Results 161 - 176 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 734 | ||
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question. The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
||||||
162 | WAS THE ANGEL JESUS | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 731 | ||
This is the most commonly held view of the Angel of the Lord -- that he was the Preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus. There are several reasons for this. One is that there is no mention of the appearance of the Son prior to his incarnation, and so the assumption that he was the Angel of the Lord answers the question, "Then what was his involvement prior to the incarnation?" Secondly, there are numerous references identifying "The Angel of the Lord" as being "The Lord" himself. It is hard to come away from an honest reading of the following verses wtih any other conclusion -- Gen. 16:1-13; 22:11f; Ex. 3:1-4:17; Judges 13:17-22; Zechariah 3:3. He is repeatedly referred to as, "The Lord, and seeing him is repeatedly equated with seeing God -- yet those who see him do not immediately die. The Angel of the Lord appears only in the Old Testament, and the Son appears only in the new (although he is mentioned in the Old). If they are separate, it is odd that they are never mentioned together; this would also add a fourth person to what we call the Trinity, and it would seem odd that the fourth person be left out in Matthew 28:19 while the other Three are all mentioned. For these and other reasons, the most logical and widely accepted conclusion is that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the preincarnate Christ. |
||||||
163 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 725 | ||
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. | ||||||
164 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 724 | ||
Oops! Found David's son Nathan in 2 Samuel 5:14 -- but just the mention of his being born in Jerusalem. Bad choice of examples, but I'm sure you get the point. | ||||||
165 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 714 | ||
It is pure speculation to consider how many other people may have been around, but there are a number of indications that there were others. There are many people whose existence is indicated in Scripture but whom we know little or nothing about. For example, King David had a son named Nathan, who was identified as an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, but I don't think there is any mention of him in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is apparent that Adam and Even (as well as their descendents) probably had many children who are not mentioned by name. Those whose lineage has significance for other Biblically related events are listed. God was selective in what he included in the Scriptures. | ||||||
166 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 681 | ||
To my knowledge, there is no command that a certain age be considered the age at which someone is held accountable for his or her sin. The only place I know of where God divided by age and punished by age was in Numbers (14:28-30 and 32:10-12), after the spies brought back an evil report and the people violently rejected the faithful report of Joshua and Caleb. All men 20 years old and older, except for Joshua and Caleb who had been faithful, were condemned to perish in the wilderness and forbidden from entering God's rest. I know of no precedent after this, however, for setting this up as some kind of legal age of accountability before or after the time of Israel's rebellion in the desert. | ||||||
167 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 673 | ||
There is room for a wide range of interpretation on what is meant by the "sovereignty" of God -- particularly in the realm of the degree in which he chooses to exercise his power and authority; many great theologians more learned than I am have traced doctrines throughout the Scriptures on this, but I would like to make a few observations from Romans 8 and 9 that do much to resolve this without delving too deeply into the fray. First of all, Romans 8:28-30 declares that we can be confident of God overseeing all (as an entire synergistic whole) that enters the life of each one who loves him to his or her good. He specifically confirms that this is "because" he first foreknew those who would love him then predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son. It is this predestination (to conformity to Christ) of those whom he foreknew that he uses to sovereignly direct the overall entirety of what comes into our lives. In addition, those whom God thus predestines, he then calls, then justifies, then finally glorifies. Another sense in which we see God exercising his sovereignty is in his endurance of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" as in Romans 9:22. One solid interpretation (among others) is that God knows that their end is destruction prior to their (or any of their ancestors') creation but(contrary to the human wisdom of many parents who exercise their power to terminate the life of an unwanted or imperfect pregnancy, or who might if they knew in advance that the child would be a criminal) God does not choose to exercise his sovereignty by refusing their existence. He allows them to be made, live, rebel, blaspheme any and all loving conviction of his Spirit, and finally go on to the "destruction" that they will and do thus bring upon themselves. These examples of God's exercise of his divine sovereignty give partial indication of both his attitude toward evil (something to be temporarily endured and then destroyed) and his deliberate limitation of its ability to prevent the spiritual growth of his children. There is much more to say, but this is already a long posting. |
||||||
168 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 664 | ||
On this same topic, I also noticed after finishing my message that you were quoting from John 17:17-20 "that they may be one" as the reasoning behind looking for the "Lowest Common Denominator". This passage also clearly sets God's word as the means by which we, as Christians, are set apart ("sanctified") to be separate from the world but united to each other in the same kind of agreement that the Father and the Son share. I assume that you meant to include the complete and final authority of Scripture within your view of this agreed-upon "lowest common denominator". If not, the unity of his people for which our Lord so yearned (and yearns) is simply mocked and twisted rather than pursued. With the Scriptures as our starting place, we have a basis upon which to pursue the commonly held faith that binds all mature Christians (and any truly "Christian" congregation or denomination)in unified faith. This agreement often proves elusive, but it is surely Biblical and desirable to pursue it. | ||||||
169 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 663 | ||
This is a difficult question to answer because it's hard to determine exactly what you're suggesting and what prompted the suggestion. Is this a reaction or response to something that was said on the list, or simply a general suggestion that we should not take the Bible too literally or too seriously in judging the merit of theological "truths"? If this is a reaction to someone dismissing a biblically orthodox view based on their interpretations, I would agree that we should practice humility in recognizing our fallibility (as well as that of Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). However, if you're suggesting that (in the name of tolerance and good will) we ignore contrary arguments or retreat from using Biblical texts to test someone's theological claims, I think you're way off base. When (you or) I find that my (or my most respected theologian's) understanding disagrees with God, I need to have the humility to acknowledge that He is infallible (and therefore correct) and that we are fallible (and therefore wrong). Likewise, if you and I agree to usurp the authority of Scripture and place our own sensibilities over those of the Scriptures, we have rejected the only authoritative source by which to test doctrine. We become "like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind" and simply go after the doctrines that "tickle our ears" most. This is anathema to the discovery of Truth; this would be futile and foolish. | ||||||
170 | HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER | Matt 22:37 | Brent Douglass | 589 | ||
Jesus said that "No one can serve two masters" and that any attempt to serve 2 masters would result in choosing 1 over the other at some point. The example he then gives is God vs. mammon (material wealth). However, material wealth is not the only competitor he is concerned with. He also says that unless one "hates" his or her mother, father, sister, brother, wife, children and even one's own life, that person can not be His disciple. The Lord must be our first love, thus the choice being made (by his grace) to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is comparable to Wesley's doctrine of "Christian perfection" as a "perfect" love for God as exercised by a "complete" disciple; this is what the Christian should desire. | ||||||
171 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 274 | ||
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). | ||||||
172 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 268 | ||
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. | ||||||
173 | Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 267 | ||
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. | ||||||
174 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 222 | ||
Thanks, Ric, for pointing out my unfortunate use of vocabulary, which I feel I need to correct. To be honest, I don't like the wording, "temporary repentance" -- even though it was my own choice of words at the time. I think it could tend to mean something I didn't intend. It's not completely off but needs to be understood more as a logical or pragmatic repentance rather than an actual deep change. The action is temporary; the deep motivation and attitude is simply unchanged. This may be parallel (but not identical to) an interpretation of the seed falling by the road in the parable of the sower, where the surface response to the good news was great but short-lived because the deeper ground of the true heart was not fertile to actually receive the conviction of the Spirit; this gave a temporary but false impression of saving faith. | ||||||
175 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 154 | ||
There is certainly room for disagreement on how much control God exercised over Pharaoh's heart and decisions at this time, but I think Romans 9:19-23 laves no question that Pharaoh was held guilty for the attitude that he had toward the Lord and his people. -- -- I am not of a Beza-Calvinist position that would suggest deliberate control over a person's final responsiveness to the Holy Spirit's conviction. Immediately before this exposition of God's control is the sequence of Romans 8:28-30, where God's foreknowledge of his people is followed by predestination to conform us to his image, then calling, justification and glorification in respective sequence. -- -- I assert that Pharaoh's heart was against God and his people. However, even a king who refused to worship God and love his people would be expected to exercise wisdom through temporary repentance. It is this temporary repentance that God prevented. His objective was not to have his people go into the desert, worship him, and return to slavery under a pagan king; his objective was to lead his people into a new life free from slavery and under willing submission to Himself as Lord and Savior. God controlled circumstances and even intervened in Pharaoh's heart and plans to accomplish this purpose and to bring himself glory. -- -- God does not choose to crush the wicked (whom he foreknows) before they are born but endures them despite his knowledge that their creation will result only in rebellion and destruction. However, he intervenes as he wishes in order to reveal Himself and to keep his plans for the righteous on course. -- -- I don't know whether the totality of what Pharaoh saw finally convicted him -- bringing him to repentance -- or whether he went the route of (most of) the Pharisees in blaspheming the Spirit in the face of unquestionable demonstration of God's power and authority in the world. His part in the Bible story ends at the Red Sea, but there is no indication in the history that I know that either Pharaoh or the Egypt of Pharaoh's time turned from their idols to God. Instead, those who turned to God apparently left with the Israelites as part of the "mixed multitude" (Ex.12:38). | ||||||
176 | How long were years of Noah's life? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 150 | ||
There's no reason to assume the length of a year was any different, although this forces the question of how Noah (and virtually everyone who is mentioned as living before him) could have lived such (incredibly?) long lives. The most common (and reasonable) explanation I know of is that the earth's climate was completely changed by the flood. - Gen. 1:6-9 indicates that there were 2 "waters" associated with the earth, which were separated by air. Gen. 7:11-12 indicates that BOTH the springs from under the earth and the "gates of heaven" were poured out onto the earth. If these "waters above the earth" (or the "firmament" as they are often referred to) were a thick water-like protection of vapor (perhaps similar to a thick ozone with some kind of gaseous barrier holding it in place over the earth), it would function as a sort of terrarium, keeping out the harmful solar rays that significantly increase aging. - Increasing disease no doubt affected lifespans, as well, but there is an extreme drop in age immediately after the flood, which is most reasonably attributable to a major change in climate caused by the flood. - There is no mention of rain falling prior to the flood, and it's very possible that the method of watering described in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:5-6, 10 (water flowing out from underground and dew covering the surface) remained until the time of the flood. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] |