Results 1 - 20 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Take up another's offense or not? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228489 | ||
I am not sure if this has been answered, so if not, try Matthew 5.23-25; 18.15-17 for both sides of the picture with regard to putting right sin. As you will see the second verses specifically indicate a way in which we should take up another's offence. If we love one another we will certianly be concerned for their hurt. I am not aware of a verse which says what you say. Best wishes |
||||||
2 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228874 | ||
Hi lionheart Not on this forum. I tried to email you but my email account did not 'recognise' your email address. Best wishes. |
||||||
3 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228890 | ||
hi John well as i think that Gen 6.1-4 does actually teach that evil angels (demons) did in some way have intercourse with women, something confirmed by Jude 6, I consider that my answer was based on Scripture. Many well accepted commentaries would confirm it. Kidner says, 'the normal meaning of the actual term 'sons of God' (bene elohim) is 'angels' and nothing has prepared the reader to assume that 'men' now means Cainites only.' He then adds 'the craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience'. He cites in support 1 Peter 3.19-20; 2 Peter 2.4-6; Jude 6; and more clearly Jewish tradition in Enoch 6.2 and Qumran Genesis Apocryphon col.II. I don't think that you can doubt Kidner's credentials as a Consevative Evangelical scholar. We may not be able to fully explain it. But it is there and quite clear. We must not hide from the difficult things in Scripture. Beside the Bible text both your and my opinions are very secondary. In the Old Testament bene elohim (those in the likeness of the elohim i.e. spirits) always refers to angels. I do not avoid diffciulties by trying to explain them away. But I have no wish to prolong the subject. It is not one of the most savoury parts of Scripture. which is why God brought about the Flood. Best wishes. |
||||||
4 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228912 | ||
I will only say: There are three general references to 'men' in Genesis 1-10: 'At that time 'men' began to call on the name of YHWH.' (4.25). A general usage but this clearly mainly refers to 'believers' (the godly). 'When 'men' began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them --' (6.1). This must signify the generality of men including the above. And it is the daughters of these men who cohabited with the bene elohim (6.2). There are absolutely no grounds for this reference to 'men' as specifically referring to Cainites. If words mean anyhing it refers to the generality of men including believers. The bene elohim (sons of the elohim) are mentioned in Job 1.6; 2.1 where in both cases the reference is to heavenly beings. See also Job 38.7. 'sons of' in Hebrew signifies 'of the same character as, same likeness as ' (compare 'the sons of Belial'). Thus sons of 'the elohim (i.e. of spirit beings - see 1 Samuel 28.13) would be expected to mean 'those of the likeness of spirit beings'. In the light of this it appears to me that rather than being obvious, to make Genesis 6 1-2 refer to a contrast between a so-called godly line who are all destroyed in the Flood (apart from the Noahs), and a godless line (whose names regularly and significantly include God's name) who are destroyed in the same flood is samething like special pleading. |
||||||
5 | Dose the bible note angels by gender? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228927 | ||
Hi Holmes You will note that all your references are to huioi theou (sons of God) not to bene elohim (sons of the elohim), and all refer to the New Testament. They are in a totally different category from references in the Old Testament to bene elohim. You have admitted yourself that all references to bene elohim (which is better translated 'sons of the elohim, spirit world' not 'sons of God') refer to angels. KJV in Psalm 8.5 translates 'elohim' as angels (which is confirmed in Hebrews 2.7). You make the mistake of thinking that elohim always means 'God'. It does not. It is also used of 'false gods' behind which are demons (Deut 32.17; 1 Cor 10.20). And it is used by the witch of Endor of spirits which arise from the earth in necromancy (1 Samuel 28.13). That was what she thought that she saw. When referred to angels bene elohim does not mean 'sons of God' it means 'sone of the nature of the elohim, the spirit world'. Satan was one of the bene elohim (Job 1.6; 2.1). He was hardly a 'son of God'. The witch of Endor thought that she saw 'elohim' arising from the earth. They would certainly not have been good angels. 'Demon' simply equates to 'evil angel' (Deut 32.17). You say the godly were destroyed by inter-marriage? Well in that case it was happening well before Genesis 6.1-4. Descendants of Seth who died in the Flood would have been up to 800 years old or more. Thus in many cases their marriages would have been 700 years before the Flood. To me the narrative reads of a fairly recent occurrence within 120 years of the Flood. And there is no suggestion of widespread polygamy. You are of course entitled to interpret as you wish. What I am saying is that the actual Hebrew usage of both the terms 'men' and 'bene elohim' point to a relationship between humans and fallen angels. Even when I may not understand it I prefer to believe what the Scripture teaches. As Satan was clearly one of the bene elohim (sons of God) are you suggesting that he was not a fallen angel? Best wishes |
||||||
6 | Dreams ... Genesis-Revelation | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228993 | ||
Hi Brad Well God does sometimes communicate with people in a general way through dreams. There are a number of dreams in both Old and New Testaments which were significant (e.g. both Josephs, old and new). God spoke to Gideon through the dream of an unbeliever (Judges 7.13-15). And lower level prophets gained knowledge through dreams (Numbers 12.6). 1 Sam 28.6 appears to suggest it was sometimes an acceptable mode of learning God's will. I can therefore warn people not to take dreams too seriously, but if someone believes their dream is of God I do better to help them interpret it in a Scriptural fashion, and I am in no position to dismiss a dream out of hand especially if regularly repeated. If I do not give guidance someone else might do so to worse effect. But what I was rather saying was that she would do well, if she believes the dream to be significant, to gain a Scriptural lesson through her dream rather than seeing it as a vivid sign of the Lord's near return or a special message just for her. If a dream turns someone to considering Scriptural truth it can only be good. What I would be against would be using a dream as an excuse for doing something unusual or giving some unusual interpretation. Best wishes |
||||||
7 | what day should the sabbath be? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229029 | ||
It should be noted that Gen 2.3 says nothing about the Sabbath. It should also be noted that there was no evening or morning on the seventh 'day'. It was a day without end. Thus the sanctifying of the seventh 'day' was not necessarily the inauguration of the Sabbath. It was rather an indication of God's blessing on the future of His creation, having finalised His creation in the previous six time periods (yom). The first actual mention of the Sabbath is in Exodus 16. Then it was fixed as the seventh day after the commencement of the manna. And it is clear that 'all the rulers' at least did not then know of the Sabbath day (verse 22). It had to be explained by Moses. And it was not based on the seventh day of creation, but on the seventh day of the gathering of the manna. It was not necessarily in line with the seventh day of creation. There is no suggestion that it was. It is true that in the ten words in Exodus 20 God related the sabbath to the seventh day of creation, but it is only used as an example. God did it thus they must do it. Scripture gives no impression that the sabbath day was observed before Exodus 16. The Sabbath thus arises out of the Mosaic Law. God blessed and sanctified the first day of the week when He raised His Son from the dead (Luke 24.1; John 20.1). This was why it changed. Was the change warranted? Certainly the early church began meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20.7). It was also the day for setting aside money for the poor (1 Cor 16.2). This would appear to suggest that it was the day on which Christians met. We must remember that while the Sabbath could be observed by Jews by special order of the Roman empire, the same was not true for Christians. Thus many Christian slaves could not observe the sabbath. Certainly by the time of Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) and the Epistle of Barnabas (135 AD) Sunday had replaced the Sabbath in many places, and even where it was observed it was not as a day of rest but as a day of doing good, following Jesus' example. But Paul had previously authorised this in Romans 14.5-6. And he had underlined it in Col 2.16. The shadow had been replaced by Christ. Thus the shadow no longer applied. After all Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2.28) and could determine how it be observed contrary to current Jewish practise. |
||||||
8 | islam/Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229057 | ||
To a large extent the difference between us lies in the fact that I presented what Muhammad taught in the Quran whilst you are describing Islam as it has become. I thus pointed out that in their attitude today Islam did not obey the whole of the Quran. In other words they deny the teaching of their own holy book. As this is not a site for discussing Islam I wil merely say that Muhammed did not include Christians and Jews as infidels in the Quran. It was polytheists who were called Infidels. Muhammad in fact gained a large part of his ideas from Jews and heretical Christians. No doubt you will be able to cite me the verses in the Quran to which you refer where Christians and Jews are called infidels? Sura 2.62 says, 'Those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with the Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Sura 5.69 says, 'Surely those who believe (Muslims) and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians --- whoever believed in God and in the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Now I must stress that I do not believe that the doctrine thus taught is true. Nor do I suggest that Islam is an alternative truth. Islam is a total distortion of Christianity. But we must be honest in our presentations. Best wishes |
||||||
9 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229494 | ||
The Bible speaks of the natural man. The natural man is the unsaved man, man without Christ (1 Cor 2.14). Such a man does not have the Spirit of God within Him. But a Christian can be called 'carnal'(fleshly). See 1 Cor 3.3-4, in contrast to spiritual. Being carnal is revealed by behaving in a carnal way (1 Cor 3.3). Just as being spiritual is revealed by behaving in a spiritual way (Gal 5.22). But the reason for the latter is that they behave in that way as a result of walking in the Spirit (Rom 8.4-9). It is best not to speak of a carnal nature, as though a Christian man had two natures. It is rather two tendencies within one nature. He is a man by nature, influenced by both flesh and Spirit. The old man is the man that I once was. The new man is the man that I now am in Christ. I am to put to death the old man so that the new man might live through me (Eph 2.22-24). It is misleading to speak of the old nature. Best wishes |
||||||
10 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229496 | ||
None of us know all God's promises. The Bible is full of them. As you read the Bible you will discover more and more what God has done for you in fulfilment of His promises. As you come across them rejoice in them and give Him praise and thanks. Don't worry too much about the others. As you come across them it will like finding diamond after diamond. You have a whole lifetime in which to discover them and enjoy them. best wishes |
||||||
11 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229547 | ||
I cannot agree that if we give a significance to a number in certain contexts it has to be consistent throughout the Scriptures. The use of numbers developed over time. It may well be that in some cases a number had a significance for a certain time, and that that significance was then dropped. I would see the 40 years old of Isaac and Esau when they married in that light (although I suppose marriage could be seen as a trial - lol). The periods of forty years in the wilderness, forty years rest on Judges (three times), forty years of Eli's rule, forty years of David's rule, and forty years of Solomon's rule are in a cluster. They may well indicate 'a generation'. But this does not tie forty down to always meaning a generation (it could only do so in the case of years). Or it could be that the same number has twofold significance, used in one way sometimes, and another way the other. The Bible was written by a large number of different authors and they could well have had their own viewpoint. This is why when a pattern does emerge it suggests that it is significant. The spies went out for forty days (possibly a round number) which may well have been intended to indicate a significant period of testing out the land. The 'forty years' of wandering, was in fact thirty eight years. Thus the 40 years brought in their journeying, and encampment at Sinai, before they started wandering. But it was called forty years because instead of Canaan being tested, they were being tested. Note how in fact they are deliberately contrasted. The forty men who sought to kill Paul parallesl the forty days of Goliath's testing of Israel. Both had a death in mind. It was certainly a test of Paul's faith, and of his calling, as it was with Israel. 1 Kings 6:17 and 7:38 are measurements which may well not have been seen in the same light. There is in fact a forty year period during which Israel was under the rule of another country (Judges 13.1), and this may well be intended to cotrast with the 40 years periods of rest. It was thus both a period of trial, and indicating a generation. I am not sure why just because forty is intended to indicate a period of testing and trial it must therefore follow that all periods of testing have to be forty years. Approximate length of time also has to be taken into account. Incidentally Judah were not in Babylon for seventy years. Even if we commence the period from the first exile in 605 BC the period was only 67 years. But Jeremiah did not say that they would be. His seventy year prophecy was concerning the period when 'these nations (including all the nations round about) will serve the King of Babylon'. Thus we can date it from 609 BC (when Nebuchadnexzzar first operated against the nations) to 539 BC. And of course 70 is the number of divine completeness. We can compare the deliberate manipulation of the names of the patriarchs who went into Egypt (Genesis 46.8-27), who of course went with 'their households' probably numbering a few thousand. Best wishes |
||||||
12 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229555 | ||
Hi Searcher, Both of us believe that the final words written by the Scripture writers were verbally inspired by God, so that in one sense each word is God's, but where we differ is on how God went about it. I am in no doubt that God allowed each writer to write from his own viewpoint, although kept from error, and that each writing reveals the personality and slant of its author. One obvious example is where in Samuel we read that God caused David to number Israel, whilst in Chronicles we read that it was Satan who caused David to number Israel. Both are correct. If you study Samuel you will discover that he writes with a strong emphasis on God's sovereignty in everything that happened. He rightly sees God as the prime cause of everything that happens. The Chronicler on the other hand looked at second causes. That too is correct. There are many second causes. They also wrote in terms of their own times, and used the ideas in vogue in those times, while again being kept from error,although of course gradually a tradition would build up, as it did in the use of numbers. Indeed that all this is so is clear when we examine their writings. God was quite happy for them to use numbers as they wished as long as it did not produce error when looked at from their viewpoint. We have to be astute. Thus if one wanted to use 40 or 70 symbolically, and another did not, God did not intervene. The Bible is not so artificial. Take for example the numbers connected with the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings. In some cases there appear to be blatant contradictions. But the truth is that some sources dated the reigns from when they became regents with their fathers, others dated them from when they began their sole reigns. Again some included the year of accession, while others excluded the year of accession. Both methods were in use at the time. Best wishes |
||||||
13 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229556 | ||
Re Point 2. Well I would count the three period of rest in Judges as having one and the same significance. But there are good grounds for suggesting that even the periods of rest were test periods to see if they would continue faithful, which in the main they did not. Once the generation that had learned its lesson passed away the past was forgotten. Judges is a book of testing, see Jud 2.6-23. Best wishes. |
||||||
14 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229557 | ||
Point 3 Searcher said: ... On 70 ... in Numbers 7:37 "his offering was one silver dish whose weight was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels" ... so does that mean one bowl was of "divine completeness" and the other not? Also read other passages (Jdg 1:7, 8:30, 9:2 …) My reply: as I said when measurements are in use we would expect exact numbers. However in the case of your Judges examples they may well all indicate divine completeness to the author, which is probably why he stresses them. Adoni-bezek may well have been using a round number with the idea that the kings he had mutilated were given to him by his god. The numbers 7 and 70 were almost universally seen as indicating divine perfection at the time. Best wishes. |
||||||
15 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229562 | ||
LOL We don't know whether there were exceptions or not, as we don't have histories of all the peoples in the world. How can that affect anything? But it was true throughout the Middle East (the Ancient Near East). Everyone in Palestine, Sumer, Babylon and Assyria saw 7 and its multiples (e.g. seventy sevens) as indicating divine perfection, and thats good enough for me. No, creation was finished in SEVEN days, six was the number of MAN (just as 666 is the number of the Man of Sin) and man was created on the sixth 'day'. But creation was completed when God blessed the seventh day. Apart from you everyone speaks of seven day creation. However, it doesn't really matter what you think or decide to do. What matters is that I have provided the information requested, and everyone can judge for themselves. Best wishes |
||||||
16 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229566 | ||
Searcher I object to your implication that I twist Scripture. In fact what do you say of someone who takes the seven days of Gen 1.1 - 2.4 and tries to suggest that the important thing is only the first six days, as though that changed anything? To any intelligent person it is quite clearly a seven day pattern. Finding 'an exception' proves absolutely nothing. No one says that all numbers are always used in that way, only that a pattern can be discerned of numbers often used in a certain way, something agreed by many reputable commentaries. Finding hidden codes is something quite different. They were not put in deliberately. Just because you do not agree there is no need to sink to insults. |
||||||
17 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229573 | ||
StJohn Searcher was arguing against my indicating that numbers have a meaning in Scripture. He said 'I do not twist Scripture to fit what I want. I could make numbers, names Whatever you say that is a general implication therefore that I am twisting the Scriptures. I suspect you did not follow the thread through. For some strange reason Searcher was trying to avoid the number seven in relation to creation and this was immediately after we had been discussing the number seven. My words were not 'revenge'. They were a reply to his argument and drawing attention to the fact that you quite obviously could not avoid the number seven in regard to creation. So once again I have to reject your strictures. No my feathers do not get ruffled. But i do think we should treat each other with respect. Best wishes |
||||||
18 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229588 | ||
What is StudyBibleForum.com? For the teacher and scholar, it's an opportunity to freely share your knowledge. It is not a discussion group or topical survey, but an ever growing "expository repository" that gives the layman and scholar an opportunity to share truth and contribute wisdom. (I will remember in future not to answer people's questions). |
||||||
19 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229600 | ||
... | ||||||
20 | Angels | NT general | biblicalman | 229046 | ||
I suspect that the verse that you have in mind is Rev. 5.8 where the 24 heavenly elders (representing the 24 priestly courses of the Old Testament) offer the prayers of the saints to God. It is a reminder that the whole of Heaven is concerned about the welfare of God's people on earth. Are angels not ministering spirits sent to minister to the heirs od salvation (Hebrews 1.14). But we must not see them as omnipresent or omniscient. Their abilities and tasks are limited. They are angels, not divine beings. There is only One Who is always aware of all that goes on in Heaven and earth, and that is the Triune God. They are His servants to do His bidding when asnd where He says. Best wishes. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |