Results 21 - 40 of 219
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229670 | ||
Hi, Should Christians pick up serpents? The answer is a decided NO (unless they are experienced zoologists). Jesus informed Satan that although He knew that He was safe whatever He did, it would not be right to put God to the test (Matt 4.7). So picking up a serpent 'by faith' on purpose is putting God to the test. It is therefore an act of disobedience. The promise given was not in order to encourage being spectacular (Jesus refused to do that), it referred to accidental contact with serpents. If someone picks up a serpent deliberately they are asking to be bitten, and faith will not save them. They may of course be lucky, but it will not be God Who will be protecting them. Best wishes |
||||||
22 | what does hyssop mean | OT general | biblicalman | 229627 | ||
Hi Mary Welcome to the forum. Hyssop was almost certainly a flowering plant that grew on walls and cliffs. It could be plucked, a bunch of it dipped in blood sprinkled water (the water of purification), or sacrificial blood, and ritually used for sprinkling (Exod 12.22; Num 19.18; etc). When David said 'purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, it was this ritual that he had in mind. Best wishes |
||||||
23 | Does the Bible refer to Peter being hung | NT general | biblicalman | 227860 | ||
No, that is found in the Acts of Peter a late second century apocryphal work. The only indication in the New Testament is John 21.18. | ||||||
24 | Theology and ethics in Pauls letters | NT general | biblicalman | 228367 | ||
Why does Paul have of two main sections in many of his letters? Because to Paul the whole purpose of God in salvation was to restore man and make him holy. You shall be holy for I am holy. Thus Paul described that salvation, encouraged response to it and then gave guidance in the way of holiness. To him it was inconceivable that a man could be saved and yet not seek holiness. |
||||||
25 | Atonement | NT general | biblicalman | 229246 | ||
Am I right in assuming from your question that you have done something wrong to someone which no one knows about and now wish to atone for it in some way? If the harm done can be put right in no other way then you will have to confess to it. If, however, the harm done cannot be put right then all you can do is try to make it up to the person in some way. Hope I got your meaning right :-) Best wishes |
||||||
26 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | biblicalman | 229351 | ||
Hi Penn, Welcome to the Forum. As has been explained one possibility is that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph, and that in the genealogy in Luke we have the genealogy of Mary. An equal possibility is that the genealogy in Matthew is indicating the line of heirs to the throne, whilst the genealogy in Luke is Joseph's bloodline. Where a king died without a direct heir the throne right would pass to a brother or a nephew, and they would in Jewish terms then be described as being 'begotten' by the deceased. Even an adopted child was descrinbed in terms of being 'begotten' by his new father. Thus in Matth 1.16 Jacob as Joseph's uncle may have died without an heir, resulting in Joseph becoming his heir by right of inheritancve, and thus being 'begotten' by him. The whole question is dealt with in depth in The Virgin Birth of Christ by J Machen. Best wishes |
||||||
27 | What is your view on the Rapture? | NT general | biblicalman | 229397 | ||
What is my view on the Rapture? I think it wll be the most wonderful event in history. 'For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven, with a shout of command, with the Archangel's voice, and with the trumpet-blast of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air and so we wll ever be with the Lord.' (1 Thess 4.16-17). Imagine the picture, the graves opening, the resurrected saints in their new spiritual bodies rising to meet the Lord in the air, the living saints being instantly transformed and joining them in their triumphant progress, and all together meeting the Lord and seing Him face to face, and going in with Him to the marriage feast of the Lamb. What a day that will be. I don't want to spoil its impact by clogging it up with a lot of uncertain detail. 'We will not all sleep (die) but we will all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the dead will be raised incorruptible and we will all be changed' (1 Cor 15.52). Thats what I want to turn people's attention on so that they will be ready. It is the one certain eschatological fact. What happens afterwards I will leave to God. Best wishes |
||||||
28 | God sees us through the blood of Jesus | NT general | biblicalman | 229398 | ||
Hi Cyndig, Welcome to the Forum. There is no actual verse that says that God sees us through the blood of Jesus, but a numberthat say something similar. Jesus 'Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith' (Rom 3.25). 'Therefore we are now accounted as righteous through His blood' (Rom 5.9). 'Through Whom we have redemption through His blood even the forgiveness of sins' (Eph 1.8). 'The blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanses us from all sins' (1 John 1.7). 'To Him Who loves us and freed us from our sins in His own blood' (Rev 1.7). 'So Jesus suffered without the gate in order to set apart His people as holy through His own blood' (Heb 10.12). Best wishes |
||||||
29 | Where did Adam and Eve's find their wife | Genesis | biblicalman | 227908 | ||
They each married one of Adam's daughters (Gen 5.6). There were no genetic problems in those days. | ||||||
30 | Is there a pre-incarnate Christ? | Genesis | biblicalman | 228333 | ||
If you read the accounts where the Angel of the Lord is mentioned you will discover that he is equated with God. He was thus not just an angel. He was 'God's other self'. See Gen 16.7 ff.21.17ff. 22.11 ff Sometimes he appears separate from God. At other times he speaks as God. But especially in Zechariah 1.12 the Angel actually speaks to God. Thus there is a peersonal distinction between them In the light of New Testament revelation that has caused the belief to grow up that He was the second person of the Triune Godhead. |
||||||
31 | old city names to current city names | Genesis | biblicalman | 228535 | ||
Edom and Idumea were not cities. Edom was the land in which the Edomites lived. Idumea was the region of southern Judah that they settled in when they were driven out of Edom. Jerusalem was sometimes called Zion. |
||||||
32 | Where there Gen 1:24-31; 2:18-20; 4: 17? | Genesis | biblicalman | 228593 | ||
Man was probably alive during the dinosaur age compare genesis 1.21, 24, 26. Gen 1.26 describes the first creation of man, and that was Adam. so no, there were no true men before him After the resurrection true Christians will have a spiritual body (1 Cor 15.44). |
||||||
33 | Creation of moon. | Gen 1:1 | biblicalman | 227640 | ||
The creation account does not say that the 'lesser light' (the moon) was created on day 4. The emphasis on day 4 is that God used the greater light (the sun) and the lesser light (the moon) in order to regulate the times and seasons, days and years. The fact that God 'made' them is stated but it is not said when. Only three acts of creation (bara) are mentioned in Genesis 1, the initial creation of Heaven and Earth, the creation of animal life and the creation of man. In the remainder of His activities the word used is 'made, fashioned'. Having created God then fashioned what He had created. When reading verbs in Hebrew we have to recognise that the Hebrews had little interest in chronology. They were interested in what happened, not when it happened. Thus Hebrew does NOT have a past tense, a pluperfect tense, a present tense and a future tense, It has two tenses, one signifying that something has been completed, the other that it is incomplete. Thus when it says that 'God made (or had made) the greater light and the lesser light' it is merely indicating that at some stage it happened, not saying when it happened. Having said that God used these lights to control the days and seasons on day 4 the writer then adds that at some stage prior to that He had made them for this purpose. But he does not say when. |
||||||
34 | Did Jesus every deny his divinity | Gen 1:1 | biblicalman | 228278 | ||
hi No Jesus did not deny His divinity at any stage. He made quite clear His equality with the Father and the Spirit. Taking the verse you quoted it was the Son Who made all things (John 1.3). Best wishes. |
||||||
35 | Did God create light twice? | Gen 1:3 | biblicalman | 229659 | ||
Hi In Gen 1.3 God brought into being the electro-magnetic waves which are the basis of the universe. In Gen 1.15 He used the sun and moon which He had previously made in order to control time on earth. It was then that days and seasons as we know them came into being. Best wishes |
||||||
36 | Can aliens be real? | Gen 1:6 | biblicalman | 227992 | ||
The impression given by Genesis 1 ia that creation built up to the creation of man and the remainder of the Bible described God's dealings with man. This would suggest that to God man is the central figure in the Universe. It really leaves no room for aliens. There are of course other spiritual beings but they are not of this universe. However be assured of this. If there are aliens we will never know. |
||||||
37 | Go created world | Gen 1:27 | biblicalman | 229732 | ||
Hi Sassy lady, Welcome to the forum. Among evangelicals there are a number of interpretations for the framework of Genesis 1. Some consider that 'the evening and the morning' indicate days of revelation. That is, that the author received his revelation over six or seven days. It would put no limit on how long creation took. The problem with this view is that there is no hint of it in the narrative. Others consider that having stated that God created the heavens and the earth the author then says that the earth BECAME formless and waste as a result of some catastrophe, and that consequently God remade it in six literal days. The problem with that theory is that it is not obvious from the Hebrew (rather the opposite), there are no real grounds for suggesting such a catastrophe (which is often connected with the fall of the Devil), and it does not read like that. Still others insist that it means 'six 24 hour days'. But there are problems in that view in that there was no evening of the first day, and that length of days is specifically stated as having commenced in the fourth day. It makes God act rather artificially in the first three periods. Others consider it to be a parable of creation, with the detail not to be taken literally. Finally some point out that 'yom' means a period of time, and is not limited to a 24 hour day period (yom is used in at least three different ways in the narrative). Their view is that the writer is thinking of 'days of God', which can be any length that God chooses. A day is with the Lord as a thousand years, or as a watch in the night. Thus they see God as acting in His own time. God only creates three times, heaven and earth, life and then man. For the remainder of the time He 'fashions' from what is there. Best wishes |
||||||
38 | Where did Lamech's wives originate? | Gen 5:4 | biblicalman | 228971 | ||
Hi learetha, welcome to the forum. Cain married his sister,as did Seth. They then had children, who also had children, so that by the time of Lamech generations later, there would be a wide range of women from whom to choose. Best wishes |
||||||
39 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228365 | ||
The 'sons of the elohim' (God/angelic beings) were fallen angels, evil spirits with whom women involved themselves in demonic marriage. They were 'the angels who kept not their first estate' (Jude 6). They cannot be 'the godly line of Seth'. Otherwise why were they all destroyed? Their progeny were powerful asnd evil beyond the norm and had to be destroyed. Thus the flood to wipe them out. |
||||||
40 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228450 | ||
While I have great respect for Dr Scofield (as a newborn Christian with no evangelical church known to me I seized on his notes as a Godsend, although I have subsequently discovered their many flaws). But he tends to be inaccurate in his general statements. To say that 'the uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that Gen 6.2 marks the breaking down of the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain' is simply untrue. It is the worst kind of misstatement taking advantage of people's ignorance. The 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo following LXX as known to him translated bene elohim (sons of God) as aggeloi tou theou (angels of God). And he was hugely influential among the Jews. And this translation is found in Eusebius and Ambrose. Josephus states that Gen 6.2 referred to angels. Enoch 6.2 refers it to 'the angels, the children of heaven'. Jubilees 5.1 refers it to 'angels of God'. The Genesis Apocryphon sees it as a union between angels and earthly women. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus all held this view. Delitzsch in his commentary says 'it is most obvious to think here of angels' and cites many sources. Taking bene elohim as 'sons of princes' (many ancient kings were seen as sons of the gods) is the traditional one in orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, and was established in order to counter the prevailing view that the passage referred to angels. But they too did not see it as referring to the line of Seth. Thus Scofield's statement is not only misleading, it is false. But in the Old Testament bene elohim always means angels (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Psalm 29.1 in Hebrew; 89.6 in Hebrew; Daniel 3.25). In contrast Isaiah 43.6 does not use the phrase bene elohim and reference to it is thus misleading. With regard to Daniel 3.25 the ben elohim mentioned there is in verse 28 specifically called 'His angel'. The fact that angels are spoken of as neither marrying nor giving in marriage indicates the norm. But that is the point. These angels had 'left their first estate' (Jude 6). The 'godly line of Seth' did not exist and is an invention of Bible students (I will not say scholars). Seth and his son were godly. Note that in Genesis 4.25 it was men in general who began to call on the Name of YHWH, not just Sethites. There is no indication that Sethites were generally more godly, apart from Enoch. To me the most obvious interpretation explains why the Flood was necessary and why man had become so totally evil (including the line of Seth). I am still waiting to learn why the lines of the other sons of Adam are not mentioned in arguments. Did they not exist? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |