Results 101 - 120 of 233
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | What happened to the Tribe of Dan | Rev 7:5 | There | 19286 | ||
First post of two. In Genesis 49 Jacob gathered his sons to tell them what would befall them in the last days. Concerning Dan, Jacob said "Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel, Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider shall fall backward. I have waited for your salvation, O Lord!" (vs. 16-18) It was also said in the surrounding passages in Genesis that Jacob pronounced national prestige on Joseph's son Ephraim (49:19-22; 49:22-26; 1Chron. 5:1-2). There is no reason given why Jacob gave the eldest son's (Manesseh's) birthright to the younger (Ephraim), but Ephraim is represented in Revelation as the tribe of Joseph, whereas Manesseh (as eldest son) is listed as a separate tribe, replacing the tribe of Dan. (See Numbers 1:32-35) The Danites broke away from the tribe of Judah in the last chapters of the book of Judges. In 1Chronicles 1-8, the tribes of Israel are listed -- all but the tribe of Dan. The date for writing the first 8 chapters of the Chronicles has been placed at 1056 B.C. By then Dan had become a lost tribe (of Israel), although there is some mention of Dan after that. On a map of ancient Israel, the territory of Dan appears like a wing attached to the shoulder of the territory of Judah. Among the possible interpretations of Daniel's vision [Dan. 7:4], we should consider the story of Dan leaving its original territory and moving north into Lebanon. When Moses gave his prophecies of the 12 tribes, he said that Benjamin would "dwell between the shoulders of Judah" (Deut.33:12), and that Dan, "as a lion's whelp, would leap from Bashan" (Deut. 33:22). Bashan was located in ancient Lebanon. Moses prediction came to pass when the tribe of Dan was deprived of its territory adjacent to Judah, moved north to Lebanon, and established its territory in Bashan (Judges 18). From there the Danites made a symbolic leap into obscurity. Also when they migrated to southern Lebanon, they captured the city of Laish and changed it's name to Dan (Jud. 18:27-31). The ancient name "Laish" means "a lion", which fulfills the prophecy of Moses in Deut. 33:22 when he said: "Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan." The city of the lion (Laish) was located in the ancient province of Bashan, in the territory of Lebanon. According to that same chapter, the Danites established an idolatrous religion -- the worship of the sun and moon, with the summation given in Judges 29:30. According to the story, the tribe of Dan moved into Lebanon and lived there for at least the next 600 years. In the year 721 B.C. the Assyrians took the northern ten tribes captive. Though there is no historical documents to prove that the tribe moved westward into Europe, there are some interesting possibilities. According to the "World Book Encyclopedia", the Celts, in 400 B.C. divided Ireland into small kingdoms called tuatha. Celtic mythology claims that the most important race was the "Tuatha de Danann, or People of the Goddess Danu". There is also a legend written about the son of Belus, king of the Spartans -- in which is given the story of one named "Danaus", who arrived in Greece with his daughters by ship. According to the legend, his daughters called themselves Danades. They introduced the cult of the mother goddess, which became the religion of the Arcadians and developed over the years into the worship of Diana. (Diana may even be another form of "Dan".) The Spartans so loved their king that they called themselves Danaans -- long before they adopted the name of Spartans. Also in the legend is a record of the arrival of "colonists from Palestine", and again -- the expedition was headed by a man named Danaus. In the apocryphal book of 1Maccabees there is an account about the Spartans of southern Greece -- claiming that they were related to the Jewish people and were, in fact, of the stock of Abraham. A letter from the king of the Spartans to the Jewish high priest in Jerusalem: "It has been discovered in a document concerning the Spartans and Jews that they are brothers, and are of the race of Abraham" (1Macabees 12:21). Continued in another post. |
||||||
102 | I agree, but I also have a question | Revelation | There | 18754 | ||
Seventh Day Adventist. | ||||||
103 | I agree, but I also have a question | Revelation | There | 18719 | ||
Okay, I understand what you mean. I'm afraid I have done some "discussing" with SDA's in the recent past and wondered if your opinion of "overcoming on the Lord's day" had something to do with Sabbath keeping. It's refeshing to hear that it isn't. | ||||||
104 | A husband's responsibility | 1 Tim 5:8 | There | 18701 | ||
My opinion of Proverbs 31 is similar to yours. I believe a "virtuous wife" is one that is "a wise steward of her husband's money and goods" and also is a dependable worker in caring for her family... not lazy. She also has a kind and generous heart, and loves God. When this subject came up... I went blank. I've never had anyone "question" this part of a husband's responsibility before... using the Bible! So I certainly appreciate your help. There |
||||||
105 | A husband's responsibility | 1 Tim 5:8 | There | 18700 | ||
Hi Lionstrong, I'm not really sure HOW his thinking goes in the case of Genesis 3, but my "guess" is that he's going strictly by "in the sweat of your face (hard word) YOU shall eat bread". Like I said, though it is a guess. His way of thinking hasn't made much sense to me either. Thank you for the scripture!! It's very much appreciated. There |
||||||
106 | A husband's responsibility | Not Specified | There | 18676 | ||
Could any and all of you please provide sciptures that explain a husband is to "provide for" (work to support) his wife and children? Please feel free to make comments too. Just for the record, the "husband" in question uses Proverbs 31:16-31 to say a wife is to financially support herself, children, and home. And he uses Genesis 3:17-19 to say that God only tells man to support himself. |
||||||
107 | A husband's responsibility | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18681 | ||
Could any and all of you please provide sciptures that explain a husband is to "provide for" (work to support) his wife and children? Please feel free to make comments too. Just for the record, the "husband" in question uses Proverbs 31:16-31 to say a wife is to financially support herself, children, and home. And he uses Genesis 3:17-19 to say that God only tells man to support himself. |
||||||
108 | A husband's responsibility | 1 Tim 5:8 | There | 18679 | ||
Could any and all of you please provide sciptures that explain a husband is to "provide for" (work to support) his wife and children? Please feel free to make comments too. Just for the record, the "husband" in question uses Proverbs 31:16-31 to say a wife is to financially support herself, children, and home. And he uses Genesis 3:17-19 to say that God only tells man to support himself. |
||||||
109 | A husband's responsibility | 1 Tim 5:8 | There | 18684 | ||
Could any and all of you please provide sciptures that explain a husband is to "provide for" (work to support) his wife and children? Please feel free to make comments too. Just for the record, the "husband" in question uses Proverbs 31:16-31 to say a wife is to financially support herself, children, and home. And he uses Genesis 3:17-19 to say that God only tells man to support himself. |
||||||
110 | God's wrath tribulational. | Revelation | There | 18663 | ||
The book "The Sign" by Robert Van Kampen is very good too. Also very intense reading! | ||||||
111 | I agree, but I also have a question | Revelation | There | 18595 | ||
I agree with that position. Except what do you mean by "This is to those of the churches which overcome on 'the lord's day'"? | ||||||
112 | WHY WAS JESUS | John 11:15 | There | 18306 | ||
Ray, just for the record I DON'T have a cold and I still had to read your post several times. Tonight I "finally" understood what you meant. :):) I DO have those days... And I agree. I think it is that revelation, that Jesus was not just man (small "m"), but also GOD Himself, that initially shocked me to the core of my being!! It still amazes me that HE could love ME enough to die on that cross. Since I see many lovable qualities in others, I could understand the cross for them. But for myself... well... I know exactly what the Lord saved me from. And I know I don't deserve it one bit. Tonight I read a verse that touched my heart in kind of a special way. It was 1John 5:13. The part that struck me was the last part "and that you may continue to believe in the NAME of the Son of God." The name. The name isn't just a word. When you say the name you are speaking a word that totally encompasses WHO God is. And the word "Jesus" means "JHWH-saves". "Emmanuel" means "JHWH with us". Not just God, but totally and completely GOD. He was with us in the form of the Christ, and He is the one who saves. His righteousness and His mercy are showing in every bit of His NAME. I suppose I'm off subject here, but for the past year He has been impressing on me that He will teach me something about His NAME... and I've been a rather slow learner. All this while it has seemed like what He wanted me to learn was just out of my reach. Like a child reaching for a cookie just out of their reach, the tip of the finger brushing the edge. Tonight I finally was able to lay the palm of my hand on the "cookie". How magnificent is the name of the Lord!! |
||||||
113 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18291 | ||
Thanks for clarifying those points. I still dread a "limit" being placed on the number of answers. I know I enjoy (look forward) to any and all replies that I get. To me that is "discussion". But I do understand that a mountain of responses may not be that enjoyable for everyone else, OR for new visitors coming to the forum. Anyway, thanks for elaborating! |
||||||
114 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18224 | ||
I know that Steve, but until I met Jesus... I didn't know it was true. UNTIL someone is born of the Holy Spirit, they can only "see" from a totally human perspective. I didn't mean that "truth" itself is relative. Only that as people what we perceive as truth is relative to our perspective. If we are looking from only man's perspective, then we could perceive anything we wanted as truth. (Such as your Muslim friends and the Koran.) But if we are looking from a godly perspective (through the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit), we will perceive "all truth" which is God Himself. (And of course that includes His Word too!) | ||||||
115 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18223 | ||
Absolutely! | ||||||
116 | Body/soul/spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18222 | ||
Hi Bill, I've been sharing my "understanding" too, and I'm not sure which parts I have "right". I'm sure that point comes across. #4 in your post seems feasible, but to some degree it creates even more questions for me. That happens a lot I'm afraid. :):) As to #4, I do agree that "God designed man not to be autonimous but dependent upon God's Spirit (spiritual life) in Him". But if Adam was created with God's Spirit within him, then I would have two questions to start with. 1. Why would God put the "tree of life" in the garden with Adam... if He already had that "life"? 2) Then it would seem that we who are "born of the Spirit" could also lose or have God's Spirit removed from us for sinning just as Adam did. Yet God gives the Holy Spirit as a surety or earnest toward the completion of our salvation (2Cor. 1:22, 5:5; Eph. 1:14) [earnest - 728 "arrhabon" a pledge, i.e. part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest.] So I'm not sure that Adam was given anything different than we were except that his "soul"(mind) reflected or resembled God at it's creation because it had never sinned. Ours doesn't, until it is born of the Spirit. Of course that thought could bring up questions possibly about an "age of reason" or "sins of the fathers" too. :) #3 though seems understandable to me. To me there are definitely 3 separate parts to man -- body/spirit/soul. My reason for saying this: 1) the body is dust and will return to dust. 2) the spirit which is immortal will return to God who gave it. [immortal is included in the meaning of the word 4151] 3) the soul (spirit of the mind - concordance also mentions "spirit") of an un-saved person will not return or go to God at a person's death. Only if it is "born of the Spirit" can it go to God. Since God "breathed into" Adam once, I assume the complete spirit package came to Adam at one time. THE spirit (of life) and the spirit of the mind (soul). Which is why I see a connection. An example to explain what I mean. If I have an orange in my hand... the whole thing is an orange. If I remove a slice from the orange, the remainder PLUS the slice are still "orange". Neither will be "whole", but they are still both "orange". And I think the spirit is kind of like that too. God gave man a spirit. A part of that spirit is the soul. PART but not the exact same thing. Another reason I think THE spirit and the soul(mind) of man are connected is that God's Word is the only thing that can divide the two. If they were not "together", they could not be divided at all. So my thoughts go like this. If God made Adam's spirit (of life)[THE spirit] "in His image", then it(spirit and soul/mind) would automatically return to God at a person's death whether or not it was "re-born". ('the spirit will return to God who gave it') Since it is the "spirit" of the mind that must be renewed, it makes sense to me that the soul(mind) which is spirit is the part that would need to be born again, or "renewed in the knowledge according to the image of Him who created him". That renewal, or new birth of the spirit of our mind is the only way man can reflect the image of God. ["image" of God actually means "resemblance" or "representative" of God.] So those are a few of my thoughts on this. God bless. |
||||||
117 | Did Adam die from eating forbidden fruit | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18142 | ||
Oops!! I didn't mean to post it twice! | ||||||
118 | Did Adam die from eating forbidden fruit | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18140 | ||
Adam's soul no longer "reflected" the image of God, and was therefore "dead" toward God. God could not have simply meant physical death, because in Gen. 3:17-19 God was not cursing Adam to phsyical death. God was saying that you will now have to work to survive UNTIL you die. The "curse" was that Adam would now have to work to survive. Gen. 1:17-19 "... Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In sweat of your face you shall eat bread TILL YOU RETURN TO THE GROUND, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Along with the verses that speak of "renewing the soul" to the knowledge of God, there are other passages that mention the opposite, a soul not alive toward God. Eph. 2:1 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." Col. 2:13 "And you, being dead in your trespasses... He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses..." Eph. 4:18 "... having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart..." The word dead in those verses (3498) means "dead". Unlike the word "dead" when used in "dead (599) to sin" which actually means the "process of dying". |
||||||
119 | Did Adam die from eating forbidden fruit | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18139 | ||
Adam's soul no longer "reflected" the image of God, and was therefore "dead" toward God. God could not have simply meant physical death, because in Gen. 3:17-19 God was not cursing Adam to phsyical death. God was saying that you will now have to work to survive UNTIL you die. The "curse" was that Adam would now have to work to survive. Gen. 1:17-19 "... Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In sweat of your face you shall eat bread TILL YOU RETURN TO THE GROUND, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Along with the verses that speak of "renewing the soul" to the knowledge of God, there are other passages that mention the opposite, a soul not alive toward God. Eph. 2:1 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." Col. 2:13 "And you, being dead in your trespasses... He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses..." Eph. 4:18 "... having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart..." The word dead in those verses (3498) means "dead". Unlike the word "dead" when used in "dead (599) to sin" which actually means the "process of dying". |
||||||
120 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18127 | ||
Steve, to them... it would be true. Simply because man's perceptions of TRUTH are interpretive unless we have the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit. God the Creator, Jesus is TRUTH. And I don't believe we can come into "all truth" without being born-again by His Spirit. The point I was trying to make was that UNTIL I met Jesus personally, He too was not "real to me", but only a form of religious teaching from an old book. It was after meeting Him and knowing Him that Jesus and the "old book" became alive for me... in my words --- it became "real for me". I said that I agree with all the points previously stated including those you mentioned that "prove" the bible to be true and inspired by God. Yet UNTIL I met the Lord myself, I would not have recognized biblical truth. And since Muslims deny Jesus as the Son of God, they can not have the Lord Himself as their teacher of "all truth". Instead their perception of truth stems from the false teachings in the Koran perpetrated through Mohammad who was only the pawn of mere men. His teachings could not bear up under scrutiny of the Holy Spirit of God. So "if your Muslim friends say the Koran truths are "real" to them, does that make the Koran true?" Of course not. What it does mean is that they are blinded to "all truth" which is only found in Christ Jesus. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [12] >> |