Timothy 2.15; Philippians 2.12-13). In other words that is her major function in the purposes of God. She is given the prime responsibility to lay the foundations of all future church leaders. It was Moses’ godly mother who laid the foundation for his future ministry. The vital importance of this comes out in the fact that Muslims are reproducing rapidly while in certain countries Christians are only doing so in very limited fashion. It has been estimated that if the present birth rate goes on in the UK it will become a Muslim nation within fifty years. And the US will be next in line. That is how important it is. Best wishes. Jonp | ||||||
6 | the conflict between Baalism And Yahwism | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184262 | ||
Hi The conflict was between the true and living God and the fantastic absurdities that man had invented about a world of gods. The One was worshipped from the heart and required righteous living. The others were 'worshipped' by indulging in illicit sexual activity, and even occasionally offering human sacrifices, and paid little heed to how you lived. They were too busy (in theory) sinning themselves. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
7 | Lasting efects of Assyrian deportation | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184263 | ||
Hi, The lasting effects on Northern Israel was a country emptied of the cream of its population with resulting chaos and devastation. Eventually peoples from other nations were introduced and this resulted in a watered down form of Yahwism. Some see the Samaritans as resulting from this but that is in fact now seriously questioned. For Southern Judah it resulted in a decimated land and the limitation of the country to a few square miles. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
8 | why is solomons reign seen as a tragedy? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184265 | ||
Hi Because in spite of beginning well he allowed his riches, his power and his wives to lead him astray from God thus fulfilling the warnings that God had given in Deuteronomy 17.16-17) and eventually (after his death) causing the break up of the kingdom. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
9 | lake of fire and hell..difference? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184266 | ||
Hi, The Lake of fire is a human representation of the awfulness of God's judgment. Clearly a literal Lake of fire would be of no problem to Satan at all. For Satan is a spirit being. What it is depicting is God's ultimate punisment which is actually beyond man's conception. Hell or Gehenna is depicting the same idea in a different way, in this case using as an illustration of unbelieving man's awful spiritual destiny, the burning piles of rubbish outside Jerusalem in the valley of Hinnom. To look over the walls of the city at night and see the never ceasing flames consuming the rubbish must have been an awesome sight. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
10 | Why great expectations come back small | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184423 | ||
Hi Who are we to decide that God's answers are 'small'. The untrained country preacher only had one convert, a small lad among his listeners (he was not the usual preacher). It was really hardly worth his preaching, except that the lad's name turned out to be Charles Haddon Spurgeon. God works through the day of small things, and uses the weak to confound the mighty. Cast your bread on the waters and it will return after many days. If God gave us all our expectations the world would be converted overnight. But our expectations often overlook God's purposes. And that is what God is busy carrying out. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
11 | What is tithing? | OT general | jonp | 184268 | ||
Hi. The paying of a tenth to kings to whom one owed dues in the ancient world was standard practise (Genesis 14.20). It is testified to archaeologically. God applied the practise for the purpose of maintaining those who served Him. On top of the stipulated offerings and sacrifices that the people had to make to God, and the offering to Him of all the firstfruits, together with abundant freewill offerings, the people of Israel had to set aside one tenth of all their yearly produce, both of cattle, sheep and goats, and of what was grown. This was then (putting it simply) used as follows. Each year the tenth went to the levites. One tenth of that tenth was given to the priests. The remainder maintained the levites. But every third year the tithe was set aside for the poor of the land (Deuteronomy 14.28-29). This was probably stored by the levites and distributed on application. The levites would also probably help the people in their understanding of God and ensure the fulfilment of God's laws in various ways. For that reason they were scattered throughout the nation. The gathering of the tithes and ministering of them would have taken up a great deal of their time, and not a little tact. There would no doubt be many attempts by people not to pay their dues. But the huge benefit that resulted from it both religiously and socaially cannot really be doubted Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
12 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | jonp | 184164 | ||
Hi The Scriptures make clear that Jesus did cleanse the Temple twice but in very different ways. The first was when as a young prophet having just commenced His ministry He was incensed at the noisy trading that was taking place which was affecting the possibility of reverent worship. In this case he drove out the cattle, overturned the tables of the money changers, and told those who sold pigeons and doves to take them out of the Temple. His main purpose was to stop the Temple being used as a shop. His cry was, 'Do not make my Father's house into a shop'. It was a temporary disturbance and was probably looked on as the action of a young hothead. Some years passed and the fears that He might do it again had died down. But this time His act was deliberately thought out and was a part of His proclamation of His Messiahsip. This time He surveyed the scene carefully before doing anything (Mark 11.11). This time He did not make the cattle His aim, but concentrated His actions on the traders involved in the activity. He drove out both buyers and sellers, and again overturned the tables of the money-changers, and this time he tipped over the seats of those who sold pigeons and doves as they had not heeded His previous warning. This time it was His own authority that was being extablished. And His accusation went deeper, for now He was more aware of what was going on. And He accused them of turning a house of prayer into a den of brigands. It will be noted that this time He ignored the cattle. The remarkable differences between the two accounts in spite of the venue and the cast being the same is quite remarkable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
13 | emotion and soul | Gen 2:7 | jonp | 184442 | ||
Hi Webster's defines emotion as 'A moving of the mind or soul; excitement of the feelings, whether pleasing or painful; disturbance or agitation of mind caused by a specific exciting cause and manifested by some sensible effect on the body.' Thus fear itself is an emotion. We must not allow ourselves to be controlled by our emotions. We are to control them by the attitude of our minds and by looking to Him. Faith and love must be in control, not our emotions. Christian faith and love come from the will. The word for 'soul' refers to the inner life imparted by the breath of God (Genesis 2.7) but it should not be too closely defined as its use varies from place to place. It can be thought of in terms of 'the inner man', and it is the inner man that experiences emotions, but they are very much affected by the state of our bodies as well as our minds. We must not allow our emotions to be the test of our spiritual state, although they often eventually result from our spiritual state. But it is Jesus Christ regnant within us as Lord that determines our spiritual state, and that can be equally true when we are feeling 'low'. The Shepherd does not desert us because of our feelings. If we keep our eyes fixed on Him and continue trusting Him good emotions will eventually break through. They are, however, very much dependent on make up and circumstances, and even in the valley of deep darkness we can know that our Shepherd is with us (Psalm 23.4). The soul has a spiritual side to it and a fleshly side to it. Thus Paul could speak of 'spirit, soul and body' as the make up of man (1 Thessalonians 5.23). However Jesus spoke of 'heart, soul, mind and strength' (Mark 12.30). These are really all aspects of the inner man. We must not make the divisions too specific as if man were not a unity. On the other hand within that unity there is undoubtedly strife (e.g. Romans 7.25; Galatians 5.16) because of what we are. That is why we must hand over our lives to the Holy Spirit and walk step by step with Him (Galatians 5.23). We must let Christ dwell in our inner man by faith (Ephesians 3.17). We must allow Him to live out His life through us (Galatians 2.20). We must continually let Christ hold the reins. It is good to know that you are growing daily. Keep your eyes fixed on Him, and then even when it gets dark you will 'fear no evil' (Psalm 23.4). Best wishes Jonp, |
||||||
14 | Significance to Tree of Life? | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 183638 | ||
Hi The tree of life was probably a tree whose fruit provided unfallen man with the means of rejuvenating himself. Thus by eating of it he could perpetuate his existence. The tree of knowing good and evil (literal translation of the Hebrew) was probably like a sacrament, It stood there as the visible symbol of God's lordship. It was an act of grace and mercy so that man would not forget the One Who was his Lord. By refraining from eating of it He learned by practical experience true goodness which lay in obedience to God. Once he ate of it he learned evil by practical experience. For the first time he knew what it was to be in rebellion against God. Thus he had through it come to 'know (in practical experience) evil'. Previously knowing evil had been theoretically taught by the tree. He had then known that evil lay in disobeying God and rejecting His Lordship by eating of the tree. See commentary on Genesis at http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ | ||||||
15 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184413 | ||
Hi Strictly the word olam means 'into the distant future', or 'into the distant past'. It is then necessary to determine from the context whether it further means everlasting. With regard to your other query perhaps it should raise in your mind whether therefore such a thousand years of theocracy, which is neither one thing or another and is neither taught by Jesus nor by Paul, really is a Scriptural idea. There are other interpretations of Revelation 20 than the one which sees in it a future millennium, which is not in fact a New Testament concept. The New Testament directs our minds towards Heaven. It is not of course a question of much importance (apart from the fact that it robs many Christians of a large part of the Old Testament, and with some even vital parts of the New) because if we are His it will not affect us one way or the other. But sadly it takes up an inordinate of some people's time when they could be concentrating on something more important, Jesus Christ Himself. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
16 | What do 10 signify? | Gen 8:5 | jonp | 184051 | ||
Hi, The number ten can mean 'a number of times'. For example Jacob said, 'you have changed my wages ten times' (Genesis 31.41). It can also indicate a complete series. Thus in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 we have two series of ten patriarchs which are intended to sum up the whole line of patriarchs. This last is the most common usage. In fact the ancients used numbers as adjectives in order to give an impression. Seven was used to indicate divine perfection and completeness. Numbers were first invented (in primitive form) in the area around Babylonia around 3500 BC. But their use was limited to a few experts. For long centuries most people had a limit of counting of three, and even today among a number of tribes three is still the limit of their use of numbers. (It was not a question of spiritualising them. It was the way that they used them). This comes out in 1 Kings 17.12 where the widow woman was collecting 'two sticks' i.e. a few. 'Three' would have indicated 'a lot'. That is why the hieroglyph for the number three in Egyptian also meant the universe. It went back to their thinking in terms of a man, his woman and the rest of the universe. The Sumerian symbol for one meant 'man', for two meant 'woman. and for three meant also 'many'. We have another example of this in 1 Samuel 13.1 where the Hebrew text reads. 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel'. Saul was a primitive king and had no recorder and thus the later writers had no statistics for his reign. So they used the common people's conventions. 'One' indicated the first stage of life. He became king before he reached maturity. 'Two' indicated the first and middle stages of life. He never reached old age (which would have been 'three'). Even today among primitive tribes old men will proudly tell you that they are three years old. Our own number system indicates a time when ten was the limit of counting. Thus eleph en (eleven) mean ten and one more. two eleph (twelve) meant ten and two more. That may well be why thirteen originally became an unlucky number. It was originally the one outside the count. It is doubtful if in Jesus day the majority of Gentile Christians (and other Gentiles) could count beyond say twenty, even if that. They could probably also not read. That is why the Scriptures were read aloud in the churches. A number of the so-called number contradictions that some people claim today are easily resolved by recognising these facts. I realise this may seem strange to us. We have been brought up to count. But it is nevertheless true. To most ancient people numbers were a mystery. In the Egyptian texts a king who was able to number his fingers was counted as 'a great magician'. Such was the awe in which numbers were held. So ten was a significant number for it was the number of fingers on both hands indicating a complete series. Any good book on the history of mathematics will tell you these facts. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
17 | So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sara | Gen 18:6 | jonp | 183688 | ||
Hi Re Genesis 18.6-8 the answer is that it is indicating a good meal. We must not try and read in ideas that are not there :-))). See commentary on Genesis at http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
18 | Why God did not accept Cain's offering | Gen 47:1 | jonp | 183740 | ||
Cain's offering was not accepted because he had not 'done well. Sin lay at the door (Genesis 4.7). See free commentary on http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ | ||||||
19 | why is the left side unclean? | Ex 29:20 | jonp | 184421 | ||
Hi It was not that the left side was unclean. It was that the members on the right hand side would be the ones used by the priests in carrying out their ministry and thus had to be atoned for so that they might be fitted for the task. A left handed priest would be expected to use his right hand in the same way. Democracy was frowned on in those days and left handed priests could not claim their 'rights'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
20 | Exodus 24 and Exodus 33 | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184169 | ||
Hi Perhaps I may be able to add a little to what has already been said. 'Seeing God' can signify a number of types of experience. Abraham talked and ate with God face to face (Genesis 18) but he was not strictly 'seeing God' like Moses did in Exodus 33. (Compare Abraham's much more awesome experience in Genesis 15). Jacob met God face to face at Peniel. But as with Abraham He saw God when He had taken the form of a man. It was not strictly 'face to face'. (Even though he was in awe at the experience that he had had). The elders saw Him at a distance and 'ate and drank BEFORE Him'. But as stjohn has already well pointed out they did not see Him fully face to face. All Israel had seen His revelation of Himself in the form of fire (Exodus 19, 24). Both Isaiah and Ezekiel had awesome (in the true sense) visions of God, and so we could go on. But in none of these was it 'face to face'. For it is doubtful if the human body could cope with seeing His glory. This is why smoke and cloud are regularly associated with His appearances. Moses came closest but only after special precautions had been taken. For the truth is that 'He dwells in unapproachable light which no man has seen or can see' (1 Timothy 6.1). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |