Results 101 - 120 of 362
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: keliy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | keliy | 221714 | ||
The publication "Creation, Chaos, and Restoration" should be looked at with a great deal of discretion, because I have found this teaching of the 'Gap' theory to undermine the Word of God.. Angels definitely are created beings, and are part of the universe that God created. Ezra tells us, "You are the Lord, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heaven, with all their host.....and the host of heaven worships you." (Neh 9:6; cf Psa148:2,5). Paul includes the angels among that which was created through Christ and for him: Visible and invisible whether thrones or dominions or principalities and authorities (Col 1:16) But the GAP theory teaches that the angels were upon earth prior to the human race, and left behind a damaged environment which needed to be restored. This is reading into scripture ideas of man that deny the accuracy of, or are simply not supported in God's Word. Such as Gen 1:31 when God saw everything He had made, and said it was very good. What this means is that even the angelic world that had been created did not have evil angels or demons in it at that time. Therefore sometime between the events of Gen 1:31 and 3:1 there must have been a type of rebellion with angels that turned against God and became evil. Then came Eve's deception in the Garden, through the serpent who was undermining God's Word, as he said. "hath God really said....?" Please do not fall into the clutches of this same deceptive practice which can only come from the enemy. In Him, keliy |
||||||
102 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | keliy | 221719 | ||
Thanks doc, for clearing that up. Call me cynical, but it is I who am somewhat critical against scientists. Philosophers, geologists, etc. I have had times when they have been like thorns in my side so I think they are overrated as a profession. I hold no grudge against any personally, of course. There is just too much garbage being taught as fact in schools and in media such as PBS that it has left a bad taste in my mouth. My apologies to the profession, keliy |
||||||
103 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | keliy | 221733 | ||
CDBJ, I know you are very strong in your belief about this teaching, but what I said in my post was, "Angels definitely are created beings, and are part of the universe that God created" Then, I said that God said all was good, "very good" at the end of His creation process. Hoth was kind enough to list the verses for us, or six of them anyway. God said that He saw that it was good once each day for the six days, and then He said it again, in the end for the seventh time. (I just like that number 7) So this is the reason that I said there was no evil angels prior to Gen 1:31. God said at that point that everything was good. I do not doubt that there were angels. But my understanding of the Bible says that at the end of Gen 1, Everything God had created was all good. That makes it quite clear that the Lucifer's flood theory is nothing more than another heretical teaching. I will ask you to stop undermining the Word of God on this Forum. |
||||||
104 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | keliy | 221737 | ||
What's up, doc? Are you saying that age or length of history allows one to violate the terms of use? Shall I truckle over to his doctrines for that reason alone? Should God's word take a back seat to age? I tried to straighten him out as to what my post said earlier but he continued to push his heretical views. He read my post with little spurious effort and he deserved what he got. I am not sorry for asking him to go elsewhere. |
||||||
105 | Did God bless the beasts as well | Gen 1:25 | keliy | 213430 | ||
Hello Azure, I enjoy your questions because they provoke me to explore areas of my musty mind that are not visited often enough (-; As Christians we are called to live according to God's Kingdom standards. These standards are best exemplified in Jesus' Sermon on the mount where He states, in part: "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin..." Matt 6:26,28 I would presume that you are multilingual, and as such, you know that no language translates perfectly into any other language. Being flexible, language is as much an art as it is science. Let's take a quick look at the verses you mention: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed (naphach) into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh). Now, I do not want to connect myself with some religious group that proclaims spirituality in animals, but since dogs breathe, do they have their own spirits (ruwach)? I do believe that dogs have a soul (nephesh) because I have observed something in dogs that very much resembles a conscience. We could look next at the word 'blessed' (barak) which means to bring joy to, or to make one happy. But it could also mean 'adore', so I would say yes, God does blessingly adore humans and also animals. I believe God did bless all animals, but not with the same measure that He gave to mankind. He provides for all creatures but He also appointed humans as stewards of the environment that contains animals. As appointed stewards we neglect God when we pollute the land, the water, and devalue the animals. What does that mean in terms of who we are as God's children?" This is a responsibility discussed much too little in the church. "I think we owe it to God to learn as much as we can and make good choices towards His blessed animals. Lord Bless keliy |
||||||
106 | creation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220930 | ||
Hi Rick, It is my conviction that if we are not able to accept the first 3 chapters of Genesis as God's account of history, then we must throw out the entire Bible. Where does it end? who are we to decide where God is fact and where He is fiction? To read Genesis as a "Picture" leaves the whole account wide open to interpretation. What follows then, is that we have as many interpretations as we have viewers of this 'picture'. This actually does nothing towards addressing the poster's question. -That is, if we all just used our imagination to answer questions, what is to stop anyone else from doing the same? I certainly do not want to appear as if the SBF is ganging up against you, but in genuine concern, it troubles me that people can pit their own limited knowledge against God's infinite wisdom. So. are you a conservative? humanist? or post-modernist? Please fill us in. It helps us to know how to answer. Lord bless you and yours. Note to JacobP: It is my firm understanding that The seven days of the creation account were literally seven, twenty-four hour periods. |
||||||
107 | creation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220932 | ||
There are many false teachers out there, who teach that days are to God as a thousand years, and like the JW's, like to use 2Pet 3:8 as their prooftext, which says, But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. There are teachers of the 'gap' theory, the 'pre-adamic race' and on and on. There are seven earth days in the creation account and actually there is nothing in God's Holy Word that can lead us into thinking anything different. grace, and peace. |
||||||
108 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220938 | ||
Hi Rick, Actually, there was a qualifier in there, read the "if" and you will understand that getting rid of the Bible is the farthest thing from my mind. We will be judged for our interpretation, you are correct. We are also commanded to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." In this verse, 2Tim 2:15, Paul is urging us all to teach the truth directly and correctly. To cut the word straight. Following on a straight path, the equivalent of acting correctly. These words are meant to encourage ministers as well as all Christians, and with the companion verse, 2Tim 3:16, paints a clear picture of how we are to interpret and how we are to handle personal interpretations: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." There are those who call themselves Christians that actually use verses out of the Bible to promote same-sex marriage. (That is not what I call instruction in righteousness) -Can you see the danger of incorrect interpretations? When satan tempted our LORD in the desert, he used a partial qoutation in the Word of God as an attempt to thwart God's plan for our salvation. Can you see the danger in mishandling the Word? Thank you for studying with us here, may we all become enriched and draw closer to God's truth through our conversation. |
||||||
109 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220963 | ||
I find the Gk. word for interpret in 1Cr 12:30 to be diermeneuo definition: 1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound 2) to translate into one's native language Nothing about freely interpreting, but thank you for your heart in this matter. I do enjoy your presence here and hope to continue. Being somewhat new here, Rick, you are in a slight learning curve, and one thing you will find is that free interpretation is just not accepted as well as formal interpretation. I agree with the ones who think formal is better. Lord Bless |
||||||
110 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220964 | ||
Thank you for the Hebrew, Rick. |
||||||
111 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220972 | ||
Thank you Rick, I appreciate your comments as being forthright, and I feel that when you have given personal interpretations, you have labeled them as such. Therefore I enjoy conversations with you, because we are all here to learn and grow, and this is exactly what I am doing here. You asked about what I call a 'free' interpretation, and what this falls under is the paraphrase category. Please let me explain myself. Many people today think that a good translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation. If the original has a noun, then there is a noun in the translation. If the verse has six words, they don't want to see seven words in the translation. This method of translation is referred to as literal, or "formal equivalence." The King James, old American Standard, and the New American Standard are found near the formal end, where a literal translation would be the very end. On the other hand is a more free translation, what is referred to as a "dynamic equivalent". This is not as concerned with the grammar of the original, as it is with the basic gist, or the essence of the original. A dynamic equivalent is more interpretive, which makes it easier to read. One major complaint with this style is that it leaves too much open to the convictions of the interpretors. The New International Version and the New English Bible fall into this category. At the far free end of the spectrum are what is often called 'paraphrased'. These throw out grammatical rules and simply convert the text on a thought-for-thought basis. These include the Good News Bible, and the like. For an instance of how this type of interpretation can be damaging, let's look at Hebrews 1:3 and see who the translation says Jesus actually is. The KJV (formal equivalent) reads, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; And the NIV (Dynamic equivalent) has it: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Now for the free end of the spectrum. The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English. GNT says, (parenthesis mine throughout) "He reflects the brightness of God's glory (!) and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. Here is the RSV, He reflects the glory of God (!) and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. And this is the New Century Version: The Son reflects the glory of God (!) and shows exactly what God is like.(!) He holds everything together with his powerful word. Now, the paraphrase versions are dangerously free, because they change the description of Christ. If Christ is a reflection of God's glory, then He has no glory of His own. This makes Christ to be to God, as the moon is to the sun. The sun is the light, and the moon gives off no light but reflects the light from the sun. Is this how we want to portray Christ to an unbeliever who is seeking answers? This will only lead to confusion. God is not an author of confusion but the enemy uses this as an arrow in his quiver. A college professor used to say, "The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded!" Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU. |
||||||
112 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220973 | ||
Hi Rick, I am hoping that you understand my gist here, and that you are not experiencing too much friction in this thread. This goes back to the belief that the entire Bible is the infallible word of God. This is in the SBF doctrinal statement I reiterate: If we cannot accept the account of creation as related by God in Genesis, then we cannot trust anything in the entire Bible Is this not how this thread got from creation to interpretation? |
||||||
113 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | keliy | 220978 | ||
Thanks for your response Rick. I appreciate your heart for the Word even if we disagree on the symbolism in Genesis. (-; I do not think that symbolism should be a divisive issue, it's just a personal election, such as: I happen to be against infant baptism but I know many fine Christians who do espouse that doctrine, and I believe that God is probably laughing at us for the personal investments we make into these implicit issues. Also, when I was first saved, I had a hard time with the KJV. So, I had a class where I took a GNT along with a study Bible in KJV. That is how I grew to understand the semantic shifts such as suffer means permit, and so on. So what is comfortable for one may not be for someone else who is on a different spiritual level. We will find out soon enough when it will all become obvious. "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1Cr (13:12) But until then, all we have is faith, hope, and love. Lord bless you and yours. |
||||||
114 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213408 | ||
Shalom Azure, I will try to not only answer the 'academic side' of your post, but I am feeling that there also is an underlying essence that could be addressed. In Gen 2:23, Adam called her "woman" -having being made from "man." (in Hebrew the term for woman is "Isha", a derivative of the name for man "Ish"). That name defined the TYPE of being she was, a "woman". The number 802 in Strong's is actually, ishshah. "woman" He then named her Eve after God expelled them from Eden. (Genesis 3:20) This name he gave her, ( Hebrew, Chava ), means "giver or source of life". It was at this time Adam identified the God-given ROLE that Eve/ Chava would have, namely to be the mother of all humankind. The number 2332 in Strong's is actually, Chavvah, "life giver" btw, The Hebrew (qara) is the word translated as called, and also as named. I would answer your first question in the negative, Was Eve subordinate to Adam only after the Fall, Because God commanded Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit before Eve came on the scene. This would point to Eve's subordination to Adam before the fall. Your second query could be answered in the positive, but with clarification. 'Did Adam's action of giving name to Eve signify his ruling power over her' No, for the reason Adam was doing the same thing he did for all the animals, he named them all. So I am not sure if I agree with your choice of words, 'ruling power'. I would say that God was the ruler, and his directives to Eve would be falling under his submission to God. He was never meant to have a despotic reign. Our God is however a God of order, not chaos. 1Cor 11:3 clears up any confusion as to authority, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. So, as Adam was first, that would necessarily place Eve in a position to obey Adam's authority, as being a helper to him, -but. My feelings are that since they were both to become one flesh, This means to me equal, yet separate. So, 'ruling power' just seems a little harsh. In Him, keliy |
||||||
115 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213411 | ||
Shalom pastor Beja, I would like to comment on some details in your post, if I may. In reading your words, I see that you refer to 1Cor 11:8 as a highly disputed passage. ( I agree, and think how these verses are played out may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction) -Although God's word is very clear. But I see the basis for man's authority going beyond what you have mentioned in verse 8. Near the end of Gen 2, when God formed every kind of animal and bird, He brought them to Adam to choose a name for each one. This was prior to woman ever being mentioned. What this says to me is that God had a relationship with man, and He bestowed upon this man a knowledge of His will. So, this actually is saying less about who was 'older' per se, but brings into play the rank of the 'firstborn' and the relationship that the firstborn has with the father. It is the same reason that I see for why a woman is not allowed to have authority over man. It is no different with my older brother, and I would be wrong to try to exercise misplaced authority over him (not that I never try ;o) And it actually has less to do with gender, because I have an older sister too, and I defer to her out of respect, without feeling that I am disobeying Paul's command. This has nothing to do with the fall, or the creation, but as you said, Paul was setting forth what took place in creation prior to the fall. Just my viewpoint, and I thought I would add a little 'flavor' to your post. blessings, keliy |
||||||
116 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213412 | ||
Shalom pastor Beja, I would like to comment on some details in your post, if I may. In reading your words, I see that you refer to 1Cor 11:8 as a highly disputed passage. ( I agree, and think how these verses are played out may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction) -Although God's word is very clear. But I see the basis for man's authority going beyond what you have mentioned in verse 8. Near the end of Gen 2, when God formed every kind of animal and bird, He brought them to Adam to choose a name for each one. This was prior to woman ever being mentioned. What this says to me is that God had a relationship with man, and He bestowed upon this man a knowledge of His will. So, this actually is saying less about who was 'older' per se, but brings into play the rank of the 'firstborn' and the relationship that the firstborn has with the father. It is the same reason that I see for why a woman is not allowed to have authority over man. It is no different with my older brother, and I would be wrong to try to exercise misplaced authority over him (not that I never try ;o) And it actually has less to do with gender, because I have an older sister too, and I defer to her out of respect, without feeling that I am disobeying Paul's command. This has nothing to do with the fall, or the creation, but as you said, Paul was setting forth what took place in creation prior to the fall. Just my viewpoint, and I thought I would add a little 'flavor' to your post. blessings, keliy |
||||||
117 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213414 | ||
Yes, Thank you Beja. Your original post was clear,and now it is further defined. Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
118 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | keliy | 213417 | ||
Thank you, Azure. No, I never pictured you as a feminist. (0: I guess what I was trying to say, was that your choice of words "ruling power" somehow rubbed me wrong. I guess you are right in the rule sense, but it is not with power that Adam possessed in himself, but he was to rule through the power that he received from God. Does this make more sense? We can relate this to king Solomon, who was offered anything he could possibly desire by God. Yet the one thing he asked for was the wisdom to rule God's people. -I think that was a request containing much wisdom, don't you? (o; joyful blessings, keliy |
||||||
119 | # of years from creation till flood | Gen 5:5 | keliy | 221008 | ||
From the studies of the genealogy, which is considered complete and with no omissions, the time between the creation of Adam and the flood of Noah has been calculated to be almost exactly 1656 years. | ||||||
120 | Triplets? | Gen 5:32 | keliy | 214637 | ||
Hello Vintage, My feelings are that I have to disagree with Searcher on this one, sorry Searcher. In Gen vs 32, there is the connecting word 'and' that bring together two events that were otherwise very possibly unrelated. Again, just my view, but the verse tells us Noah's age, AND that he fathered 3 sons. Again my viewpoint tells me that Noah was not 500 years old when he had his first child. These three names are brought up separately, because our Lord separated these three, each for their own special purpose and destiny. Namely, to father three nations of mankind. The lists of names of fathers and sons were preserved only for the Jews alone, meaning Shem, especially, and this for the sake of the Messiah. Now, I don't know about the others, but Shem was 100 when he gave birth to his son two years after the flood. (Gen 11:10) This would mean that Shem was born when Noah was 502. Now back to Searcher, I do not disagree with you entirely, for there is no conclusive evidence that the three were not triplets. But, by the same token, one could possibly argue that Cain and Able were twins. -As this has been done by the famously false, prophet Branham. Blessings to you, keliy |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [19] >> |