Results 181 - 200 of 300
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Truthfinder Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80451 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means. Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
182 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Truthfinder | 80450 | ||
Hi all, I was wondering how everyone that reads this understands just what the original Greek word for hell in this verse means? Acts 2:31. (haides) Please do your research, back by scripture etc :). Then and only then can we understand what Acts 2:31 means. Truthfinder |
||||||
183 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80447 | ||
Hi Justme, Before you read this let me warn you that what I say is “strong” language contrary to popular opinion. Allow me to explain how I feel as a result of reading and explaining posts on this forum. I observe that many propagate the idea that the JW translation committee initiated certain verse translation to fit a certain theology, saying bias played a role in its translation. Even some “experts” assert this same idea. Yet, it is shown again and again how grammatically it is just as acceptable to translate verses such as John 1:1 the way they are in the NWT and in the dozens or other translations. Hey, these were experts too and some were even “trinitarians”. Additionally, I have shown that other “experts” in the Greek language support the translation. In fact, I have quoted them from both sides of the argument and you can run a search on this forum and see that. I have also given numerous examples of prior translations that had translated verses such as John 1:1 different from the “mainstream” translations of today. I have also given numerous example of manuscript additions and changes with the sole purpose of supporting the “trinity doctrine”. If the trinity were true why would this atrocity be needed? My unequivocal conviction is theology played a definite role in these “mainstream” translations and thus have mislead many. You know as well as I do that each and every one of those “scholars” of the NABV or the NIV knew what they were doing by taking God’s personal name out of their translations. It remains my unequivocal conviction that the unseen wicked spirit influence of God’s chief adversary Satan has been behind this hoax from its beginning, during our Lord Jesus’ time here on earth. An accurate understanding of the first prophesy of the Bible Ge 3:15 tells us that there would be enmity between Satan and Jesus. The greatest indignity modern translations and schools of theology can possibly render to the author of the Bible is to remove or conceal the personal name and true identity of our God and Father Jehovah. It amazes me how so-called “learned” “Christians” have come to even despise the most holy name in the universe. Truthfinder |
||||||
184 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80414 | ||
Hi Justme, Thank you for your kindness. I don't mind at all, go ahead and ask. I ask questions too because I want to try and figure why a person has such strong convictions about a matter that I though have such strong convictions totally opposite. I have learned a lot here on the forum, and hope to continue to learn. Truthfinder |
||||||
185 | Did Jesus Drink Wine? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80388 | ||
Hi Tim, I am writting in a hurry not proofing anything so please understand. Matt 26:29 indicates to me Jesus drank wine. Jesus drank the wine at the annual Passover celebration but not at the Lord’s Supper where he offered it to the eleven apostles. Lu 22:15-18, 20. Also Joh 19:28-30 and Lu 23:36, 37 indicates to me that Jesus drank wine. I wrote in the above post: Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Truthfinder |
||||||
186 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80379 | ||
Hi Tim, Tim argues that the “wine” spoken of in some Bible texts was ordinary grape juice. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, however, reminds us that “the Bible makes no distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines—never refers or alludes to such a distinction.” And seems to me that this is also consistent with the Bible. Notice: Genesis 9:21; Luke 1:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Proverbs 31:4, 6. If I had some texts of the eleventh example (aciyc) translated as wine, I would review it. The same with the tenth example (chemer), is it translated wine? The second Hebrew word (tiyrowsh) and (yayin) the first Hebrew word Tim gave are commented on as examples of non-fermented beverages. Again, Tim give me the specific verses and let me look at them. Interestingly, Jesus’ first miracle was to convert water into wine. The Bible account says: “When, now, the director of the feast tasted the . . . wine but did not know what its source was, . . . [he] called the bridegroom and said to him: ‘Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.’” (John 2:9, 10) Yes, “the fine wine” Jesus produced was real wine. Self-righteous religious leaders in Jesus’ day criticized him for occasionally drinking wine. Said Jesus: “John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, but you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, but you say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine!’” (Luke 7:33, 34) What would have been the point of contrast between Jesus’ drinking and John’s not drinking if Jesus had merely been drinking nonalcoholic grape juice? Remember, it was said of John in contrast, that he was to “drink no wine and strong drink at all.”—Luke 1:15. Obviously, Jesus did not condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation. In his day the drinking of wine was a part of the celebration of the Passover. And real wine continued to be a part of the Lord’s Evening Meal, which replaced the Passover. Truthfinder |
||||||
187 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80333 | ||
Hi IHS, Yes, in ancient Israel dishonest merchants would add water to the wine to make it go farther, but Jehovah used this to illustrate moral and spiritual corruption saying: "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water." (Isa. 1:22) Tasty wine that gives joy of heart should not be adulterated with water. If you know of other instances please quote them. So again certainly wine was not merely grape juice but fermented to wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
188 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80329 | ||
Hi Justme, From my studies of both sides of arguments as to the most honest and the most accurate translations of what the original manuscripts must have been I have come to appreciate the NWT as my favorite. I likewise respect your and others' choice in both theology beliefs and convictions as to what Bible translations are preferred. My extensive dialogues in the months past show for the most part JW's beliefs but certainly mine. More clearly, I do not totally agree with 100 per cent of their teaching. I have my own mind, abilities, and experience. I am an old man now and have devoted a considerable part of it to Bible study and still love it. Truthfinder |
||||||
189 | Was the wine Jesus drank fermented? | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80279 | ||
Hi IHS, There are a number of original-language terms that usually designate some kind of wine (Heb., ti·rohsh´ [Ge 27:28, 37; Ho 2:8, 9, 22]; Heb., che´mer [De 32:14; Isa 27:2] and its corresponding Aramaic term chamar´ [Da 5:1, 2, 4, 23]; as well as Gr., gleu´kos [Ac 2:13]). But the Hebrew word ya´yin is found most frequently in the Scriptures. It first appears in Genesis 9:20-24, where the reference is to Noah’s planting a vineyard after the Flood and then becoming intoxicated on the wine. The Greek word oi´nos (basically corresponding to the Hebrew term ya´yin) first occurs in Jesus’ comments on the inadvisability of using old wineskins for new, partially fermented wine, as the pressure developed through fermentation would burst the old wineskins.—Mt 9:17; Mr 2:22; Lu 5:37, 38. So, clearly wine was wine. Truthfinder |
||||||
190 | Can you answer second part of question? | Dan 5:25 | Truthfinder | 80277 | ||
Hi Searcher, Have you thought that maybe “MENE” appearing twice in the inscription, perhaps because the message applied to both rulers in the kingdom of Babylon at that time, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. And then notice how Daniel, in giving the interpretation, used “MENE” only once, possibly because only Belshazzar was present on this occasion? The Bible does not tell us why none of Babylon’s wise men were able to read the writing. (Da 5:8) It may have been because of the cryptic nature of the message, or the writing itself may have been in a script or language unknown to them and this is only an assumption. The interpretation certainly did come from God to Daniel as Daniel understood God's direction from the Holy Spirit being a spiritual individual. 1 Cor. 2:14 Truthfinder |
||||||
191 | who were the parents of mary magdalene | NT general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 80276 | ||
Hi Angie, The Bible does not provide for us sufficent information to tie Mary Magdalene to King David. There are six different Mary's in the Christian Greek Scriptures and everything said concerning her from the Bible is as follows: First her distinguishing name (meaning "Of (Belonging to) Magdala") likely stems from the town of Magdala on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee about halfway between Capernaum and Tiberias. There is no record of Jesus' ever visiting this town, though he spent a great deal of time in the surrounding area. Nor is it certain that it was Mary's hometown or place of residence. Since Luke refers to her as "Mary the so-called Magdalene," some think he implies something special or peculiar.-Lu 8:2. Jesus expelled seven demons from Mary Magdalene, reason enough for her to put faith in him as the Messiah and for her to back up such faith with outstanding works of devotion and service. She is first mentioned in the account of Jesus' second year of preaching, when he and his apostles were "journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God." Together with Joanna the wife of Herod's man in charge, Susanna, and other women, Mary Magdalene continued ministering to the needs of Jesus and his apostles out of her own belongings.-Lu 8:1-3. The most prominent notice of Mary Magdalene is in connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus, as the Lamb of God, was led to the slaughter, she was among the women "who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to minister to him" and were "viewing from a distance" as Jesus hung on the Gr. (stau rous) (Vine's upright stake). In her company were Jesus' mother Mary, Salome, and also "the other Mary".-Mt 27:55, 56, 61; Mr 15:40; Joh 19:25. After Jesus' burial, Mary Magdalene and other women went to prepare spices and perfumed oil before the Sabbath began at sundown. Then following the Sabbath, at the break of dawn, on the first day of the week, Mary and the other women brought the perfumed oil to the tomb. (Mt 28:1; Mr 15:47; 16:1, 2; Lu 23:55, 56; 24:1) When Mary saw the tomb was open and apparently empty, she rushed off to tell the startling news to Peter and John, who ran to the tomb. (Joh 20:1-4) By the time Mary got back to the tomb, Peter and John had left, and it was now that she checked inside and was stunned at seeing two angels in white. Then she turned back and saw Jesus standing. Thinking him to be the gardener, she asked where the body was, that she might care for it. When he replied "Mary!" his identity was immediately revealed to her and she impulsively embraced him, exclaiming, "Rab·bo´ni!" But there was no time now for expressions of earthly affection. Jesus would be with them only a short time. Mary must hasten to inform the other disciples of his resurrection and that Jesus was ascending, as he said, "to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."-Joh 20:11-18. Hope this helps. Truthfinder |
||||||
192 | sons of god as in early gen | Gen 6:2 | Truthfinder | 80178 | ||
Hi Phil, The first mention of "sons of the true God" is at Genesis 6:2-4. There such sons are spoken of as 'beginning to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose,' this prior to the global Flood. Many commentators hold that these 'sons of God' were themselves human, being in reality men of the line of Seth. They base their argument on the fact that Seth's line was that through which godly Noah came, whereas the other lines from Adam, that of Cain and those of any other sons born to Adam (Ge 5:3, 4), were destroyed at the Flood. So, they say that the taking as wives "the daughters of men" by "the sons of the true God" means that Sethites began to marry into the line of wicked Cain. There is, however, nothing to show that God made any such distinction between family lines at this point. Corroborating Scriptural evidence is lacking to support the view that intermarriage between the lines of Seth and Cain is what is here meant, or that such marriages were responsible for the birth of "mighty ones" as mentioned in verse 4. It is true that the expression "sons of men [or "of mankind"]" (which those favoring the earlier mentioned view would contrast with the expression 'sons of God') is frequently used in an unfavorable sense, but this is not consistently so.-Compare Ps 4:2; 57:4; Pr 8:22, 30, 31; Jer 32:18, 19; Da 10:16. Angelic sons of God. On the other hand, there is an explanation that finds corroborating evidence in the Scriptures. The expression "sons of the true God" next occurs at Job 1:6, and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God assembled in God's presence, among whom Satan, who had been "roving about in the earth," also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 "the sons of God" who 'shouted in applause' when God 'laid the cornerstone' of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 "the sons of God" are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings.-See GOD (Hebrew Terms). The identification of "the sons of the true God" at Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view because they say the context relates entirely to human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness. Wicked spirit creatures during Jesus' time on earth, though not then materializing in visible form, were responsible for wrong human conduct of an extreme nature. The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood. Truthfinder |
||||||
193 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80173 | ||
Hi CDBJ Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have reigned for forty-three years. So these "seven times" of insanity in between must have been seven years at the most, in his personal case. In the Holy Bible a "time" is used in places to stand for a literal year. (Dan. 7:25; 12:7, AV; Rev. 12:6, 14; 11:2, 3) But here Nebuchadnezzar was acting out a prophetic drama, in which a year of time would stand for a much longer period. This must be so, for the trampling down of Jerusalem as representing Jehovah's kingdom did not end at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity; and six centuries later Jesus Christ said that Jerusalem would continue being trodden down or trampled on by the nations till the appointed times of the Gentile nations should be fulfilled. How long, then, are these "seven times"? Truthfinder |
||||||
194 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80141 | ||
Hi Daniel Chapter 4 is cross referenced with the signs of the last days and Jesus second coming of Luke 21, Matt. 24 and Mark 13 where you will discern that the "appointed times of the nations" and "7 times" are one and the same. Dan 4:16 16 "Let its heart be changed from that of mankind, and let the heart of a beast be given to it, and let seven times pass over it." also vss 23,25, Or, "appointed (definite) times"; or, "time periods." Aram., id·da·nin; Gr., e´te, "years"; LXXBagster(Gr.), kai·roi´, "appointed times"; Lat., tem´po·ra, "times." "Years," BDB, p. 1105; KB, p. 1106; Lexicon Linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, by E. Vogt, Rome, 1971, p. 124. Truthfinder |
||||||
195 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80097 | ||
Hi Searcher, I agree with you. In this case two fulfullments. I have a question for you, if you are up for some really deep study. If not don't bother. While giving his signs that you mention in Matthew 24,(and in Luke 21: (verse 24 and Dan 4:25) Jesus spoke of the "seven times," calling them "the appointed times of the nations." He said: "Jerusalem will (continue to) be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) A footnote in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible (1984) tells us that "the 'times of the Gentiles' (King James Version rendering of "appointed times of the nations") began with the captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar. . . . Since that time Jerusalem has been, as Christ said, 'trampled on by the Gentiles.'" How long were the "seven times," or "appointed times of the nations," to last? Truthfinder |
||||||
196 | Help on the 69th, 70th Week of Daniel | Dan 9:24 | Truthfinder | 80062 | ||
Hi Amber_G This is a prophecy that definitely shows Daniel to be an authentic prophet. It reads, in part: "There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error . . . And you should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks (making 69 in all). . . . And after the sixty-two weeks (that is, 7 plus 62, or after the 69th week) Messiah will be cut off . . . And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week (the 70th); and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease."-Daniel 9:24-27. Many Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant Bible scholars agree that the "weeks" of this prophecy are weeks of years. The Revised Standard Version, Ecumenical Edition, reads: "Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people." Those 490 years began in 455 B.C.E. when Nehemiah was authorized by Persian king Artaxerxes "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem." (Nehemiah 2:1-8) Sixty-nine weeks of years later, that is, in 29 C.E., Jesus was baptized and anointed, becoming the Christ, or the Anointed One, the Messiah. "At the half of the (70th) week," in 33 C.E., he was "cut off." His sacrificial death made atonement for the sins of mankind, thus causing the animal sacrifices under the Law of Moses "to cease." Because of this reliable prophecy, first-century Jewish people "knew that the seventy weeks of years fixed by Daniel were drawing to a close; nobody was surprised to hear John the Baptist announce that the kingdom of God had drawn near."-Manuel Biblique, by Bacuez and Vigouroux. Truthfinder |
||||||
197 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Truthfinder | 79969 | ||
Hi Emmaus, Same difference said differently. Jewish custom for marriage was to have children. But let us assume differently. To determine whether Mary had perhaps decided to remain a virgin before the angel Gabriel visited her, we must look at matters from the standpoint of the time in which she was living. For a married woman to be childless in that time was viewed as a reproach. Hence, when Elizabeth became pregnant with her first and only child, John, she said: “In these days the Lord is acting on my behalf; he has seen fit to remove my reproach among men.”—Luke 1:25, New American Bible. So, for Mary to have gotten engaged to Joseph with the intent of remaining a virgin would have meant making herself an object of reproach. How could Joseph have consented to an arrangement whereby his wife would come under the reproach of barrenness? Why would he deliberately want to forfeit the opportunity to have an heir to carry on his name? The Hebrew Scriptures with which he and Mary were acquainted in no way recommended such a thing. They pointed to parenthood as something desirable. For example, at Psalm 127:3 we read: “Sons are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” (New American Bible) The only arrangement known to the Israelites whereby a man or a woman might remain a virgin was by continuing in the single state. Perplexed! Yes, the angel told her she was pregnant with a son and she knew she was a virgin. She understood Gabriel’s revelation as already pregnant. Truthfinder |
||||||
198 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Truthfinder | 79964 | ||
Hi I am going to jump in here and add that if Mary intended to remain a virgin forever, why did she get engaged? Well, “It may be presumed,” answers Pope John Paul II, “that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin.” However, the Bible presents the matter differently. Matthew’s account says that Joseph “had no relations with her until she bore a son.” (Matthew 1:25, Catholic New American Bible, italics ours.) Notice again the words "until she bore a son." After the birth of Jesus, the marital union of Joseph and Mary was by no means virginal. One proof of this is that later in the Gospel account, Jesus is shown to have brothers and sisters.—Matthew 13:55, 56. Were these merely cousins? Well these words were originally recorded in Greek. Hence, the question arises, How would Greek-speaking people have understood the original terms here rendered “brother” and “sisters”? The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 9, p. 337) admits: “The Greek words . . . that are used to designate the relationship between Jesus and these relatives have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense.” Thus, while the Bible states that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, there is no basis for claiming that she lived as a virgin for the rest of her life with Joseph. Truthfinder |
||||||
199 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79960 | ||
Hi Searcher You asked: Were all genealogical records kept in the Temple? Didn't people keep their own? Didn't people memorize their own genealogical records? Nonetheless, there are prophecies unfulfilled by Israel ... Romans 9-11 is one example. Evidently, all the nations genealogical records were kept in the Temple. Regarding the destruction of the temple and the archives, the book History of the Jewish People by Max Margolis and Alexander Marx says on pages 202, 203: “Titus hastened to inspect the Temple. But soon the sacred edifice was the prey of the flames which the Romans kept alive. Titus had the quarter occupied by his soldiers burned down: the council house, the hall of archives, the whole of the lower city down to the Pool of Siloam.” The Bible Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before.” Concerning Romans 9:11, “for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls,” Jehovah’s selection of Jacob over Esau shows that God’s choosing does not depend on man’s dictates. The apostle Paul uses this incident as an illustration of the fact that the true children of Abraham are not necessarily those of fleshly descent, nor those who depend on their own works, but those of the faith of Abraham. Ro 9:6-12 says, “However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children, but: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For the word of promise was as follows: “At this time I will come and Sarah will have a son.” 10 Yet not that case alone, but also when Re·bek´ah conceived twins from the one [man], Isaac our forefather: 11 for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.” Esau is set forth as a warning example to Christians so that they will not be guilty, as was Esau the materialist, of lack of appreciation for sacred or spiritual things. Heb 12:16 helps us to appreciate this where it says, “16 that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E´sau, who in exchange for one meal gave away his rights as firstborn”. Truthfinder |
||||||
200 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 79899 | ||
Hi Searcher, I believe it's common knowledge that when the temple and genealogical records were lost or destroyed in 70 C. E. by the Romans under General Titus, that all the Jewish claims of ancestory remain unproven. And too, over the millenniums, the ancient Jewish religion has developed and changed. Today Judaism is practiced by millions of Jews in the Republic of Israel and the Diaspora (dispersion around the world) Truthfinder |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [15] >> |