Results 161 - 180 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | who is Miriam? | Num 26:59 | MJH | 229959 | ||
Mary the mother of Jesus was also, "Miriam." In fact, all of the Mary names in the New Testament are actually "Miriam." There's some really useful Bible Trivia for you. MJH |
||||||
162 | Reason 4 "6" Cities of Refuge? | Num 35:6 | MJH | 213949 | ||
Angela, I used to be a children's pastor and I loved Ms. Pattycake. I met her at a conference once and got to know the person behind the character some. Anyway.... A good book would be "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King and Lawrence Stager. It's a bit more like a text book, but great to reference. Beyond that, you can search books with similar titles or get a Bible Encyclopedia. As far as the wives are concerned. The only known disciple to be married was Peter who was the only one to be over the age of 20 at Jesus' death (most likely). It would have been common for men in their teen years to become a disciple. In would be rather improbable for them to have been married with children already. It simply was not the custom to become a traveling disciple of a Rabbi that late in life. Peter's wife most likely stayed with his family. A wife typically lived within the household of her husband. They would have added on to the husband's father's house and shared a courtyard and chores as an extended family. This was more often true in the north in Galilee where Peter was from. There is quite a bit of interesting information about Jesus' world and the first century. A good teacher might be Ray VanderLaan with "In The Dust of the Rabbi" and "That the World May Know." He did some work with Focus on the Family a few years back and has been a blessing to me personally. MJH |
||||||
163 | Reason 4 "6" Cities of Refuge? | Num 35:6 | MJH | 213964 | ||
You are on the right track. It can be a lot of fun discovering the life and times of Jesus and the Apostles. I agree with you that young men pursued marriage and a young age, but probably not as young as the women. I disagree with the History and Discovery Channel depicting the 30 something men marrying 13 year olds. There is more evidence that in Jesus world men married closer to 20 and girls a bit younger. Girls also had a say to some extent. It would be an exception for a girl to marry a man she did not agree with. While that may not be true for all places and times in the Jewish world, it most likely was in the first century Galilee. Anyway, enjoy learning and reading. It's a long journey with many "flowers" to smell along the way. MJH |
||||||
164 | Putting God 1st in our lives? | Deut 6:4 | MJH | 217455 | ||
Deut 6:4-6 is the primary Text for this idea. | ||||||
165 | Stumped and stupefied. Bewildered.... | Deut 12:13 | MJH | 213253 | ||
Deut 12:13-14 “Take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place that you see, but at the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.” ESV Here (and in the surrounding verses) the Text, the command of God, tells the Israelites that they are to only offer sacrifices at “the place” where he chooses. Every single commentary that I consulted repeated the same idea. Israel could not offer sacrifices at any other place than the Tabernacle/Temple. None of them motioned any exceptions. Yet, we see Gideon, Samson’s parents, and Samuel just to name three (and several more) doing just that. They not only offer a sacrifice outside and away from the place, the sacrifice is obviously accepted. To what answer is there to this riddle? MJH |
||||||
166 | Stumped and stupefied. Bewildered.... | Deut 12:13 | MJH | 213260 | ||
Thanks Doc. I understand that these people were not trespassing the command. It's obvious in context. What I am a bit perplexed about is why the command specifies, so it seems, one specific place ONLY, yet God not only accepts, but at least in Gideon's instance, tells him to do it. (I think Samson's Parents are also told to rather than doing it on there own.) So why have the command to only offer a sacrifice in the place, and then allow it in another place? Honestly, this is one of those, "hmmmmm, what am I missing here." questions. What am I still missing? MJH |
||||||
167 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:28 | MJH | 231793 | ||
This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH |
||||||
168 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:28 | MJH | 231796 | ||
NOt sure about a hidden meaning, but I do know that the Torah does not condone selling or trading daughters like cattle. I understand that ancient cultures did do this, and even present day cultures demean and devalue women, but the Torah has a much higher value on a woman than that. I don't think that Jesus "changed" what the Torah taught, in that he removed or altered laws which are stated to be eternal, but that he revealed the genuine true interpretation of the Law, that is to Love your neighbor and serve others. Thank you VERY much for your adding the LXX translation. This reveals that at the least the early BC century understanding was similar to the NIV. But that doesn't mean it is the right understanding. I would also like to know what the Targumes and other Jewish writings would have to say, after all, they share the same text in this case. Where I am at, personally, is that it's logically impossible for God to institute a law that would force a woman to marry anyone (if as in this case she is a victim, not if she willingly consented), let alone her rapist. MJH |
||||||
169 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:28 | MJH | 231797 | ||
BradK, Would like to hear your understanding up the underlying question. This forum had helped me tremendously in the past, which is why I came here for feedback. MJH |
||||||
170 | Deut 22:29, Rapist to marry victim? | Deut 22:29 | MJH | 231809 | ||
This passage according to some translation states that if a man (unmarried) rapes a virgin, he is forced to marry her and pay the bride price. There are HUGE issues with this translation. Rape is a violent crime against the woman. Other laws in the Torah protect the woman from rape. I understood this text, in context of both the chapter and the over all Mosaic Law, to be "forcibly taken from her father" and consensual relations between the man and virgin are in view. Within the culture, the man who take a virgin in this manner is in effect taking from the father, who, if the girl is not wed to this man, is not violated and very unlikely to be wed to any man. This leaves both the father (and later the brothers) responsible for her. It also removes her from being able to bare children who would one day honor her in her old age. It is, to me, obvious that a violent act of rape would not be punished by forcing the victim to marry the criminal. If Jesus is the embodiment of the Law in flesh, then can we see Jesus in this light? NO. We see Jesus as the most woman appreciating and caring person in the scriptures. That, I understand, is because the Law was the same, if applied and understood by adequate and righteous judges (Elders). Please...PLEASE...someone offer something on this passage, as it is quite disturbing as translated in certain English Bibles. MJH |
||||||
171 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214577 | ||
Cheri, (2 post long) I was interested in your question but didn’t have time to answer. Now that you and John had your dialogue, it seems somewhat unnecessary, but I did the work so here it is. A starting point in how I approach the Bible may be helpful: 1) I don’t believe as some commentators do, that God can violate the covenant, but mankind can not, therefore God can include Ruth just because he said so. God MUST remain faithful. 2) I don’t believe the covenant stipulations change after Jesus resurrection; but rather that the law points to and is enhanced and enlightened by Him. Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. [give it a firmer standing]” ESV I include this for those “who are reading along” as John so wisely recognizes. With this in mind, the law for the Moabite can not simply be uprooted (Deut 4:2; 12:32 “do not add to this law, nor take away from it.”) A Moabite can not “enter the assembly of the LORD” to the tenth generation…forever. The “forever” is “ ‘ad o’lam ”, which is nearly impossible to translate any other way than “forever.” If it could, then the Targum Jonathan, which Gill quotes, (see John’s answer) would have most certainly used this option. Neh. 13:23 also says this law means forever. The phrase “assembly of the LORD” is another key. One source had this to say, “In the Torah, the word kahal (assembly) is used to apply to Israel as a nation, to a religious gathering and to a national governing assembly. This national governing assembly consisted of all adult males meeting in plenary session. Eligibility in this governing assembly was apparently tantamount to eligibility in full citizenship and therefore eligible for leadership.” While Ruth was a women and may (or may not) be exempt for that reason, I believe there are other options. It is possible that this passage is speaking of holding leadership position. In this case, Ruth also wouldn’t need worry about this law. Furthermore, when we look at the law in context, it falls within a marriage section. Why would this be included here? Let’s read the context of the sin of Moab: Num 25:1 “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor.” It was within adulterous relationships that Moab seduced Israel with their women threatening their existence as a nation, and by extension, the coming Messiah. If they can’t beat them by war, and they can’t defeat them with the curses of Balaam, maybe they can defeat them by seduction. To marry into this nation was to marry into their cult. See also Neh 13:23 “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.” The women in this passage were not “making your God my God” but rather were still worshiping their false gods. The mothers are the primary teacher of children when they are young. This instance was a violation of the Law (and Nehimiah also says “ ‘ad olam” means forever.) With these passages we are hard pressed to say women are absolved from the Deut 23 law simply by being women. So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? ...continued... |
||||||
172 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214578 | ||
... continued ... So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? We read in the book of Ruth that Boaz was exceedingly detailed in his observance and more than just observant; his heart is pure and right. Boaz is, as we say now, a part of the New Covenant “with the Torah written on the heart.” If this law forbade marriage to Ruth, certainly he of all people would have understood this. So why did he marry her? The book of Ruth does an interesting thing. While Orpah returns to her gods and her people, Ruth says, “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” Here Ruth does two things. First she leaves her own people. In effect she cancels her citizenship. It may be this statement that is the key. While a Roman could be a member of the “Assembly of the LORD” (ie. church in the New Testament) yet remain a Roman citizen, the same is not true for the Moabite. Once Ruth abandoned her people and therefore was no longer a Moabite (at least in terms of citizenship) she was no longer bound by the Law of Deut 23. The second thing she does is to enter the covenant as Abraham, by faith. “Your God will be my God.” She becomes a “ger.” I do not much care for the term Proselyte, because in the New Testament days, the term carried connotations that are not intended in the Torah. A “ger” was a non-Israelite that sojourned with Israel. There was one Law for the “ger” and for the native born. But a “neker” was a stranger who was “passing through” and a “zowr” was a stranger who was an Idolater. The Law had specific things to say about each, but in most English translations, the word stranger is used for all three. It is possible then that referring to a person as a Moabite was tantamount to referring to them in light of Balaam and their heinous sin at Peor. No such person even remotely connected to their form of Idolatry should be a part of the assembly of Israel. They were all “zowr” as long as they had any part of that nation. (No dual citizenship.) When Ruth clearly says, your God will be my God, she joined the people of God and the covenant as well. But can Ruth join the covenant in this way? Yes! She entered neither through marriage nor some other means, but in the same means that Abraham entered, through faith. She had not only abandoned her false gods, but her people as well. It was only after this that Boaz married her. Finally, there is one other option, though remote: It was common, at least in the first century and beyond, to discuss what happens when two laws collide. If one law says, “A Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Israel.” And another law says, “If [your brother] dies and has no son, [you shall] perform the duty of a husband's brother to [his wife].” Then which of these laws must be broken, for surly one of them will? The most common easy answer was that a positive law trumped a negative law. That “rule” would apply favorably here as well. This is an extension of the “what is the greatest commandment” discussion Jesus entered into. So there are four possibilities: 1) Ruth was a woman and therefore not bound by this law. 2) Ruth was not a leader in the assembly, and therefore did not violate this law. 3) Ruth abandoned her gods AND her people, making her no longer a citizen Moabite, and joined the people of God and their God fully by faith. Therefore the law didn’t apply because she no longer was technically a Moabite. 4) The positive command to fulfill the duty of a brother trumped the negative command to not let a Moabite enter the assembly. I personally like #3, but I have yet to discuss it with others. This option has a difficulty in that the Text continues to have others refer to Ruth as a Moabite, but I believe this is for two reasons: 1) to keep the negative image of Moab in the readers mind connected to Ruth; 2) to help explain how great Boaz is to be willing to marry such a woman and why the nearest kinsman redeemer didn’t want anything to do with her. In the end, Ruth and Boaz didn’t break the law of Deut. 23, of that we can be certain. MJH -sorry for the length. |
||||||
173 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214582 | ||
Awesome.... It just so happened that I read this story to my children today. I found it to be one of the most spectacular stories in the Bible. A movie aught to be made! MJH |
||||||
174 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214591 | ||
Steve, That is a very good point. Thanks for adding that to this thread. MJH |
||||||
175 | God's eternal purpose | Deut 32:4 | MJH | 174624 | ||
I agree with Doc, but thought it might interest you to know that in the day of Jesus and before, many commentaries on the Bible were written or shared orally. It was believed by those that before creations began, or before the beginning, 7 things existed. "Seven things were contemplated (By the Holy One, Blessed be He) before creation: Torah. Repentance, the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom, the Throne of Glory, the Holy Temple and the Messiah's identity." (BT Pesachim 51:A) This illustrates that the idea of the Torah existed before time, and was one of the central objectives behind the creation. Before man was created God knew that "the impulse of man's heart is evil from his youth," (Gen. 7:21) and that he was destined to sin and stumble. This is an integral part of human nature. Accordingly, before anything existed the Torah was prepared to guide him along his path through life. In similar fashion, the Torah's counterpart, the concept of repentance, was also prepared in advance of man, so that one who transgresses the will of his Creator has a path to return to Him. This too was forged into the very foundation of the world to provide man with a remedy for sin.” www.templemount.org/tempprep.html The “Seven things contemplated” idea predates Jesus. It seems that these Godly men also believed that the divine purpose was that man would fall and need redemption. Not a definitive answer to your questions, but interesting to get another point of view on the subject. MJH |
||||||
176 | Rahab righteous or not? | Josh 2:4 | MJH | 214671 | ||
Here is a question. Is it always a sin to lie? Would it be a sin to lie to the Nazi's who sought to find Jews hiding in your home? MJH |
||||||
177 | Rahab righteous or not? | Josh 2:4 | MJH | 214679 | ||
John, I think you hit on good points in response. I'm particularly impressed with the statement that Rahab was protecting God's messengers and thereby partnering with God rather than rebelling against him. I haven't thought of it in those words before. Here is how I've thought of this type of issue. The Law is about life; it describes life in the kingdom of Life and not death. Therefore when a person is faced with an issue such as Rahab, to preserve life (and as you said, God's will) and to lie, then preserving life always wins out. "I have come that you might have life...." So my question of whether is was a "sin" only matters in the minutia of technical law, because we all agree that we and the Word of God testify that Rahab was correct. So to answer my own question, it matters not . . . it does matter to defend life and to protect and participate in the Will of God in this life. MJH |
||||||
178 | Lying justified? | Josh 2:5 | MJH | 225072 | ||
It would have been morally wrong for Rahab to not lie for it would have certainly resulted in the death of the spies. Those good people risking all to hide Jews during WW2, to fail to lie to the German Nazi's, would have been morally wrong. When one is faced with the unfortunate situation where by keeping one law you break another, he must know which is greater. "Life" trumps most things. In Jesus day this question was asked in many ways and Jesus is asked it as well. Will Jesus "work" on the Sabbath to bring wholeness to a hurting sick person or not? Is "to do good" greater than to "not work on the Sabbath?" One group said it this way: All commands can be broken to preserve life but these three: 1) to take a life, 2) to commit adultery, 3) to commit idolatry; for the Law was given so that "you might have life" and not death. Death is the antagonist of God's Law and Kingdom. A long way to say, Rahab was considered righteous because she lied. That being said, I agree with previous answers, it is technically speculation, but the results of Rahab's blessed life and the comments in Scripture concerning her lead me to be quite certain of that statement. MJH |
||||||
179 | Lying justified? | Josh 2:5 | MJH | 225076 | ||
Brad, You are correct. I forget sometimes that specific wording is very important. Rahab, like everyone, is justified by Grace through Faith. It was her faith that caused her actions to produce the result which protected the spies. Hebrews specifically words it as you state, faith produced action. MJH |
||||||
180 | Numbers in Hebrew letters/words? | Judg 12:14 | MJH | 140406 | ||
Does anyone see any value in the “numbering” in the scripture? Or more specifically, with the numbers associated with the Hebrew letters? For example: The word “truth” in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav (First, middle, last letter of Hebrew). Aleph equals 1, Mem equals 40 and Tav equals 400. “I am the Aleph and the Tav; I am the Alpha and Omega” 40 is always associated in the Bible as a time of testing. 400 is the time the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. 1 is the Messiah. (this one is far to long to express completely here any further) Another I’ve heard lately is that the word covenant in Hebrew equals 612. That is 1 less than the 613 laws in the Torah. When the Messiah came, he completed the Torah by being the one law that was lacking. That being, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.” John 13:34 Not that the Torah was missing this law (see Lev. 19:18), but that it was not elevated to its proper place, at the top both in theology and actions. Ultimately Jesus was “love” in the flesh, and loved us so much to be the end (purpose) of the Law. Any way, I have never bought into the numbering game, but some things I’ve read recently are quite interesting at the least. Also, this was done even before the time of Jesus. (not that this adds credence.) Anyone study this more in depth, enough to answer? MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [29] >> |