Results 21 - 40 of 67
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Samuel serving where he shouldn | 1 Sam 1:1 | MJH | 213361 | ||
Samuel was an Ephraimite (of the tribe of Ephraim). Yet, we see him ministering before the LORD in the Tabernacle. His famous vision comes to him while he is sleeping where the Ark of the LORD is. He is clearly in the Tabernacle and serving in some way (with a linen ephod) in the Tabernacle. My question is why? He isn't from the line of Aaron, so my understanding is that he shouldn't be in the Tabernacle itself. He is also not of the tribe of Levi, so he shouldn't be serving as a help either. I understand that Israel was corrupt at this point and pretty much nothing was being done right, but this was God's chosen servant (soon to be). Any comments? BTW, I am "listening" my way through the history books and I might have some questions like this for a while. They may be minor, but of interest to me none the less. MJH |
||||||
22 | Satan fall? Luke 10:18? | Is 14:12 | MJH | 139032 | ||
What about Luke 10:18? And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. . ." Do you understand this reference Jesus makes? It is in the NT. |
||||||
23 | Still looking for an answer. | Is 14:12 | MJH | 139075 | ||
Your answer seems some what confusing. The question in the thread is about whether Satan was cast out of heaven with other angels. I can look up commentaries myself. What do you personally think? Is this passage a direct answer to “Can you find a New Testament passage that claims Satan was cast out of heaven?” |
||||||
24 | Hebrew culture;a help or not? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137728 | ||
You can understand the Bible on its face in any language. Obviously the Holy Spirit has been able to guide many in the Church for centuries. Your argument suggests that I (and apparently others) are saying you cannot understand God’s revelation in His revealed Word unless you have a complete and total grasp of Jewish History, culture and language. Nothing could be further from the truth. HOWEVER; learning such things and knowing such things adds greatly to ones understanding, grasp and ability to live out the truths found in the Bible. I have been amazed and blown away by many clearer understandings of both testaments simply by understanding the culture. Imagine with me if you will: How could we view Jesus and His teachings more fully if we knew what His contemporaries were teaching? What other Pharisees were saying? The fact that there are more than one type of Pharisee? Maybe if one understood the Maccabean revolt , they would better understand what Jesus said and did at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. I actually heard a pastor say that the only reason Jews picked up Palm branches was because that was what was available. He totally botched the sermon because he did not know what the Palm branch meant to the Jew in the 1st Century! Or why did Jesus say certain things during the festival of Hanukah (festival of lights in the NIV). Then there is the little know fact that the disciples were (almost undoubtedly) teenagers, not middle aged men. And why did they drop their nets and follow Jesus as if in a trance? (If you understand Rabbi’s and their disciples and how they typically came together, you’d realize that they probably ran to follow Jesus with great excitement. The fact that they were even fishing tells the reader something about them and their schooling, but you need to know the culture to know this.) Or what about the 10 virgins? Why are these women waiting for “the groom” and who is this guy (I mean in the Parable, not who he represented)? Did the original readers know something about this parable that we don’t? Yes, and it’s quite fun to know. Or how about the lady who bleed for 12 years and touched Jesus’ cloak? Any meaning in that? Actually this one you do not need to know Hebrew culture for, but you do need to know the Hebrew language (This one, should you learn it, is awesome….) Or what about Zacchaeus? Did you ever wonder why he didn’t just go to the front of the crowd instead of climbing a tree? Does knowing Hebrew culture get you more saved? Is it required? Of course not! BUT WHY, and I really need to know this, why do people resist so much the desire to know the culture, history, and language of Jesus? Why don’t people eagerly seek out to know what Jesus’ contemporaries thought? I hear this argument that God wouldn’t require people to know this and how does this help a Chinese man who has no hope of such in depth study? “You don’t need to know all this stuff!”, the say. Well you don’t need to know Greek either. And you don’t even need to know how to read (ever met a downs syndrome person who loves God and lives for him better than you could ever wish to? I have.) But just because you don’t need to do in depth hard study to have a richer understanding and better grasp of Jesus and His teachings, does NOT mean that you shouldn’t do it. In fact, and I will end here, if you DID know the schooling that Jesus went through to get to where He was, you would be ashamed of the “girlie men” students of the Bible we all are. And it wasn’t just Jesus; it was every Pharisee that He chastised as well. Want a hint? Have you memorized the first 5 books of the Bible? How about before you were 12? Or the whole Old Testament? Then there is the really hard learning – the Oral law. You can understand Matt 5:17 without agreeing with my interpretation and be a great Christian. In fact, there is a chance I am even wrong. But why not look into Jesus’ world some and see what you find before labeling someone else who has done it. |
||||||
25 | The meaning of being Elect? | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163613 | ||
Doc (any anyone else), I check in on this forum about once a month or so now, and it just so happenes that this discussion is very much in line with some reconsiderations I have been having about heaven/hell and election, etc... Have you heard of the idea that just as Israel was elected by God, not because of their own works, but by the grace of God (called out of Egypt) to be a light to the world of the One True God and to be a blessing to the nations. That similarly, God has elected some to be a blessing to the world by bringing His Good News and bringing his redemption and his Kingdom to the lives of those in the world. In this light, those who are elect, are not elect only to salvation from hell (or to Heaven), but elect for an ordained purpose. And likewise, those who are NOT elect are not necessarily sent to hell (I mean on a whole). After all, many joined Israel who were not Israel in the Old Testament. They were not elect, but they received all the benefits of God's mercy just the same. (Ruth the Moabite, Rehab of the destroyed Jericho, etc...) I have not really explored this idea, but I heard it in passing and it has been running through my mind during those times in the day that allow for thinking. Any thoughts from anyone? MJH |
||||||
26 | What was Caesarea Philippi like? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139541 | ||
Where was Jesus when He said, "On this Rock"? Caesarea Philippi. Are you aware of what is in Caesarea Philippi? Do you know what happened in that city during the time Jesus walked around? Have you seen the "gates of Hades" which is physically located in Caesarea Philippi? Some geography and history will both enlighten what Jesus said AND blow you away that He had the chutzpah to go there with His disciples. This being said, your explanation is not incorrect, but lacking some powerful pictures that could help make your point stronger. A side note: understanding how Rabbis in the time of Jesus understood the terms “binding” and “loosing,” would very much support some of your points. MJH |
||||||
27 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181756 | ||
I was wondering if any of you thought Jesus actually used the Greek language in this verse? I am not sure how else this would make sense. The play on words works in Greek, but does it work in Hebrew? Jesus was in a Greek pagan region, and I suppose it is possible he used Greek supposing some locals were there at this time who didn't speak Hebrew, but it is perplexing to me. Any thoughts? MJH |
||||||
28 | The real Kingdom of God is Like? | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225094 | ||
The Greek: Should it more accurately be translated "the Kingdom of Heaven [is being made to be like] a human king who..." Is not the homoioo (G3666) in the passive tense therefore, it is the Kingdom that is being made to be like. In context of the flow of this section of scripture. Is not Jesus using this parable to show what the Sanhedrin is causing the Kingdom to appear as to be like... rather than saying the Kingdom of Heaven is actually like this. This parable does not fit the mold of the previous parables of the Kingdom and this is the only one where "homoioo" is used rather than "homoios esti". Is it possible that Jesus is saying that the current leaders of the Temple have made the Kingdom to be like this parable, rather than saying, this is what my Kingdom is actually like? It is difficult to understand this parable as a description of the genuine Kingdom of the Real God! MJH |
||||||
29 | Clarification on Kingdom parable. | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225099 | ||
Doc, thanks for the reply. But your answer seems to miss the point that the other times Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven, he does not use the same Greek word. In the others he uses the present active verb. Only in this parable does he use the passive voice. Rather than saying, "The Kingdom of God is like..." this parable depicts the Kingdom of God as receiving the action, and also in the past continuing tense (Though I am unsure exactly how to word this. It's all Greek to me, but from what I've studied, this parables wording is certainly unique.) Further more, why add the additional phrase "compared to a 'human' King." Why add the seemingly unnecessary word 'human' unless it's meant to further drive home the point. "The kingdom of heaven is being made to be like a human king who...." Or, maybe the Greek is better said, "The kingdom of heaven has been made to be like a human king who..." Like I said, I don't know how to word the tense correctly, but the voice being passive is indisputable where as in all the other kingdom is like parables, the voice is active. Certainly not trying to start anything. I just heard this in a sermon today and I'd like clarification. |
||||||
30 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150200 | ||
You seem quite against a third building of the Temple in Israel. How do you then interpret the second half of Ezekiel where he prophesies about a Temple being built that has not yet been built? Also, if the Temple was so bad after Jesus' resurrection, then why did Paul perform sacrifices in the Temple is Acts 21-22? Did Jesus prophesy against the Temple as you say, or did he prophesy against what was going on in the Temple? Or was he simple stating a fact that the Temple was going to be destroyed? MJH |
||||||
31 | Hebrew Greek Scholar question ? | Mark 5:9 | MJH | 140521 | ||
What is your name? My name is Legion. Legion is Greek Strong’s # G3003. We all know what that word means right? If the disciples of Jesus heard the man speak this in Greek, which is likely given the location, would they hear the Greek Word, "legion" as the Hebrew word, "leshon" which means "Slanderer" or "Accuser" (Hebrew Strong’s H3960)? Any Hebrew/Greek scholars out there can help me on the closeness of pronunciation? (We will have to assume for the purpose of the question that the disciples would have known some Hebrew. I am also not making the leap that they did not hear and understand the Greek word. I am only asking if the two words would have similar sounds.) MJH |
||||||
32 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164721 | ||
Could this passage mean: "For everyone [who is sent to hell] will be destroyed by fire." ? Reasons... The context from (42) causing "one of these little ones who believes in me to sin...", it would be better to be cast into the sea (also known as the abyss) and then if any part of you causes you to sin it would be better to remove that part than to be cast into the valley of Gehinnom. This is followed by the "odd" passage in question. The following are my reasons for interpreting this text as I did above: 1) If the Jews in the first century spoke Hebrew (this works even if you believe they spoke Aramaic as well.) then the Greek of Jesus words are a translation from the Hebrew that Jesus spoke. This passage can be translated word for word from the Greek back to Hebrew without changing the word order. (Which is not common between the languages.) 2) In Hebrew the word salt, from the base "m-l-h" can mean to destroy. (Lot's wife; Is 51:6 the words translated "to vanish away" is actually the words "to salt". Judges 9:45 Abimelech destroys Shechem and "sows it with salt." Deut 29:3, salt is a symbol of destruction. The “salt sea” is also known as the “dead” sea.) All of these are the same in Hebrew. So salting a place or person is often to destroy. 3) Most explanations of this verse have to do with purifications; so much so that some translations of the Bible actually put it in the text. (Always a dangerous thing to put an interpretation into the text of a translation.) They arrive at this from the use of salt in the sacrificial system. 4) Two Dutch exegetes - Hugo Grotius in 1641 and Johannes Clericus in 1714 - proposed this very interpretation. (I am unaware if Clericus got his interpretation from Grotius.) 5) This works the same with Aramaic since the root of the word “salt” is the same. If Jesus was using this term by drawing from either a Hebrew idiom or the Text of scripture that matches the “destruction” of Gehinnom, is certainly is a plausible interpretation. It matches the context of all that came before. THE PROBLEM: The problem I have unresolved is the next verse. If “salt” in verse 49 is to be rendered as “destroy” then verse 50 posses a problem that I have not sifted through. If anyone has some thoughtful comments I would love to read them. I have read several commentaries, so no need to quote them unless it pertains to the discussion. There are after all at least 15 different interpretations out there. I want to hear from others if there is any possibility of this being correct. As you may know, I like to try to get into the mind of the first hearers of the text and hope to hear what they heard. Being western and removed by language culture and 2000 years makes that a challenge….but a fun one. God bless, MJH |
||||||
33 | Thoughts on Hegg? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211633 | ||
Cheri, I'm curious what you don't like about Hegg? Writing style? Speaking style? Theology? Just curious, because he is so good at backing things up and even being overly willing to spell out other scholars thoughts that don't agree. I don't see him as trying to force people to follow him or agree, but rather studying a lot and presenting in as clear and concise a manner as possible what and why he believes. (well, maybe not concise) Now I sound like a sycophant. Sorry. But hey, he is a Calvinist, and that's where I came from too...gotta love that! MJH |
||||||
34 | The pronoun "Him" is God or Son? | John 3:16 | MJH | 179270 | ||
In John 3:16, can the pronoun "Him" refers to "God" rather than to "Jesus"? I do not know Greek, and wondered if any one who did could let me know if the "Him" could refer to the noun "God" at the beginning of the sentence or can the only possible understanding be that the "Him" refers to the "Son"? I am only looking at the possible translation from the Greek to English. Thanks, MJH |
||||||
35 | What did Jesus mean, "obey My commands?" | John 14:21 | MJH | 162122 | ||
Doc, what does Jesus mean by "My commandments?" I hear this passage preached on, but the message usually consists of, "you need to obey God..." without saying what that means. If we love Jesus, and want to obey Him, then what did HE mean by this statement? What did a 1st century Rabbi, whoes "Bible" was only the Tanak (Old Testement) mean when he said to obey His commandments? MJH |
||||||
36 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | John 16:7 | MJH | 215783 | ||
Why did Jesus need to depart before the Spirit could come? | ||||||
37 | Did they meet in a house or at Temple? | Acts 2:2 | MJH | 157525 | ||
Has anyone else heard that Acts 2:2 may be speaking about them sitting in the Temple area and not in the "upper room"? The Greek word translated "house" is also the word that is used for the Temple I believe. Also, it makes sense in the context and also answers the critique that 120 people couldn't fit in one single upper room in a house. MJH |
||||||
38 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193401 | ||
I was wondering if anyone had any input on the meaning of the first Jewish believers in Jesus being called "the Way?" I have had my opinion in the past and I have just heard a new one that sounds even better, but I'd like confirmation. I thought I would through this out here and see if any one confirms my thinking. Thanks for any ideas.... MJH |
||||||
39 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213665 | ||
I have a question about the Greek word used in Rom. 14:14. Hoping not to cause trouble here, I simply want to get further clarification from someone who knows Greek more than I. I've studied some the word koinos(G839) and akathartos(G169. koinos, from what I can tell, means common. Akathartos means ritually (Levitically) unclean. The LXX uses akathartos in Lev 11 and elsewhere, but uses koinos when describing things that are made common based on their use. To explain further: If I spoke of a Cray fish, I would use akathartos every time, because this is clearly unclean by Lev. 11 standards. There is no disputable issue with that. But if I were to speak of Lamb purchased at the market, I may uses koinos (common) because the Lamb is suspect; it could have been used in Idol worship. If it were known to be used in Idol worship, then it would certainly be koinos, or common. Therefore, if I speak of something that would otherwise be perfectly fine, but something renders it otherwise, it would be koinos. Am I right in that? A search of the words in the NT shows that in each case, koinos is used like I describe above. And akathartos is used as I describe above. Why then do nearly all translations use the word "unclean" in Rom. 14:14 rather than the word "common" as would be more literal? MJH |
||||||
40 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185307 | ||
I am a facilitator for a new Bible study group called "Torah Club." My job was to make sure the group melded well and not to be the answer man. I left them in early January and everything seemed to be going well. Now the group has a problem. The question is about the Sabbath and when it is. One member insists the Sabbath is on Saturday and the others are unsure (apparently). Now, I know that the Sabbath is Saturday, that isn't really a debate. The seventh day has always been the seventh day. But the question is which day ought we to observe as the (or a) Sabbath. I have my own beliefs in this area, but how might I guide the group so that they can continue to function as a community equally striving to learn God's Word. And to do this while accepting others who either are not as far along as them, or maybe have a different understanding of God's Word? My own study group, we do not all agree on a lot of things, but it just doesn't seem to be a problem. Some times its fun to poke at each other based on our differences. I'd like this group to have that same acceptance of each other and Monday night I will be meeting with them to help them achieve this. Any suggestions? MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |