Results 21 - 40 of 96
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Is an Un-subdued Earth Good? | Gen 1:28 | Lionstrong | 99273 | ||
Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Is an Un-subdued Earth Good? Note: I’m not asking about our fallen earth, the earth as it is now, but the earth as it was prior to the fall. 1. Does the command to subdue the earth imply that the earth required subduing, that is, was the earth untamed? 2. When God planted the garden and put man in it, was the garden the only subdued place on the earth, the rest of the earth remaining untamed until man multiplied and filled it? 3. If the earth required subduing and, realizing that until man “multiplied and filled” a hitherto unoccupied part of the earth that it would remain untamed, then if the earth as God created was good, then is an un-subdued earth good? Please support your answer with logic and/or Scripture. |
||||||
22 | Creation: Written as Prose or Poetry? | Gen 2:1 | Lionstrong | 29170 | ||
I know the liberal theologians view Gen 1 and following as poetry, in order to deny it as true history, but are there conservative theologians who view chapter one as poetry and not prose? (Not that poetry makes the account any less historical) In my translation the curse in chapter 3 is translated as poetry, as well as Adam naming Eve in chapter 2, but chapter 1 is not translated in a poetic format in my translation (NASB). I see the creation account as brief prose, not poetic verse. Are there any Hebrew scholars out there? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
23 | Naming Created Things | Gen 2:19 | Lionstrong | 241302 | ||
Here's a question. What are your thoughts about this question? Was the naming of the animals, or more broadly, is the naming of things in creation part of our calling to exercise dominion over the earth? | ||||||
24 | Enter the Dragon! | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19704 | ||
ENTER THE DRAGON ("...He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth becase there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 ) From a Calvinistic point of view, Man was created good and then, according to the will of God, became evil. This is also the case with some of the angels; they were condemned when they sinned (II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). But in Satan's case, how would it be contrary to the goodness of God for God to have created Satan evil? Is it not the right of the the Potter to make a vessel as he sees fit, to "prepare some for destruction? (Rom 9:21) Was Agatha Christy evil for writing murder mysteries? And weren't they "good" stories? But it is noteworthy that though everything was made in the space of six days, including Satan, his first appearance on the scene is as an evil being. If he were created good how did he fall and so quickly? (Note that I do not accept the popular interpretaion of Ezek. 28 regarding the fall of Satan.) Lionstrong |
||||||
25 | Scriptural support? | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 19863 | ||
Thanks for you answer, Steve, Two Points: 1) According to your view there was a creation before the creation. As such the pronouncement of good of Gen 1:31 applies to this creation not the one supposedly before this one. Therefore what scriptural support do you have for saying that all the heavenly host were created morally good? 2) "Good" does not necessarily mean morally good. When God pronounced the first day's creation of light "good," he didn't mean that it was morally good. It was good in that it was exactly the way he wanted it and he was pleased with it. So "good" in Gen 1:31 is not moral. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
26 | Were Eve's desires sinful? | Gen 3:6 | Lionstrong | 5305 | ||
These thoughts stem from our discussion of the temptation of Christ, Heb 4:15. Eve's desires were not sinful. At this point she (like Christ) wasn't a sinner. Satan tricked her into fulfilling legitimate desires illegitimately. I've heard preachers site 1 John 2:16 (For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.) This verse is misapplied to Eve. She was tricked into sinnig, but were her desires the sin? What sin broght the curse on mankind? "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed..." What, then, was her sin? "(From)...the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Yes, the sin began in her heart, but was her sin her desires or was it saying yes to an illegitimate way of fulfilling legitimate desires? Your thoughts and comments welcome. Lionstrong |
||||||
27 | What was Eve's sin? | Gen 3:6 | Lionstrong | 5337 | ||
In our choices we are at a decisive disadvantage. Our choices, unlike our first parents, are biased by our indwelling sin. In fact the Bible says we were dead in our sin. Being dead in sin, we could not make a live choice to do the right thing. God had to make us alive in order for us to make the right choice and choose Christ. Our first parents could freely choose between right and wrong because they were unhampered by sin. We are, and our choices are not free of the lethal influence of our fallen nature. | ||||||
28 | God/Man, Man/Man Relationships | Gen 3:8 | Lionstrong | 71652 | ||
I hear Christians speak about a relationship with God as if he were a human person, albeit a very important and powerful person. So, this leads to the question: Is the relationship between Man and God the same as between Man and Man? If not, then what are the similarities and differences between Man's relationship with God and Man's relationship with his fellow man? Let me start this study off with a few comments. First, contrary to what some believers think, God did not create man because He was lonely. Two biblical reasons support this: (1) God is his own company, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. John 17:5, "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." And (2) the Bible teaches that God is totally self-sufficient, and therefore has no need whatsoever of anything He has created, including man. And there is absolutely no biblical support for the notion that God was lonely. Is 40:13-17, "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge And informed Him of the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales; Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust. Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless." Second, a personal relationship with God IS possible. Some liberal theologians think of God in such "totally other" terms that a personal relationship with God is impossible. Now God is high and lifted up as the Isaiah 40 passage illustrates, but I like the way the Westminster Confession summarizes the biblical position: "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension of God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant." (Chapter 7, paragraph 1) But although a relationship with God is possible I think it must be considered in two parts: pre-Fall and post-Fall, and two covenants, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The pre-fall relationship was based on a covenant between God and man, a covenant of works. God said in effect, "do this and live," and he walked with Man in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8). If man is to have a personal relationship with God now (post-Fall), it is also based on a covenant, a covenant of grace. God says in effect, "Believe this and live." This covenant is secured by a Sacrifice and arbitrated by a Mediator "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." (1 Pet 3:18) So, here, then, is one difference: a relationship with God, because he is very great, required God to "come down," to condescend to man, which he was please to express voluntarily by way of covenant. And a second difference is that now this relationship required a Sacrifice and Mediator. I'm sure members of the forum can show many other similarities and differences, but there is one similarity I especially like. A man can be God's friend: Is 41:8, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend," John 15:15, "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." But unlike men who are very fickled and vague in the terms of their relationship with each other, God is very concrete and clear: John 15:14, "You are My friends if you do what I command you." John 14:21, "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." Peace, |
||||||
29 | Result of sin physical or spiritual? | Gen 3:22 | Lionstrong | 9680 | ||
"The curse of sin does not carry physical death but rather spiritual death. Physical death occurs as a result of sin..." Hi, Ed, Which one is it? Does sin result in physical death, or does sin not result in physical death? The curse for disobedience was death of the whole man, both spiritual (which occurred first) and physical (which occurred later). The gap between the beginning and end of death is not as important as that it included the whole man, body and soul. The order is the same in salvation. The relationship is restored first (the spiritual, the soul). The incorruptible body is resurrected later. So, everlasting life includes the whole man, body and soul. The death is total, and the life He gives is to the whole man also. God is not Platonic such that he is only concerned about the soul (I'm not saying that you're saying this.) He created Man body and soul; He will redeem man through Christ body and soul. |
||||||
30 | Result of sin physical or spiritual? | Gen 3:22 | Lionstrong | 9724 | ||
Hi, Ed, Which one is it? Does sin result in physical death, or does sin not result in physical death? The curse for disobedience was death of the whole man, both spiritual (which occurred first) and physical (which occurred later). The gap between the beginning and end of death is not as important as that it included the whole man, body and soul. The order is the same in salvation. The relationship is restored first (the spiritual, the soul). The incorruptible body is resurrected later. So, everlasting life includes the whole man, body and soul. The death is total, and the life He gives is to the whole man also. God is not Platonic such that he is only concerned about the soul (I'm not saying that you're saying this.) He created Man body and soul; He will redeem man through Christ body and soul. |
||||||
31 | Who'd Be In Charge? | Gen 24:5 | Lionstrong | 47438 | ||
Gen 24:5,6 "The servant said to him, "Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?" Then Abraham said to him, "Beware that you do not take my son back there!" What's going on here? Is not Isaac old enough at this time to take charge of the household when Abraham leaves? Is Abraham speaking as if Isaac is not ready to take charge yet, and that Eliezer (15:2) would lead the household until Isaac is ready? Has anyone seen any commentary on this passage addressing this question? Peace, |
||||||
32 | FAME! | Ex 9:16 | Lionstrong | 63026 | ||
Exodus 9:16, "But for this very purpose have I let you live, that I might show you My power, and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth." This passage contains the concept of fame. God's purpose was to cause the worldwide proclamation of his name. I know a Christian young person who would like to become famous. What, do you know, does the Bible teach about human fame? I'm not interested in "spiritual" or pietistic answers. Such answers I can anticipate. Just give me the biblical data and your summary of that data. Peace, |
||||||
33 | Two, Three, or Forensic Evidence | Deut 17:6 | Lionstrong | 64753 | ||
Deuteronomy 17:6 "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. Should a man be put to death on circumstantial evidence alone, no matter how compelling? Is one eyewitness and compelling circumstantial evidence enough? Has modern science (i.e. fingerprints, DNA, "expert" testimony, etc.) replaced God's instruction? Matt 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 2 Cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. 1 Tim 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. If in the Church court we require two or three witnesses even in our non-capital offences, it seems to me that in civil court we would demand it. Peace, |
||||||
34 | Two, Three of Forensic Evidence | Deut 17:6 | Lionstrong | 64973 | ||
Thanks Searcher, But that really does not answer the question. Shouldn't this standard also be the standard of the civil courts? |
||||||
35 | Two, Three, or Forensic Evidence | Deut 17:6 | Lionstrong | 65020 | ||
Hi Steve, Apparently you did not notice the NT quotes. So,the standard is still the same after the advent of Christ (if one's dispensational views causes them to disregard God's standards in the OT). So the question remains, Shouldn't this standard also be the standard of the civil courts? Peace, |
||||||
36 | Why not literally? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 5135 | ||
I submit this as a question for further discussion: Why can't we interpret it literally? If we start from the Bible as our sole source of truth (sola scriptura) we could not deduce from the Scriptural data that the earth rotates on its axis. In fact mathematically and logically one could accurately predict the positions of points of light in the heavens if the sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth and the earth were a fixed point. In fact do you really know that the sun didn't stand still? Do you really know that the sun doesn't rise? Do you really know that the earth rotates on its axis? Or are these questions such an affront to your unexamined presuppositions that you immediately dismiss them as ludicrous? I know the Bible uses figures of speech, but as serious Bible students isn't the only reason you believe that the sun standing still is a figure of speech is that you believe what you've been taught about the earth rotating on its axis? Because Science says so. Someone has said, "In the popular mind, 'It has been scientifically proved' has replaced the Biblical formula 'Thus says the Lord.'" Lionstrong |
||||||
37 | Which is truth, Science or God's Word? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 5137 | ||
Yes, Mel, what do you mean? Is science or God's Word truth? Or is one "more true" than the other? If so, which one and why? Lionstrong |
||||||
38 | Why do you believe the earth revolves? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 5277 | ||
JV, why does MacAuthor believe the earth stopped revolving. Why does he believe it was revolving to begin with? Where does the Bible say that the earth revolves? Read my question which I wrote in response to Nolan's question? Lionstrong |
||||||
39 | How do you know? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 5313 | ||
JV, Answers: 1) It doesn't. And how do you know that water always boils at exactly that place on a thermometer (made in China) marked 212 and freezes exactly at that place marked 32? 2)through 5) are not scientific statements, but its not difficult to find examples in Scripture of wood floating, metal sinking, points of the compass, seasons of the year, and sunny days and dark nights. "...to prove every fact..." How do you know it's a fact, JV? Yours, in Him "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Lionstrong |
||||||
40 | What obligates to believe earth spinds? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 5390 | ||
Nolan: Thanks for your comments. In this forum some have used the expression sola scriptura (Scripture only), which I accept. If Scripture, God's word, is our only source of truth, then what can be proven true by science, and mathematics? Then too, can science or math prove ANY biblical statement true or false? With respect to our present discussion in Joshua, what obligates us to believe that the earth spends and then deny that the sun and moon stood still? Unless it can be shown by sound methods of interpretation that the phrase is figurative, we have to accept it as literal. So far, the only reason given to take it as figurative is NOT based on a study of Scripture, but by imposing a belief on the Scripture, a belief whose source is not the Bible, but science. How do you know Jesus loves you? But how do you know the earth spins on its axis? Yours in Him whoes word is the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth (Rom 2:20) Lionstrong |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |