Results 121 - 140 of 420
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79818 | ||
. |
||||||
122 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79841 | ||
. | ||||||
123 | Who were the people in the land of Nod? | Gen 4:16 | Radioman2 | 76057 | ||
What book, chapter and verse of the Bible says that there were people already in the Land of Nod when Cain was sent there? | ||||||
124 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Radioman2 | 80186 | ||
"Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." - - - - - - - - - - The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
125 | Gen.6:2"sons of God"... | Gen 6:2 | Radioman2 | 83798 | ||
"Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." - - - - - - - - - - The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
126 | can someone explain Gen 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Radioman2 | 91794 | ||
Gen 6:1-4 the 'godly line' of Seth "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
127 | can someone explain Gen 6:2? | Gen 6:2 | Radioman2 | 91797 | ||
Gen 6:1-4 fallen angels 'Gen 6:2 "the sons of God saw the daughters of men." The sons of God, identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), saw and took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Gen. 2:24). 'Some have argued that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who cohabited with the daughters of Cain; others suggest they were perhaps human kings wanting to build harems. But the passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs. human contrast. The NT places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving FALLEN ANGELS WHO INDWELT MEN. 'Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had TO POSSESS HUMAN, MALE BODIES.' (note at Gen 6:2, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word Publishing, emphasis added) |
||||||
128 | Was Melchesedek Jesus ? | Gen 14:1 | Radioman2 | 83789 | ||
Question: Was Melchizedek Jesus ? Short Answer: No, Melchizedek is/was not Jesus. Full answer: Following are two of the best online references to answer your question that I found. (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Encyclopedias/CondensedBiblicalCyclopedia/) At this website click on the word "Melchizedek". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/) At his website, click on Hebrews, then click on Chapter 7. |
||||||
129 | What did God first call Himself? | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78629 | ||
So what are you saying? That YHWH, the name used almost 7,000 times in the Bible, is NOT really God's name? That it's just a man-made nickname? I'm sorry, but this doesn't even make any sense. In Genesis chapters 4 and 12 it does not say that people CALLED him YHWH. It says they began to CALL UPON THE NAME of YHWH. Where do you think they got the name -- that they just made it up? Do your research. Man called God YHWH because that is his name. Do you understand that? |
||||||
130 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78896 | ||
You write: "If He DID NOT MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN BY HIS NAME how WAS IT KNOWN TO THE PATRIARCHS?" You tell me. You're the one who is saying that the name YHWH was unknown to the patriarchs, even though I have shown you in Genesis that the patriarchs did call upon the name of YHWH. So indeed, "if He DID NOT MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN BY HIS NAME how WAS IT KNOWN TO THE PATRIARCHS?" You tell me. This is a question that is left unanswered by you, not by me. "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected." OK, if the name YHWH was not known until Exodus, then you tell me: How is it that men called upon the name of YHWH in Gen. 4:26, 8:12, and 13:4? How are they to call on him of whom they have never heard? One of two things must be true: a) Either the passages in Genesis that speak of men calling upon the name of YHWH are untrue, in error and not a legitimate part of the inspired scriptures; or b) Exodus 6:3 is not to be taken in an overly wooden literal sense, but must be interpreted in light of other scriptures that address the same issue. Which is it -- a) or b)? We have to compare scripture with scripture and apply a little common sense to its interpretation. Otherwise, we are left with unexplainable contradictions between various verses of scripture. Re-interpreting or changing the meaning of a number of verses of scripture to fit one's own interpretation of a single verse is not applying sound principles of interpretation. Rather it is precisely what the Jehovah's Witnesses do to prove their heretical points. |
||||||
131 | Radioman - What did God say in Exo 6:3? | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78921 | ||
The name YHWH appears approximately 169 times in the book of Genesis alone. Yet you take the position that no one ever heard of it or used it until the time of Moses (i.e., until the book of Exodus). The name YHWH appears nearly 7,000 times in the OT. Yet you imply that it is just another one of many names and titles. That it has no particular significance. That there is nothing to distinguish it from all the other names and titles of God. God did not announce his name YHWH until Exodus? He announced it to Abram. Genesis 15:7-8 (ESV) And he (God) said to him (Abram), "I am the LORD (Hebrew YHWH) who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess." [8] But he said, "O LORD (Hebrew YHWH) GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" He announced it to Hagar, Sarai's maid. Genesis 16:11 (ESV) And the angel of the Lord said to her, "Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD (Hebrew YHWH) has listened to your affliction." |
||||||
132 | Why are they called 'men?' | Gen 18:16 | Radioman2 | 88666 | ||
Then the men (Strong's #0376, Heb. "'iysh", definition "men") rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. (NASB Genesis 18:16) | ||||||
133 | Angels appear as men. | Gen 18:22 | Radioman2 | 88667 | ||
Then the men (Strong's #0376, Heb. "'iysh", definition "men") turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD. (NASB Genesis 18:22) Compare NASB Genesis 18:2. When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, |
||||||
134 | Why does Lot call them, 'my brothers?' | Gen 19:7 | Radioman2 | 88670 | ||
Thomas8: Welcome to the Forum! I offer the following guidelines in the hope that you will find them useful. Radioman2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Many, if not most, of the questions posted here could be answered by the questioner himself/herself, using the following principles: 1) Use a concordance to look it up in the Bible. 2) Read your Bible. 3) Be willing to obey every teaching you find; it is God speaking to you. 4) Use an English dictionary. 5) Use a Bible dictionary. 6) By all means, look up the center column (cross) references in your Bible. 7) Remember that: We must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF, ANY INTERPRETATION OF A SPECIFIC PASSAGE THAT CONTRADICTS THE GENERAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS TO BE REJECTED. (Note: in the preceding sentence, it is the contradictory INTERPRETATION that is to be rejected, not the passage itself.) 8) Respect the silence of the Bible regarding any question on which the Bible is silent. In other words, avoid speculation. 9) Christ has given to the church pastors and teachers. One need not re-invent the wheel. Instead, consult translations, commentaries and God-given pastors and teachers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recommended Bible Study Tools Online: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Encyclopedias/CondensedBiblicalCyclopedia/ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/ |
||||||
135 | Did Lot have any sons? | Gen 19:12 | Radioman2 | 88671 | ||
Genesis 19:12 (ESV) Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. Genesis 19:14 (ESV) So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the Lord is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. Genesis 19:36-38 (ESV) Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. [37] The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. [38] The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day. "Did Lot have any sons?" Apparently not -- at least not that we can ascertain by reading Genesis chapter 19. |
||||||
136 | WILL WE HAVE FULL MEMORY OF THE PAST IN | Gen 25:8 | Radioman2 | 86497 | ||
The Bible does not say that our memories will be erased in heaven. The following, while not directly addressing your question, is, nevertheless, related to it. ____________________ 'Will we recognize and be reunited with our loved ones in heaven? 'Yes! In the Old Testament, when a person died, the biblical writers said he was "gathered to his people" (cf. Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:29; Num. 20:24; Judg. 2:10). In 2 Samuel 12, when David's infant child died, David confidently said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (v. 23). David evidently expected to see the child again-not just a nameless, faceless soul without an identity, but that very child. 'The New Testament indicates even more clearly that our identities will remain unchanged. While sharing the Passover meal with His disciples, Christ said, "Take this [cup] and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:17-18). Christ was promising that He and His disciples would drink the fruit of the vine together again-in heaven. Elsewhere Jesus makes a similar, but even more definite, promise: "Many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11). 'Furthermore, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Even though they died centuries before, they still maintained a clear identity (Matt. 17:3) -- Peter, James, and John evidently recognized them (v. 4), which implies that we will somehow be able to recognize people we've never even seen before. All the redeemed will maintain their identity forever, but in a perfected form.' To read the rest of this article, go to: (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven8.htm) |
||||||
137 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Radioman2 | 76127 | ||
The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58 'Let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:. 'The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment: '"I have been equals ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX" 'The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58. 'In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position. (...) 'If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them. 'Conclusion 'The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity. 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.' ___________ 1 New World Translation, 1961, page 5. 2 I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says. WE WorldWide English Bible YLT Young's Literal Translation KJ21 21st Century King James Version CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS and RESEARCH MINISTRY (To read the entire article, go to: http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm) |
||||||
138 | What do you think "visit" exactly means? | Ex 20:5 | Radioman2 | 88973 | ||
visit (definition) -- AVENGE (visited the sins of the fathers upon the children) (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
139 | holy Spirit?Please consider holy spirit | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103486 | ||
Ray: Good to hear from you, brother. Regarding your question on capitalization, I honestly do not have an opinion one way or the other. It's just something I haven't studied or thought about. But, I will consider what you asked me to consider. Thanks for sharing your insights. God bless and keep you, Radioman2 |
||||||
140 | Why Jews are always persecuted? | Ex 22:21 | Radioman2 | 81984 | ||
blinkie8: Why are the Jews always the ones to be persecuted? Basically, it is because true adherents to Judaism have always stood for righteousness. The world hates righteousness. Therefore, the world has throughout history persecuted Jewish people. The user Acts 22 has given an excellent, accurate answer to your question. He is to be commended. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [21] >> |