Results 101 - 120 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214582 | ||
Awesome.... It just so happened that I read this story to my children today. I found it to be one of the most spectacular stories in the Bible. A movie aught to be made! MJH |
||||||
102 | Why was being born a Jew so important? | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 214580 | ||
Here's a question... Did Jesus come to Earth to "save mankind" from the snares of the devil? or did he come to "save the elect?" Or am I just begging for a contentious debate? Jesus had to be from Israel via Gen 12,15,17 and several more. Jesus had to be from Judah because of Balaam's final prophesy and the promise made to King David. Judah is the tribe that became known as Jew. Moses said a prophet like himself would come....who had to be from Israel. Why did God choose Israel? They were the least of all people. God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel had no ability to choose God being slaves in Egypt. Why did God choose Abraham? That may be the real question. MJH |
||||||
103 | Giving it up to the Lord | NT general | MJH | 214579 | ||
You may be helped by this book: Boundaries by Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud He also has one on marriage. I have very little understanding of your situation, but when we pray for help, we don't stop helping ourselves. I can't counsel you except to say that "giving it over to God" should not mean doing nothing. If it helps, good, if not, it's still a good book for anyone. MJH |
||||||
104 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214578 | ||
... continued ... So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? We read in the book of Ruth that Boaz was exceedingly detailed in his observance and more than just observant; his heart is pure and right. Boaz is, as we say now, a part of the New Covenant “with the Torah written on the heart.” If this law forbade marriage to Ruth, certainly he of all people would have understood this. So why did he marry her? The book of Ruth does an interesting thing. While Orpah returns to her gods and her people, Ruth says, “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” Here Ruth does two things. First she leaves her own people. In effect she cancels her citizenship. It may be this statement that is the key. While a Roman could be a member of the “Assembly of the LORD” (ie. church in the New Testament) yet remain a Roman citizen, the same is not true for the Moabite. Once Ruth abandoned her people and therefore was no longer a Moabite (at least in terms of citizenship) she was no longer bound by the Law of Deut 23. The second thing she does is to enter the covenant as Abraham, by faith. “Your God will be my God.” She becomes a “ger.” I do not much care for the term Proselyte, because in the New Testament days, the term carried connotations that are not intended in the Torah. A “ger” was a non-Israelite that sojourned with Israel. There was one Law for the “ger” and for the native born. But a “neker” was a stranger who was “passing through” and a “zowr” was a stranger who was an Idolater. The Law had specific things to say about each, but in most English translations, the word stranger is used for all three. It is possible then that referring to a person as a Moabite was tantamount to referring to them in light of Balaam and their heinous sin at Peor. No such person even remotely connected to their form of Idolatry should be a part of the assembly of Israel. They were all “zowr” as long as they had any part of that nation. (No dual citizenship.) When Ruth clearly says, your God will be my God, she joined the people of God and the covenant as well. But can Ruth join the covenant in this way? Yes! She entered neither through marriage nor some other means, but in the same means that Abraham entered, through faith. She had not only abandoned her false gods, but her people as well. It was only after this that Boaz married her. Finally, there is one other option, though remote: It was common, at least in the first century and beyond, to discuss what happens when two laws collide. If one law says, “A Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Israel.” And another law says, “If [your brother] dies and has no son, [you shall] perform the duty of a husband's brother to [his wife].” Then which of these laws must be broken, for surly one of them will? The most common easy answer was that a positive law trumped a negative law. That “rule” would apply favorably here as well. This is an extension of the “what is the greatest commandment” discussion Jesus entered into. So there are four possibilities: 1) Ruth was a woman and therefore not bound by this law. 2) Ruth was not a leader in the assembly, and therefore did not violate this law. 3) Ruth abandoned her gods AND her people, making her no longer a citizen Moabite, and joined the people of God and their God fully by faith. Therefore the law didn’t apply because she no longer was technically a Moabite. 4) The positive command to fulfill the duty of a brother trumped the negative command to not let a Moabite enter the assembly. I personally like #3, but I have yet to discuss it with others. This option has a difficulty in that the Text continues to have others refer to Ruth as a Moabite, but I believe this is for two reasons: 1) to keep the negative image of Moab in the readers mind connected to Ruth; 2) to help explain how great Boaz is to be willing to marry such a woman and why the nearest kinsman redeemer didn’t want anything to do with her. In the end, Ruth and Boaz didn’t break the law of Deut. 23, of that we can be certain. MJH -sorry for the length. |
||||||
105 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214577 | ||
Cheri, (2 post long) I was interested in your question but didn’t have time to answer. Now that you and John had your dialogue, it seems somewhat unnecessary, but I did the work so here it is. A starting point in how I approach the Bible may be helpful: 1) I don’t believe as some commentators do, that God can violate the covenant, but mankind can not, therefore God can include Ruth just because he said so. God MUST remain faithful. 2) I don’t believe the covenant stipulations change after Jesus resurrection; but rather that the law points to and is enhanced and enlightened by Him. Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. [give it a firmer standing]” ESV I include this for those “who are reading along” as John so wisely recognizes. With this in mind, the law for the Moabite can not simply be uprooted (Deut 4:2; 12:32 “do not add to this law, nor take away from it.”) A Moabite can not “enter the assembly of the LORD” to the tenth generation…forever. The “forever” is “ ‘ad o’lam ”, which is nearly impossible to translate any other way than “forever.” If it could, then the Targum Jonathan, which Gill quotes, (see John’s answer) would have most certainly used this option. Neh. 13:23 also says this law means forever. The phrase “assembly of the LORD” is another key. One source had this to say, “In the Torah, the word kahal (assembly) is used to apply to Israel as a nation, to a religious gathering and to a national governing assembly. This national governing assembly consisted of all adult males meeting in plenary session. Eligibility in this governing assembly was apparently tantamount to eligibility in full citizenship and therefore eligible for leadership.” While Ruth was a women and may (or may not) be exempt for that reason, I believe there are other options. It is possible that this passage is speaking of holding leadership position. In this case, Ruth also wouldn’t need worry about this law. Furthermore, when we look at the law in context, it falls within a marriage section. Why would this be included here? Let’s read the context of the sin of Moab: Num 25:1 “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor.” It was within adulterous relationships that Moab seduced Israel with their women threatening their existence as a nation, and by extension, the coming Messiah. If they can’t beat them by war, and they can’t defeat them with the curses of Balaam, maybe they can defeat them by seduction. To marry into this nation was to marry into their cult. See also Neh 13:23 “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.” The women in this passage were not “making your God my God” but rather were still worshiping their false gods. The mothers are the primary teacher of children when they are young. This instance was a violation of the Law (and Nehimiah also says “ ‘ad olam” means forever.) With these passages we are hard pressed to say women are absolved from the Deut 23 law simply by being women. So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? ...continued... |
||||||
106 | Buddha statue in a house of a christian. | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 214575 | ||
Exo 20:4-6. Do not make an image out of anything from heaven, earth/land, or sea. It would be wrong for a Christian to display an engraved image such as a buddah regardless of their reasons. My most direct answer. MJH |
||||||
107 | did apostles disobey jesus' commission? | Matt 28:19 | MJH | 214518 | ||
dieselcowboy, Thanks for your question. It might be helpful to understand what Baptism was/is. Baptism was very common in the life of the Jew is this day. They were often baptized daily. Some rich had baptismals (called mikvot) in their homes so they could immerse every day. The idea of a baptism was to show a change of status originally found in Exodus/Leviticus. If a person became "unclean" they needed to become "clean" before entering the Temple. The last thing they did would be to go through a Mikvah, showing their change of status from unclean to clean. At the Temple when Peter preached after the Holy Spirit came, 3000 people were baptized. The only reason this could have happened was because there were multiple baptismals at the Temple. Back to your question: When it is said that they baptized someone into the name of Jesus, it was equivalent to saying they were baptized into everything that Jesus taught and represented. The person was entering into a covenant community of Jesus believers. Matt 28 does not say, or mean, that you need to recite the words "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" for a baptism to be effectual. The person going into the waters has denounced any previous idolatry (if needed) and accepts fully the covenant status he is entering. Then, that person is to be taught to "observe everything [Jesus has] commanded you." You may be right in that when the scriptures say, "baptized into the name of Jesus" the entire covenant and God Head were implied, but I am not willing to allegorize this as you have (allegory was a Greek construct used in their mythical writings.) There are no Scriptures, no historical evidence, and no legitimate early church writings that I am aware of that reflect your statement. dieselcowboy, Thanks for the question and let me know if you have more to substantiate your claim. I am eager to learn and, even if I disagree, to understand why you’re arriving at your conclusion. MJH |
||||||
108 | HOW DO WE HELP THOSE IN NEED? | 1 Tim 2:3 | MJH | 214517 | ||
When I worked at a church I became acutely aware of the people who went from church to church either through the phone book or down the street. How does a church determine who to help with their limited resources? I have pushed for an area wide church coop system to deal with non-church members/attendees. The local churches collectively support a central aid organization and any time someone from outside their influence seeks aid, they are directed to the same organization as every other church in the region or city. This organization could help those in need and follow-up with them so they no longer need help. After all, true compassion is measured by how many people no longer need our help, not on how many are currently receiving it. Individual churches, regardless of the above, should know how to effectively help their own people and be ready to do so, and they should do that long before they help those who do not attend. If aid is a witness, than what witness is it when we neglect those who are in our family to help those who are not? The true witness would be for neighbors of those in true need seeing their local church community coming along side them through that time. Aside from all of that: It’s important for the church to teach what the Bible says about consumer debt. How you are not able to help others and be the blessing God wants you to be for others if your “cup isn’t over flowing.” The church should encourage and respect people who are successful and able to help rather than immune them as less than righteous; as if they became a success on the backs of others. Imagine if everyone in our church was debt free except maybe their home. Who could we help then? (note: I am not suggestion prosperity preaching here.) I think maybe this is a raw nerve for me. I shall digress. MJH |
||||||
109 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | MJH | 214308 | ||
keliy, First, good job on your thorough answer. I agree with lionheart that you did well. It's a big topic to cover in a short post. One thing that caught my eye was your comment on "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you..." (Deu 4:2). It would be more accurate to view this passage along with Deut 12:32, in light of the covenant stipulations given in Deuteronomy. The covenant was seen as a unified whole with multiple parts. It was not possible to extract or add to the parts without destroying (ie violating) the whole. The command given here is to not add any new commandment or take any away. It is not speaking about adding to the canon of scripture. Deut 4:2 does not prohibit adding books to the list of inspired writings, it only prohibits the adding or subtracting of any commandments; ie. changing of the terms. MJH |
||||||
110 | OT says Altar of Insence is outside viel | Heb 9:2 | MJH | 214284 | ||
Hebrews is speaking about the Day of Atonement in chapter 9. The High Priest entered once a year and before he could safely enter the most Holy place, he had to take the incense from the alter and create a cloud in front of the mercy seat so that he would not die when he entered to apply the blood. There was one golden censor (the others being silver) which was used only for this purpose. If the book of Hebrews was describing where things were stored, then this would be a problem, but the author is clearly speaking about the use and purpose on the specific Day of Atonement of which he is speaking. The entire letter to the Hebrews is very Jewish in its style and shows a high degree of understanding in regards to how the Tabernacle functioned. In fact, this knowledge of the Tabernacle has led some to hypothesize that the author may have been a priest. There is simply no way that this author would have been speaking about the storage place of the incense alter and gotten it wrong. No one knows for certain who actually wrote the letter. MJH |
||||||
111 | why was Jabez named sorrow maker | 1 Chr 2:55 | MJH | 214277 | ||
John, I'm not that well acquainted with this Text, but the word translated "pain" in Chap 4:9 is used three other times in Ps 139:24; Is 14:3; and Is 48:5 and it is translated (in the KJV) as Wicked (or grievous), Sorrow, and Idol respectively. Seems to be a bit of an enigma. MJH |
||||||
112 | why was Jabez named sorrow maker | 1 Chr 2:55 | MJH | 214272 | ||
The name Jabez means, "he will cause pain." or "maker of sorrow." The answer to the original question I do not know. MJH |
||||||
113 | Class on historical background. | Not Specified | MJH | 214246 | ||
I'm putting together an outline for a class on the Historical Background to the New Testament. Are there some issues or events that you feel should be defiantly included in this class? What are some questions you have that a class like this could answer? Thanks for any input. MJH |
||||||
114 | Class on historical background. | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 214247 | ||
I'm putting together an outline for a class on the Historical Background to the New Testament. Are there some issues or events that you feel should be defiantly included in this class? What are some questions you have that a class like this could answer? Thanks for any input. MJH |
||||||
115 | Are there verses about outside business? | 1 Pet 3:15 | MJH | 214245 | ||
There are no texts that I can find that explicitly answer your question, however, the Bible on a whole assumes that you will be interacting with those outside the community of believers. Israel was placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to be a light for the nations. We are to be a light of the world. It is difficult to do this when we are not doing business with the world. I may have misunderstood your question. If so, please clarify. If you mean, "Can we do secular business inside the local church building?" Then this is a separate question which deserves a separate answer. MJH |
||||||
116 | what is/are the discharge(s) referred to | Lev 15:2 | MJH | 214234 | ||
The "issue" is this text is only seen here in Lev 15. The Hebrew word "zobe" means, a seminal or menstrual flux: - issue (according to Strongs). The primary reason this is associated with penal discharge is because the second half of the chapter referrers to a woman's menstrual flow and uses the same word. Some commentators believe the man's problem is gonorrhea. In either case, for the man this is something that is not natural, where as for the woman it would be menstrual OR if it lasted longer than seven days, something unnatural. Normal seminal flow, whether in intercourse or not, would only render a man unclean until evening. Please note that “unclean” is not a “sin state.” Being unclean was not in any way a statement on the person’s personal failings. It had primarily to do with whether they could approach a Holy God in His Tabernacle/Temple. While sin can make you “unclean”, being unclean does not usually mean you sinned. MJH |
||||||
117 | belly of a whore? | Gen 38:9 | MJH | 214222 | ||
I think you may be a bit confused. The only place your question could be connected to is Gen 38 where Onan refuses to produce a child with his dead brothers wife by "spilling his semen on the ground." The act was tantamount to attempting to prevent the birth of the Messiah. It was through Tamar that Jesus was ultimately born. Judah sends Tamar to live with her own family as a widow until the younger son was old enough. Since Judah was afraid of loosing his last remaining son (all the other with this women had died), he never intended on giving his son to her to fulfill the duty of a brother. Tamar learns that Judah is coming to town, so she dresses as a prostitute and gets Judah to sleep with her. She becomes pregnant and you can read the rest of the tale in Gen 38. MJH |
||||||
118 | Sins are responsible for sickness? | Mark 2:3 | MJH | 214205 | ||
One more thing about your passage specifically. Was the man's sins forgiven before he was healed? Yes they were, yet he still had the illness. So we know that his illness was not connected to his personal relationship with God and his own sin state. Otherwise his illness would have been healed when he received forgiveness. But one can not see forgiveness and only God can forgive sins. By Jesus then healing the man, he removes all legitimate questions as to his ability to declare sins forgiven. There is simply no way God would heal through Jesus if he just blasphemed God. It's quite masterful. He led these doubters to express their doubt by declaring forgiveness for a man, something only God could do; and then he healed the man who was obviously healed and Jesus did this in front of many witnesses. The doubter’s only recourse was to recant their belief that God would heal through a blasphemer, or accept Him for who He was/is. MJH |
||||||
119 | hebrews 12:24/1peter 1:2 | Lev 16:14 | MJH | 214134 | ||
Only the priests can sprinkle the blood of a Sacrifice, and as far as Heb 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2 is concerned, only the High Priest can sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. In the World to Come (aka Heaven), Jesus is the High Priest who sprinkled his own blood once and for all cleansing the sinner. MJH |
||||||
120 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | MJH | 214124 | ||
John, First off, while I generally shy away from end time’s debates, I appreciated your admitting you are not all together sure. Me neither. I enjoyed a speaker at a pastors' convention awhile back who told this story, "God is up in Heaven sitting with Jesus to his right. Before God are laid out all of the end times charts. He puts His arm on His Son's shoulder and says, 'You know Son, I'm going to send you back down there just as soon as I can figure these things out." Needless to say, it broke the tension of a bunch of staunch Christians holding different views on many things. That all being said, I recently wondered if those "taken away" were the Righteous or the Wicked. In Matt. 24:40-41 the two men and women, one is taken and the other left, the Text does not say which was which. If fact, in all cases where "one is taken" the Text doesn't specify which. We assume the good person is taken because of what we bring to that particular Text and not because of what the Text actually says. When I studied the first century understanding, I found that the Greek's believed the dead “good” were taken away to some heaven, but the Jewish faith believed the dead wicked were taken away to judgment. The Jews always saw Earth—and Jerusalem in particular—as the final place for the righteous. So, if Jesus is speaking to a Jewish world about someone being "taken away" and then He does not say who gets taken away; it would make sense that his audience assumed what Jews in that day assumed. Jesus doesn't overtly challenge that thinking. (Nor does he confirm it....it's not mentioned who is taken.) When I looked at this idea closer, I found that all throughout the Old Testament, those who are "taken away" are taken away to judgment, or because of judgment. At this time (first century), Israel’s identity is that She was taken away to Babylon as judgment for her sins. (Lamentations, Jeremiah) The only Text that does not fit this mold, (that the ones taken away are those taken away for final judgment) is 1 Thes. 4:17. Yet even here, the dead rise and the living meet the Lord in the air....but the Text even here does not mention if they float away to some heavenly place, or return triumphant with the Lord. They are not “taken away” per se, but rather gathered to the Lord. Any thoughts? This is one of my, “kept it under my hat” thoughts. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [29] >> |