Results 21 - 40 of 92
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What are these verses telling us? | Gen 6:2 | bowler | 207187 | ||
Mr. Rhoades No offense to you at all, this is a good question. I have seen many fight over this question so I am not going to offer an opinion here as if it is my view point. I refuse to say which one I believe in as I am not here to push my views or be judged, or censured for what I believe in. I need to include verses one and five to do this. Veiw One - 1) Men still lived a long time, Lamech the father of Noah lived 595 years in chapter 5. Daughters were born to these men who lived a long time. 2) The Sons of God refers to the sons of Seth, as Sons of Seth was referred to as the godly line who called upon God in chapter 4. Or it refers to the sons of the kings, as the Sons of God, who wished to build up harems. 3) These Sons of God which ever human group they were took wives for themselves. They had to be human because angels do not procreate or have sex or have the organs to do so. 4) The Nephilim - in Hebrew means bully, giant, tyrant - whoever the fathers were the offspring of all of these marriages were big bad men. They are called "mighty men who were of old, men of renown" - it is thought that they did great physical feats, perhaps in battle as well as other unknown things. 5) These men were so bad and there were so many of them that they contributed greatly to the depravity of all the men on the earth and the wickedness of men was great - every thought of the heart was evil continually, so God decided to destroy men. View Two - 1) Men were "going forth and multiplying" and daughters were born to them. 2) The term Sons of God is Ben Elohim and appears in other places in the OT to refer to angels like in Job. In Job it is said that the angels were "presenting themselves to God" - as in they were going up to where God is in heaven to report to Him or to worship Him. 3) Three Angels appeared to Abraham and they ate bread, so it is said all three took on human form, and one of them was a theophany of Jesus. So it is possible for angels to take on human form. 4) Jude 1:6, 7 the angels did not keep their proper domain and abandoned their proper abode - they both left heaven and transformed to human form. And because of what they did in that state they are kept in eternal bonds until judgment day. 5) Just as Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in gross immorality and "went after strange flesh", these rebellious angels did the same exact thing according to Jude - they procreated with the wrong species or kind. Where the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah went men after men as "strange flesh", so the angels went outside their proper domain and "went after strange flesh" with women. Now some Evangelicals believe these angels were "possessing" men. Some believe they were real angels in human real human form because the Bible does not say that humans were possessed, and the Bible does not specifically say angels cannot procreate if they were to take on human form. 6) It is possible that the Greek and Roman myths of the Titans have some element of truth in them as these "mighty men of old, men of renown" that got woshipped later after the Greeks and Romans heard about them as "stories" they heard but never saw. Think flood, these mighty men all perished and the whole thing was never repeated. 7) The deeds of these Nephilim, these giants were very evil and very great, they had superhuman like abilities perhaps in war and physical feats. They contributed so greatly to evil on the earht and there were so many of them that in addition to the sins of all the men which was continually evil thoughts from the heart God decided to destroy men. These are two views I personally have heard preached from various pulpits and on the Evangelical radio stations by some very popular conservative and reformed Evangelicals who believe they are practicing Sola Scriptura. I will not get into the problems each of these veiws presents. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
22 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207173 | ||
Zor I have followed this post for a while. I am wondering about something. What do you plan to do with this presentation to your children of the genealogy of Jesus in the OT? I think that you only needed the genealogy of Jesus as a part of what you were trying to teach them about the conquest and Judges. A next question I have; is it necessary to prove that the genealogy is historically correct as to how many generations spanned a certain time period? Is this information central to the main point, or points you intend to make to the children about the period of conquest and Judges? I have two scriptures I considered about this aspect of what you originally needed an answer to in seeing another post that commented on discussions like this one. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, eqquipped for every good work. There is no such thing as a scripture that does not have an application. 1 Timothy 1:4 Nor to pay attention to myths and genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. Specualtion about genealogies is fruitless and does not further the administration of God. We may not be able to ever resolve what apparent gaps or "textual problems" that arise. The answer to those things may not yeild an application that you could get out of such texts. The answers to those thing may resolve accademic problems that can have real merit in a Bible Study if the mystery unravels. The accurate recording of the genealogies of Jesus prove that Jesus came from the line of David - God's word came true that David would have an eternal heir on the throne! The interpretation of genealogies about Jesus would be Jesus is the eternal king as God. The application would be He is worthy of worship. Is there really any need to proove the accuracy of the time line to get there? Do we really need to have answers to genealogies to teach that? I leave you as the father who decides what is appropriate to teach his children about God and the Bilble to decide such things. I could not infringe on your right to do what you see fit and tell you that your question is "unprofitable", or "innapropriate", or that it "is not about the more important things of faith". Only you know what your intention was in trying to provide proof of what the Bible says, by using the Bible, for your children. I judge no one here, I offer no opinion here that anyone was wrong for this question, or any other post, or note. I pray to offend no one. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
23 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207172 | ||
Zor I found something, although it does not answer your question, it has some information that might be valuable to the work you are doing. It is large and you have sift through it for things you might want. I make a disclaimer up front, that it really does not resolve your issue about the generations and whether there was a good time frame. But it does provide a lot of information on both Luke's and Mathew's genealogies and compares them and refutes a lot objections to their veracity. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/genealogy_of_Jesus.htm I found something else in trying to sift through things - Salmon was Caleb's cousin? Caleb's birth was listed somewhere back in Numbers? Only Caleb and Joshua made it into the promised land? What happened to Salmon? Numbers was written in about 1406 B.C.? Joshua was written in about 1000 B.C.? Salmon did to get into Canaan land, did he, was he a child? Then if that is how he survived to get into Canaan, how did he live 400 or a bit under years to be around to marry Rahab in Joshua which was written about 1000? Am I just triping over the math here? I believe the Bible is the literaly sovereign word of God and I am not questioning His sovereignty in authoring the Bible and getting it right. This is what we call a "textual problem". It may not be resolvable, there are mysteries. I did not mean to add to the dilema for you, just thought you might be interested in the two things I came across about this. And I purposefully did not look every single thing up about Salmon being this or that because it became too much. I stumbled across someone writing about it and took that away wondering about. I refused to provide a link to that because I did not like the tone toward God's holy word. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
24 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207116 | ||
Zor I found one thing that might interest you. Moses lived 120 years. It says in Genesis 6:3 that God would shorten the days of men to 120 days. It says in Psalm 90:10 that our days are as 80 years if due to strength. If we were to consider that perhpaps they all lived to about 120 it works better. 480 years divided by 6 is 80 (6? I thought you said 5 the first time), 480 divided by 5 is 96. If these men had children by the time they were 80, and remember they seem to have children late in life in many Bible stories. So if each man had children at about 80 and then lived another 40 years or so it works out just fine. Even if they had children at about 96 and then lived for anoter 24 years, it still works out. Even if you only count the exact number before David in Mathew 1 as four it still works out beause it gives each man 120 years to live as the minimum, although it is possible some of them lived to 140 or so. Remember Jesse is still alive when David is born for a while, so he could have David by 80 and still been around before dying at around 120. What we can be certain of is that Doc is right about the records being kept in the temple of everyone's genealogy. So we have to take it as historical fact and try to do a little math. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
25 | when you die. when do you go to heaven | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 207115 | ||
ljcarr I would like to add my one cent. 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are of good courage, I say, and prefer to rather to be ansent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Philippians 1:23 But I am hard pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better. I could be very wrong but it seems to me that Paul is not only saying where he wishes to be, he implies that as soon as we are gone from here we are with the Lord. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
26 | verses on God raising Jesus from dead | Rom 10:9 | bowler | 207114 | ||
LovemyLord7 No offense meant you need a Strong's Concordance and a Bible with a good referrence column. Here is a start though off the top of my head - Acts 2:24 Acts 10:40 1 Corinthians all of chapter 15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
27 | nehemiah 1:9 | Neh 1:9 | bowler | 207113 | ||
b.j. I found something that relates for you. Deuteronomy 30:3, 4 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts area at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. Mark 13:27 And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthes end of heaven. Between the two verses I think we might just have what Nehemiah is talking about in 1:9. Just a worlthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
28 | Phonetic meaning of Welcome | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 207070 | ||
seirra I do believe I have seen this done before. However, the way you are going about it is backwards, as one usually starts with a verse, and then takes the first letters of key word and makes a single word that typifies the whol verse (these are rare finds). I can not think of even one off the top of my head. Some of the instances in which I have seen what you are talking about being done actually are not from Bible verses, but from Bible concepts. Like "Faith" - Forsaken All I Trust In Him. What you are interested in is Bible accronyms, you might try googling it. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
29 | Mark 2;21,22? | Mark 2:21 | bowler | 207065 | ||
Jesus Keeps Me I do believe Jesus is talking to the Pharisees about why the disciples did not fast. Jesus is using an illustration to tell them that because Jesus is with them there is no need to fast by talking about new patches of cloth in old garments and about putting new wine into old wine skins. The old covenant required fasting, the new covenant is Jesus. There was no need for the disciples to observe old laws, when a new covenant of grace was with them, it was time to do things differently. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
30 | A hard question. | Gal 1:8 | bowler | 207062 | ||
Jesus Keeps Me Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hinderances contrary to the teachings which you learned, and turn away from them. 2 John 1:9, 10 Anyone who goes too far and does to abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him in your house, and do not give him a greeting. It is completely possible and acceptable to politely end the converstation at any point within it that you realize the above is going on. You are not required to continue the conversation until it is ended for politeness sake, and it is not mean to do so. You have already told them the truth about Jesus Christ, or the Bible, and once you see they don't receive it, you are within Biblical rights to end the conversation. I was looking for something I thought I saw one time about warning someone twice before turning away from someone, but I think that was to do with believers and not unbelievers, I think. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
31 | difference between the two Marys | NT general | bowler | 207041 | ||
Athila Mary the mother of Jesus - Luke 1:26-38 - Mary was a virgin visisted by the Holy Spirit who conceived in her Jesus and was from Nazareth. Mary the Magdalene - Luke 8:2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses; Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. The two Mary's - Mathew 27:56 Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother (Salome) of the the sons of Zebedee. There is a third and a fourth Mary - John 11:1, 2 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha, It was the Mary who annointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. John 19:25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus had brothers and sisters- Mathew 13:55 - Is this not the carpenters son? Is this not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And not His sisters, are they not all with us? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
32 | Is this important to me today? | Hebrews | bowler | 207039 | ||
catfish 3 Doc makes some very excellent points there. I would like to add one. 1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices accpetable to God through Jesus Christ. Where once there was an Aaronic priesthood and only some could be priests to God under the order of Aaron, now there is a new order of Jesus Christ as the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. We are all, as believers part of this priesthood under Jesus Christ, a ministering priesthood as a spiritual house offering up sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Hebrews 13:15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
33 | Is Packer right? | Prov 16:33 | bowler | 207037 | ||
hopalong Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the workd of His power. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
34 | question on overview | 2 Cor 8:13 | bowler | 206988 | ||
tachminite I seemed to have missed this one. Read the whole two passages about three times, it will stand out like the big blue sky because he talks about the one thing for the two whole passages without deviance. :-) Once you see what he was talking about you have to go chapter by chapter from one end of the book to the other, looking for the verses that dove tail with what he talks about in the two chapters you are studying. The verses are here and there, you just have to read the book with a pad and paper in hand and write down every verse that pertains. Then you have to read the whole book again with an eye of what the whole theme of the whole book is, there is a verse or two in there that are the theme, there always is. :-) :-) :-) No one yet that I know of has found just one theme for either Corinthians book, there are more than a few, and verses for each theme and sub theme. Try to chart the book on a piece of paper or three - one thing is spoken about, then Paul moves to a next theme, and a next and a next. Break them up and label them with the verse that is the theme for each section. It will help you understand if those two passages even do relate to the "whole book" or not. Happy studying, God bless you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
35 | DOUBLE AND TRIPLE NEGATIVES OF NT | Luke 22:18 | bowler | 206986 | ||
Rolff I know very little about Greek, just simple word studied and a little more. I am assuming from your profile that you teach at a seminary, or work at one and teach students in a Bible study setting at night. I must admit to enjoying very much to trying to figure out what you meant. So I first went hunting on the web and came up with these two examples according to the information on the site - Hebrews 13:5 Luke 22:15-18 http://www.faithfulbible.com/ However, the site off course fails to explain why these two would qualify as being double or triple negatives. I like the few features of this site however, I bookmarked it. Now, I need to ask you to please teach me why these two examples qualify as double or triple negatives, if they really do, when in English and in Greek to English translations the English grammar "concpet" of what a double or triple negative is does not appear. Thanks. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
36 | Missions question | 1 Cor 9:1 | bowler | 206972 | ||
tachminite Please listen to Searcher he is realy trying to help you out here. Perhaps where you are from the there is an expression "three selves". I have never heard this before. It makes me wonder if you mean the trinity? Think about the three omni's and how they "literaly manifested" themselves in the Christian community, you will arrive at the answer. As to how the term "three selves" emerged into the Christian community, that is something that a pariticular Christian community arrived at as a term and as a concept that they "emerged" into the Christian community. That is not a universal understanding derived from theology proper that I have ever heard of before. I am not an expert, I do not think I know all the answers, there is plenty I do not know, and plenty I will be happy and eager to learn from others here. I am a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
37 | Question on interpretation | 2 Tim 2:15 | bowler | 206971 | ||
tachminite It is still the same two rules being broken as the last three posts you made. For the answer about what defense Christians might have given to pagans in Rome, and for a clue about how the rules were broken, I did give you an answer. Please go back and read again. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
38 | Question on interpretation | Gal 5:1 | bowler | 206970 | ||
tachminite The same two rules as your last two posts are being broken. Galatians is a letter outlining parts of Paul's theology and addressing erroneous beliefs about how to walk in faith, whether by law or by grace. The correct interpretation will give you the right application. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
39 | question of interpretation | Acts 4:32 | bowler | 206969 | ||
tachminite Please go through the previous posts you made when you first came to see what others said to you in answer to part of this question. The same rules that were broken visa your very last post are the same ones being broken here and you need to do the same work to get the anwer. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
40 | Question on Interpetation | Acts 4:34 | bowler | 206968 | ||
tachminite The rule of making a literal interpretation based on the intent of the author to his audience was ignored. The rule of determining what type of Biblical literature it was was violated. The intent of the author was to give a history of what happened during the birth of the church - it is not a treatise on theology, or a letter about Christian normatives for behavior and practice. The rules that were broken should be followed. The response to the interpretation is the application - hermeneutics. The interpretation drives what applications fit the interpretation. In your original post when you first came here you wanted to know what to do about getting in an interpretation for those who believe that living communaly is a Biblical interpretation of Acts 4:32-36. The answer is going to come from understanding what the church was realy doing, the circumstances, and why the author wrote about it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |