Results 141 - 160 of 3591
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:28 | BradK | 231803 | ||
Hi MJH, Thanks for the request to provide input on this matter. Hopefully I can offer something that will clarify for you. I’m not sure what “issues” you are struggling with on this text- other than translation? The NASB reads, “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. “ The passage does seem to clearly describe a rape. In fact, The Bible Knowledge Commentary notes, “A man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce. This protected, to a degree, the girl’s honor and assured her (and her child if she became pregnant from the rape) permanent support. This stipulation may also have served as a deterrent against rape since the man would have to live with that woman for the rest of his life.” The context is in giving the laws concerning sexual immorality to Israel. I do not believe the Church (the body of Christ) is in view here. The interpretive question I ask is this: Is this passage Descriptive or Prescriptive? Is it merely describing a possible (unfortunate) circumstance that could occur to the Israelites and how to handle it; Or is it Prescribing action to be taken for all times by all people? I believe it to be descriptive in nature. So, the passage is not (IMO) related specifically as instruction for us. As the Commentary Critical observes, “The regulations that follow might be imperatively needful in the then situation of the Israelites; and yet, it is not necessary that we should curiously and impertinently inquire into them. So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things upon record, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of His wisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and so given to irregular passions. Nor is it a better argument that the Scriptures were not written by inspiration of God to object that this passage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imagination and will be abused by evil-disposed readers, than it is to say that the sun was not created by God, because its light may be abused by wicked men as an assistant in committing crimes which they have meditated [HORNE].” I hope this helps to answer your question. BradK |
||||||
142 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:28 | BradK | 231795 | ||
Hello tomay777, Welcome to the Forum. I'm curious as to the basis behind your statement, "Remember when you uncover something like this which seems like a contradiction, rejoice for there is a hidden meaning behind it."? A few questions then follow: What method of interpretation are you subscribing to? Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? Don't "seeming" contradictions fall under the analogy of faith? That is, we compare the more clear passages of scripture from which to derive our meaning and understanding of those less clear? Here the Westmister Confession reads, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.(2 Pet. 1:20,21; Acts 15:15,16)" What about the Perspicuity of scripture-by that I mean scripture is clear enough for the average person to read and understand it? The Westminster Confession tells us, "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;(1) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(2 Pet. 3:16; Psalm 119:105,130)" Just some thoughts on your reply:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
143 | the two discoveries in these verses? | 2 Tim 2:15 | BradK | 231744 | ||
Hi Phillip, My two questions are: Is this a test question, and have you read the verses? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
144 | What transpired when Jesus went to hell | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 231727 | ||
Hello jancu, 1 Pet 3:19 says, "in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison" (NASB) It's exact meaning is unclear (IMO), it arguably being one of the most difficult verses in the NT. The Nicene Creed not withstanding, there is nothing from scripture that says- or otherwise implies that Jesus went to hell (to atone for our sins). 1 John 2:2 tells us, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
145 | God favored noah in noah time why? | Heb 11:2 | BradK | 231703 | ||
Hello annasmith1831, The initial sections of scripture don't explicitly tell us "why" these men found favor with God, i. e. Gen 6;8. However, a studied reading of Hebrews 11 will provide the answer! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
146 | self existence of God in Exodus 3:6-15 | Ex 3:6 | BradK | 231701 | ||
Hello marieflngn, The self-existence of God is also referred to ny it's older name, the Aseity of God. This sounds lilke it might be a test question? A good Systematic Theology in it's section on the attributes of God would be a good resource and lead into to learing on this question. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
147 | Is it bad to be freaky with your bf? | James 4:17 | BradK | 231699 | ||
Hi ryo123, Welcome to the Forum. I've never heard what is commonly referred to as petting called "freaky"? At any rate, James 4:17 instructs us, "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." (NASB) Further, Rom. 14:23 tells us, "...and whatever is not from faith is sin." So, my answer would be, yes it is sin. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
148 | 8 books in bible dont mention prophecy | 2 Tim 2:15 | BradK | 231673 | ||
Hello chae, Is this a test or homework question? What leads you to ask? "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
149 | rapture of the church: true or false | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231642 | ||
Hello Searcher, I'd be interested if you have a chart or some other resource (Word.doc or PDF) that could be e-mailed. I'd like to see your breakdown and examination of the different views! Yours In Christ, BradK |
||||||
150 | it is a one word answer | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231598 | ||
Is this 50 questions? Does the answer require a dentist? I'm just wondering... | ||||||
151 | Everybody dies with recent sins | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231571 | ||
Hello G Preston, I'm not sure you'll find scripture teaching a pattern of forgiveness? :-) I had found myself in a similar "pattern" years ago that in effect became a vicious treadmill. I was always trying to "get forgiven" instead of walking by faith (2 Cor. 5:7) and walking in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). Please don't hear what I'm not saying:-) Does God forgive us based upon what we "would have done"? No, rather our forgiveness is based upon what he has done in Christ Jesus. Eph. 1:7 states, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (NASB) So, it is (only by) being "in Him" that we have redemption. This redemption is through his blood (shed on the cross), and it is "according to the riches of His grace", not my sense of it or my confession of them! My forgiveness is not conditioned by something I do, rather than what God in Christ has alrady done for me. (Eph. 2:1-9ff) Is this not what scripture teaches? We are imputed the forgiveness, justification and are therefore at peace with God when we believe (Rom. 5:1). This is a sovereign act of God. Forgiveess is imputed to us based upon the all-sufficient atoning death of Christ on the cross for your and my sins (John. 19:30, 1 John 2:2) I would respectfully submit that it not a "common sense thing" as much as it is a biblically based completed work! (I'm not advocating antinomianism by any means) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
152 | Why did Adam sin? | 1 Tim 2:14 | BradK | 231535 | ||
Hi searcher, You're right. In re-considering my answer, it was Eve who was deceived. I then mixed up the how and why. This one one of those mostly unanswerable questions:-) Thanks for the correction! BradK |
||||||
153 | Why did Adam sin? | 1 Tim 2:14 | BradK | 231530 | ||
Hello pljames, The 'why' can be answered from scripture. Basically, Adam was deceived. In Gen. 3:1, Satan plants the seed of deception when he says to Eve, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" Satan then lies to Eve, clearly contradicting what God had commanded them in 2:17 , "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The result of this deception is the fall in to sin. "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." Yet, 1 Tim 2:14 Paul tells us, "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." The 'how' cannot be fully answered since no one really knows the answer to this question! I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
154 | How is the Holy spirit given to you | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 231520 | ||
Armond: I don't wish to argue with you, my friend. Perhaps you should read more carefully what I did say? Please do not take my words out of context and then mis-quote them. That's not being honest. Here's what I said "The book of Acts being a narrative is not intending to delineate the doctrine(s) of salvation, i.e. how we are saved. It does contain doctrine but we must be careful not to isolate the teachings here from the rest of scripture" Please re-read it carefully. Listen, if you've already got your mind made up and don't want to be confused with any fact, that's your choice. But, let's please be honest, and stay with scripture to make our points. Fair enough? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
155 | How is the Holy spirit given to you | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 231518 | ||
Hello armond, It's not a matter of simply disagreeing with you. We're dealing with core interpretive issues. With all due respect, your hermeuetic is missing something. I know what Acts 2:38 says. However, it's not the sum-total of what the NT let alone scripture teaches on the "requirements" for salvation! Proponents of baptismal regeneration tend to focus on this verse and isolate it from the rest of scripture (particulalry the Pauline corpus). This is what I mean by "analogy of scripture"? All the references you gave were from the Gospels and Acts! Did you purposefully neglect the other epistles? If so, why? Both the Gospel of John and Romans present the Gospel- and it's necessities clearly. Why do you not cite references from them? Again, I would think, since Romans- being a doctrinal epistle that lays out the doctrines of condemnation, salvation and santification- would be a key source. My question remains: What did Paul neglect (under inspiration) in his teaching on salvation (Soteriology)? I find it interesting that those like yourself who (seem to) promote baptism as a requirement for salvation leave out the Pauline epistles! Paul wrote essentially half the NT,(most all of them being doctrinal in nature) so how can one ignore the weight of this significant portion of scripture? Possibly you would address this question? You also cannot neglect the grammar of the NT to build you case. Consistent with both Searcher's post and Tim Moran, here's what Kenneth Weust, late NT Greek scholar- and one of the translators of the NASB had to say. "The words “unto” and “for” in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38 are from the Greek preposition 'eis'. Dana and Mantey in their excellent treatment of Greek prepositions based upon the papyri findings, give as one of the uses of this word, “because of.” This usage is found in Matthew 12:41 where the men of Nineveh repented at or because of the preaching of Jonah, and in Romans 4:20, where Abraham did not stagger in unbelief, because of the promise of God. In the case of the men of Nineveh, Jonah’s preaching was the cause of their repentance. In the case of Abraham, the reason why he did not stagger in unbelief, was because of the promise of God. The word “stagger” here is from a Greek word which means “to vacillate between two opinions.” Thus it was the repentance of those who received John’s message which was the cause of their baptism. The same was true of Peter’s at Pentecost. John’s words were, “I indeed baptize you with water because of repentance,” and Peter’s, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins.” That this is the correct translation and interpretation of our texts is also seen from the testimony of Josephus to the effect that John the Baptist baptized people only after they had repented: “Who (John) was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” John’s words, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8), clearly show that he demanded some evidence of salvation before he would baptize a person. Thus, we have the scriptural meaning of water baptism. It is the testimony of the person to the fact of his salvation. The only proper recipient of water baptism therefore is one who has received the Lord Jesus as his personal Saviour, and is trusting in His precious blood for salvation from sin. The Greek text thus clears up a difficulty found in the English translation. Baptism is not the prerequisite of repentance, much less its cause, but the testimony of the one who has entered the door of salvation." (cf Eph. 1:13) [Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament] In summary, Acts 2:38 does not say or teach what YOU say it does! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
156 | Is Genesis 20:4 a principle or promise? | Ex 20:4 | BradK | 231515 | ||
Hello M3, Good question. I think we first need to consider the context of what's being said. God is speaking to the Israelites. Then, Notice the prior verse- Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Ex 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (NASB) He (God) is speaking this in relation to their idol worship. (cf Ex. 34:13-16) They were 'whoring' after other gods, with the result that they were being lead away from their covenant God- even their sons and daughters, etc. I believe it is speaking specifically to their sin of idolatry. "Iniquity" here can carry the meaning of, depravity, guilt (of condition),or consequence for iniquity. Then, in the broader context, is this descriptive or prescriptive? Is God simply describing a condition of the Israelites due to their idol worship, of is He prescribing as fate to all generations for all time? I think the latter. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
157 | How is the Holy spirit given to you | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 231513 | ||
Hello armond, I'd respectfully take issue with your statement, "The Bible list Baptism (Baptism of Repentence) as a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit". Which scripture(s) list- or teach this? Acts 2:38? What then do we make of Eph 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,"? Did Paul miss or overlook something in his declaration? The book of Acts being a narrative is not intending to delineate the doctrine(s) of salvation, i.e. how we are saved. It does contain doctrine but we must be careful not to isolate the teachings here from the rest of scripture, On the other hand, the book of Romans- which can rightly be referred to as the Theology of the NT- teaches nothing of the sort! So, I see the analogy of scripture lacking in support of your argument. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
158 | Bible tampered with?? plz help | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 231489 | ||
Hello Mr. Chambers, Possible this video link will be helpful. Session 3 on the Transmission of Scripture should be very informative. This an excellent course that I've both been through and taught, so I can personally vouch for the content. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/the-theology-program/bibliology-hermeneutics/Session 3 Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
159 | Why was Jesus a carpenter? | NT general | BradK | 231416 | ||
Hello notlost, It's possible one might think about their destination- as our Lord noted later in Matt. 20:28. But, to say anything beyond what we're told in scripture is to enter into speculation:-) BradK |
||||||
160 | reference : Ezekiel 39:4 | Ezekiel | BradK | 231379 | ||
Hello Jim, Welcome to the Forum. I'm unaware of this term being used as you describe. It's not found within scripture and the verse in Ez. 39:4 is 'tsippor' (Heb), which means bird or fowl. As such, I'd have no ready reference about books or commentaries that would use it. You might Google the term- but proceed carefully! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [180] >> |