Results 1 - 20 of 34
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: loavesnfish Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is calyxes in Ex. 25 | OT general | loavesnfish | 232070 | ||
A calyx is the part of the flower at the bottom which holds the petals and others parts together. If you look at a rose, the hard green part between the stem and the bloom is the calyx, which later grows into a rose hip holding the seeds when the petals have all fallen off. In Exodus 25, which describes the menorah, the flowers in the decoration are in full bloom and not simply buds. There are 22 of them in all, representing fullness and maturity. | ||||||
2 | Can a woman be a pastor of a church? | NT general | loavesnfish | 239214 | ||
Women can shepherd (pastor) children, which is a very important ministry. loavesnfish |
||||||
3 | "Flaming sword" or 'blazing drought'? | Gen 3:24 | loavesnfish | 232281 | ||
Steve, Thank you for answering my question! First, I must say that I believe Eden to have been a real place and Adam a real man, not just symbols. What I meant was "enwrapping drought" or "enveloping drought." In Hebrew the word for "drought" in Genesis 31:40 and Jeremiah 50:38 and Haggai 1:11 seems to share the same root with the word translated "sword" here and with the word for "to parch." Apparently, it is a cutting off of water resulting in drought, and a sword also cuts things off, so they are related ideas. When one considers Genesis 2:6 and 10 which emphasizes water in mist and FOUR rivers, it seems clear that drought would be a real challenge for a man who has never had to cope with it or even thought of it. Genesis 3:17-19 mentions that the cursed ground grows plants which grow best in dry conditions, hence "parched" ground rather than well-watered. In Genesis 3:24 the cherubim stationed in the east do not have weapons, they simply watch to guard the path to the Tree of Life. Since it is contrary to God's plan of salvation to actually kill Adam or his children, a sword seems out of place since swords deal death. The idea was to keep Adam away from the tree and out of the garden so that he wouldn't try to solve his problem without God or frustrate the judgment against him. So, sending a drought when he tries to get back to Eden seems to be a better way to do this. I am not dogmatic on this idea, but it seems more in line with God's revealed character. loavesnfish |
||||||
4 | End of the curse? | Gen 8:21 | loavesnfish | 239127 | ||
Greetings Jalek! Thank you for your very helpful commentary. I gather that you would be among those who say that when Adam was told to dress and keep the garden in Eden it was work that God gave as a blessing and sin is what makes work seem cursed rather than any real curse. loavesnfish |
||||||
5 | Shewbread made of manna in wilderness? | Ex 25:30 | loavesnfish | 239115 | ||
Hi Doc! My understanding is that God gave the people manna to eat throughout their wilderness journey since they had no other food. At the same time, they were supposed to be following the laws God gave them about the tabernacle. One of those laws indicated that the showbread had to be made of fine flour and oil. If all they had was manna, how could they follow this command? I asked a rabbi and he said that they didn't follow the law until they entered the land. I know that God never gives us a command we cannot obey, so I was wondering how they obeyed this one. Any ideas? Thanks, loavesnfish |
||||||
6 | Shewbread made of manna in wilderness? | Ex 25:30 | loavesnfish | 239146 | ||
Doc, You are right of course. When I was originally thinking about this I was focusing on the restriction from gathering more than the family could eat in one day, the way they complained about how it was all they had to eat when they wanted meat, leeks and onions, etc. I really didn't consider that they may have had enough grain for the priests to keep this commandment but not enough for people to eat. It seemed like they were only complaining so vociferously because they had nothing else to eat. If the priests were rotating and eating the showbread the way they were commanded to do, they at least would not be restricted to manna. loavesnfish |
||||||
7 | Leviticus 15 bodily discharges disease? | Lev 15:1 | loavesnfish | 239120 | ||
Thank you, EdB. This was really helpful. loavesnfish |
||||||
8 | Shame on Ham? | Lev 20:11 | loavesnfish | 239129 | ||
Lostfarmer, Hmmm...I understand the euphemism and I understand what you wrote, but it seems more likely due to verse 23 that literal nakedness is in view here. Shem and Japheth seem to be going to great pains to not repeat Ham's mistake. Also, Canaan was already born at this time, so he could not be a product of incest. Since Mrs. Noah is not mentioned in the passage, it is possible that she had already died or was elsewhere when this happened. So it doesn't seem like good hermeneutics to hold her at fault in any way. Most commentators I have read seem to think that Noah became drunk by accidental discovery rather than deliberately and made a fool of himself, which Ham saw and reported to others (gossip), thereby dishonoring his father. My real question was then how punishing Canaan was a punishment of Ham, who was the one who deserved it. The only way it seems fair is if the servanthood of Canaan would shame his father in the same way that Ham shamed his father. God never rebuked Noah for this pronouncement or expressed disapproval of his actions in the passage. Also, dishonoring parents is one of the important no-noes throughout the Bible. Any further thoughts? |
||||||
9 | Numbers in the genealogy? | 1 Sam 28:8 | loavesnfish | 239122 | ||
So, you think that a generation represents a definite period of time, but how much? Since 14 is a multiple of seven, it seems like it ought to be important. |
||||||
10 | One became ten? | 1 Kin 7:49 | loavesnfish | 239123 | ||
Greetings Jalek! You meant 'Chanukkah' or 'Hanukkah' I think. The menorah of Hanukkah has eight lights and a place for the servant which lights the others, so nine altogether. This represents the miracle in which God caused one day's worth of oil to last for eight days. The festival of lights commemorates that miracle, which is not a part of the mosaic law. The seven-branched menorah of the tabernacle was a part of the mosaic law and therefore is connected to Jesus. Your point about lighting the Temple was a good reminder of the functionality of all lamps. What I wonder about is whether there is significance to ten lamps here since ten has significance in many other places in Scripture. Any ideas? loavesnfish |
||||||
11 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | loavesnfish | 239126 | ||
Greetings, Jalek! In your response to my question, you stated, "Examining and measuring the plans of the Temple that Ezekiel saw in his vision, and comparing that to the real temple in Jerusalem was intended to shame them." Would you please flesh out that comment with a few examples? Thanks, loavesnfish |
||||||
12 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | loavesnfish | 239147 | ||
Greetings, Jalek! Thank you for responding! Your examples make sense and I understand them and the point you are making. I just don't understand how it relates to cubits and palm trees. loavesnfish |
||||||
13 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | loavesnfish | 239167 | ||
Greetings, Jalek! Thank you for responding again. My understanding is that the actual equivalent of a cubit in inches is irrelevant here. The cubit is a measurement that makes a man's forearm the standard by which other things are measured so that he knows their sizes relative to himself. I am wondering if measuring by cubits would be the shame inducer since one is forced to compare oneself to what is being measured. loavesnfish |
||||||
14 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | loavesnfish | 239172 | ||
Greetings Jalek! So you are saying that the measuring is a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Then the whole vision is just symbolic and not literally predictive. loavesnfish |
||||||
15 | Zech.14:16-17 key to Ezekiel 40:41, 43? | Zech 14:16 | loavesnfish | 239118 | ||
Hey, brethren! Still waiting for an answer. loavesnfishes |
||||||
16 | Why did Matthew leave out names? | Matt 1:7 | loavesnfish | 239125 | ||
Greetings Jalek! Matthew's genealogy of Christ is a proof document showing the monarchic succession to the time of Jesus. Matthew did not compose it. He only copied the work of the scribes available in the Temple at that time. Matthew knew how to handle public records as a former tax collector. The addition of Mary and Jesus was Matthew's work as well as the observation of the three groups of fourteen generations. These were not the more famous of Christ's lineage, but the ones the scribes had included in the line of legal succession to the throne. Matthew wanted to prove that Jesus was a real king with a much better right to rule than the Herods. He also wanted to show that Jesus fulfilled the promise to Abraham. You were certainly right in thinking that repentance had nothing to do with it. Thanks! loavesnfish |
||||||
17 | Information needed. | Matt 1:17 | loavesnfish | 239130 | ||
Rolff, Please permit a correction. It is 14 plus 14 plus 14 equals 42. Although this is commonly said to be a mnemonic, it is actually Matthew's observation of a fact about the genealogy constructed by the scribes. Matthew, who as a former tax collector knew his way around the public records of the day, copied this genealogy from the legal records kept in the Temple before Titus burned it down in 70AD. The scribes recorded and edited everything down to Joseph to show the legal line of succession to the throne of Israel. Matthew only added Mary and Jesus to the list. Once they were added, Matthew immediately observed the pattern. The generations here have to do with the reigns of kings and not spans of time. Some of the kings were edited out by the scribes to protect the throne from illegitimate claimants. Matthew used this legal document to prove that Jesus was the legitimate king of Israel. The number 14 is for deliverance and designates the messiah. The number 42 is for the messianic kingdom. loavesnfishes |
||||||
18 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | loavesnfish | 239140 | ||
Jim, Since no women's ages are given in the Bible, with the exceptions of Sarah and Anna, how do you know Rahab was 96? Many men married multiple women, sometimes vastly younger than themselves, to build their tribes. I am not sure you can designate any age for Rahab. The fact that she wants to protect her parents suggests a young age rather than an old one. loavesnfishes |
||||||
19 | matt.1-17 14 generations? I see 13 for | Matt 1:17 | loavesnfish | 239142 | ||
Tim, This is wrong. You can only count a person once in a royal line of succession (or even in a regular genealogy). Mary is the thirteenth "generation" of the third set of fourteen here. She was adopted under Joseph as a collateral line descended form Solomon's brother Nathan as Luke shows. She was not adopted as Joseph's daughter, but she had to be brought into the legal line to protect the rights of Jesus from any other children Joseph might have had or might later have. Mary was the only human parent of Jesus, so the fact that she was a woman was irrelevant. This odd fact is quickly explained as Matthew gives the account of the virgin birth. Just because she was married to Joseph does not make her legally part of his generation. loavesnfishes |
||||||
20 | Biblical Exegesis of Matt. 14:13-21 | Matt 14:13 | loavesnfish | 239213 | ||
The blessing was: Blessed be the Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who brings forth bread from the ground. Every Jewish family said this blessing over bread and it is still used today. loavesnfish |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |