Results 1 - 20 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229796 | ||
... | ||||||
2 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229788 | ||
I am baffled by your response. The verses themselves are scriptural support. The connecting of them by me with covenant circumcision and the shedding of blood relates to two important continuing elements of Scripture. That is why I said the answer was basically obvious. You cannot surely expect Scriptural support for the incident itself. It is unique, apart possibly from when God wrestled with Jacob. But there was no 'attempt to kill' there. Are you then saying that no one should try to explain it? I notice from past threads that no one has satisfactorily dealt with the matter. Surely if you consider my attempt unsatisfactory you should give us your own attempt? It is surely not good to leave questioners in the air about the matter. best wishes |
||||||
3 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229758 | ||
The questioner was asking about information concerning the activities of the Apostles. In my view what was wanted was information about the lesser known Apostles. I hardly think Paul was in mind. We all know a great deal about Paul. I answer what I think the questioner wants to know, not so as to show off my knowledge. chapter 15 is where we obtain the last information about the majority of the Apostles, including Barnabas. The questioner would waste their time looking beyond that unless their interest was in Paul best wishes |
||||||
4 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229749 | ||
Further to my statement in respect of the ministry of the Apostles mentioned in chs 1-15 I provide a list of some of them: They stood with Peter on the day of Pentecost (2.14). They taught the early believers (2.41). Through them wonders and signs were done (2.43). They were God’s servants through whom it was prayed that God would cause His word to be spoken boldly, accompanied by signs and wonders in the name of God’s holy Servant, Jesus (4.29-30). They stood and preached in Solomon’s porch when none dared join with them, and were held in high honour by the people (5.12). They were arrested and imprisoned, were released from prison by an angel during the night (5.18-19), and went back at daybreak to the Temple, boldly to continue their ministry (5.21). They were set before the council and questioned (5.27), and when they were reminded that they had been charged not to preach in the name of Jesus, they replied that they had no alternative (5.28-32). They were beaten, and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus and let go, and subsequently rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name, and continued preaching and teaching (5.40-42). They stressed that no hindrance should be put on their teaching ministry (6.2) They remained in Jerusalem when persecution caused the believers to be scattered (8.1). It may well be that the persecution was at this time mainly aimed at the Hellenists. They were still in Jerusalem when they determined to send Peter and John to oversee the ministry among the Samaritans (8.14). (Note there how Peter is subject to the authority of all the Apostles). In chapter 15 they would almost be a part of the general assembly that made the decision to accept Gentiles without circumcision and not put on them the whole burden of the ceremonial Law. It is apparent then that they were kept very busy and played their full part in the Apostolic ministry, even though we lose touch with them after chapter 15. |
||||||
5 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229743 | ||
Searcher, I'm sorry but your question baffles me. I don't know what you are talking about. As I said Acts chapter 1 to Acts chapter 15 and referred to the ministry of all the Apostles your question appears rather strange. Perhaps you should think about it and reword it |
||||||
6 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229734 | ||
EJJ No I was not referring to you. I was referring to people who speak about 'crawling out of God's hand' as though God had a weak grip (John 10.29). |
||||||
7 | Did God create light twice? | Gen 1:3 | biblicalman | 229705 | ||
There are two things we are wise not to be dogmatic about, the first is the beginning of all things, and the second is the end of all things. Both are outside the sphere of our understanding. We are told that in the beginning God created hashamayim (the heavens) and haaretz (the 'earth' or 'the place'). Now as angelic beings are introduced early on (in chapter 3) it is clear that this includes the heavens where they dwell. Nothing further is said about this creation. We are probably unwise to speak of 'before creation'. That assumes time, but time was created along with the universe. We can speak of eternal time, but humanly speaking that is impossible when looking back. There had to be a beginning. And here we are told that that beginning was in the act of creation. It is true that Jesus does speak of 'before the world was' but that is using human language to describe the indescribable. We simply have to accept things as they are recognising thst we cannot understand eternity. All the emphasis in chapter 1 is on the creation of ha-aretz. And it is soon apparent that this term includes the skies, and the heavenly bodies. Thus it does not strictly mean earth. Eretz is indeed a broad term. It can mean our earth, it can mean dry land as opposed to sea, or it can mean 'a country'. In other words it refers to what finally contains man. Thus prior to the creation of light and dry land it probably indicates 'the stuff of the universe' (it includes sun, moon and stars and the sky). We are told in verse 2 what the stuff of the universe consisted of. It was shapeless and empty and totally lacking in light, although at some stage prior to the creation of light there was 'the deep'. But that is probably intended to indicate simply that there was no land which was liveable on. The whole point of this description is that God was about to work on a 'blank canvas' (shapeless waste and uninhabitable) and create our universe. Darkness was not created. It was simply lack of light. God then introduced light by His word. What had been empty and waste and totally dark suddenly became changed at God's word. Light pervaded our universe. This is probably an indication of the creation of electro-magnetic-waves which are a form of light. Suddenly the stuff of the universe had form and substance. Let God withdraw light and the universe would collapse into nothingness. Holmes is right to suggest that this started the first yom. Thus the first yom did not have an evening and a morning. It started with light. This is a warning not to take evening and morning literally. It clearly simply means beginning and ending. As light had not been separated from darkness until in the midst of this first yom an evening and a morning were previously an impossibility. This also demonstrates that we are not to take the yom pattern as a 'day' in our sense of the term (strictly yom means a period of time). This is confirmed by the fact that times and seasons, days and years were not fixed until the fourth yom. There were no 'days' in our sense of the word before that. It was on the fourth yom that God caused the heavenly bodies to rule the times and seasons, days and years. That means that they had not done so before then. Nights and days as we know them did not exist until then. That was God's purpose in fashioning the sun and the moon and bringing them into play. But it should be noted that God did not create light on the fourth yom as well. What he brought into action were the 'lamps' that gave light for man. Thus there were not two creations of light. |
||||||
8 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229696 | ||
When considering the Scriptures we have to recognise that there are certain veins running through them which might even appear to us, with our limited knowledge to be contradictory, although they are in fact complementary. One of those is God's sovereignty. Another is man's freewill. I prefer not to use human logic when considering the ways of God because if one thing is certain when we use our own logic about God it is that we will be wrong. But even human logic tells me that if man is oorrupt he will never choose to respond to God. Yes He can choose to sin, he can choose options in his life (although usually in accordance with his own predilections and therefore not strictly though freewill), But one thing sinful man would never do without God's grace acting on him is to choose God. And it seems to me that the Scriptures demonstrate this clearly. Consider for example Romans 9.14-24. When the Bible speaks of God calling it makes nonsense of the whole idea if we say that He calls 'whosoever will'. He calls in accordance with His own purpose. There is a specific call and there is a general call. Thus there is a general call, but we must not mix it up with God's specific call in for example Romans 8.29-30. We should of course try to be morally right, and we should do that not because we have a choice, but because it is the right thing to do. And that is so whether God is acting in sovereignty or not. But it is not for us to say that because God is sovereign we are not responsible for what we do. Of course we are. We live our lives on earth as freewill beings. But God help us if He leaves us the victin of our own freewill. On those terms no one will ever be saved. Of course God can decide who will be saved, for it depends on the activity of His undeserved compassion and favour, and through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.2). Do you really think that if God brought Himself home to men as He really is and worked by His Spirit in their hearts they would not come to Him? I know of a number of people who have actually SEEN the risen Christ. I have never heard of one who did not subsequently believe. So what finite men believe about the question is irrelevant. As to 'losing our salvation'. If it is ours we will certainly lose it, But it is not. Salvstion is the work of God from beginning to end. and He has never lost anyone's salvation. 'And this is the will of Him Who sent Me that of all whom He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise them up at the last day' (John 6.39). See also John 10.27-29; 1 Cor 1.7-9; Phil 1.6; 2 Tim 1.12. It is amusing and sad to me how people try to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture just so that they can imprison God in their own logic. |
||||||
9 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229690 | ||
The word translated predestined or foreordained is pro-orizo, to lay down or determine beforehand. pro-ginosko is translated as foreknow. ginosko means to know by experience, in contrast with oida which means to know intellectually. Thus God's foreknowledge was not just intellectual but personal. |
||||||
10 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229686 | ||
What is made quite clear in Rom 8.29-30, however interpreted, is that the same people who were justified and glorified, were also those who were foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and no others. We cannot refer the first half to 'all men' and the second half to 'some men'. That is to ignore the clear meaning of the Greek. Futhermore it is quite apparent that we cannot say all men were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, because it is quite obvious that they were not, unless of course we say that God has failed in His purpose. To predestinate means to determine destiny beforehand. So the meaning of the verses is that those whom God foreknew were the ones who would be saved. The argument between Calvin and Arminius lay in the meaning of foreknew. Does it mean 'discern beforehand' or does it mean 'determine beforehand' (or more strictly 'enter into personal relationship with beforehand'). The Greek (proginosko) would favour the latter. For the former we would expect pro-oida. But however we view the matter we cannot avoid the fact that from the beginning God knows who will be saved. That being so by allowing creation to continue He was predestinating some to be saved and some to be condemned. For had He allowed all men to die in the Flood no one following that time would have existed. They could neither be saved or condemned. Thus by allowing Noah to survive, and not be taken into Heaven like Enoch was, God was determining the destiny of all future mankind. How can I know that I am one of the predestined? By receiving Jesus Christ as my Saviour and LORD. Best wishes |
||||||
11 | Can a person push God too far?? | 1 John 1:9 | biblicalman | 229679 | ||
Hi, It is quite clear that Hebrews 6 refers to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is the only sin for which there is no repentance. Interestingly the words in Hebrews 6 can be applied to the Scribes and Pharisees. They had been enlightened by Jesus (compare John 1.9). They had tasted of the heavenly gift, that is of Jesus. They had seen His miracles, they had heard His teaching. They had shared in the Holy Spirit, for they had experienced the Spirit-filled Jesus.(How else could they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit?). They had tasted the good word of God spoken by the Spirit-filled Jesus. And yet they were in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit by final rejection. The writer was writing to a group of Jews who had been considering the claims of Christ. Some had fully responded, others were hesitating. They too had experienced signs and wonders wrought by the Holy Spirit (Heb 2.4). They had heard the word of God spoken by those who knew Jesus (Heb 2.3). And now they were faced with a final choice. He was not speaking of born again people but of 'believers' like those in John 2.23-25. Some of them he likened to ground covered with thorns and thistles which CANNOT produce fruit (Heb 6.8). |
||||||
12 | Can a person push God too far?? | 1 John 1:9 | biblicalman | 229654 | ||
To 'fall from grace' is a doctrinal issue not a life issue. It means to have taken up a false position. It does not mean that someone is in such a position that they are no longer experiencing the grace of God, or are acceptable to Him. The Galatians had not been rejected by God, rather they had been led astray doctrinally. It means that doctrinally they have gone astray from the truth. They have taken up a position where they have begun to depend on their own righteousness rather than on the righteousness provided by God. Paul was clearly hopeful that it would only be a temporary phase. |
||||||
13 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229600 | ||
... | ||||||
14 | 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). |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
18 | 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. |
||||||
19 | 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. |
||||||
20 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |