Results 21 - 40 of 62
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jim Estes Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205670 | ||
Hi Tamara, My sincere apologies if I came across too headstrong and I hope I didn’t offend you. You have a great writing style. You always answer the call of the question and cite scripture for your support. I very much appreciate your postings and do learn from them. My personal view is that Jesus was in the tomb for 72 hours. That could only be from just before sunset on Wednesday to just before sunset on Saturday. The Passover Sabbath on Thursday, spices bought and prepared on Friday and then the Saturday Sabbath. One other point I would make is about the two witnesses in Rev. 11. Their ministry appears to be a shadow of Christ ministry in regards to time. They prophesy for three and a half years and then they are killed. They are not placed in a tomb, but are dead for 3 ½ days and then come to life and are taken up into the clouds. I don’t think these 3 ½ days can be disputed. Also, Daniel 9:27 talks about the middle of the week. However, I don’t have a very good understanding of Daniel. Thanks, Jim |
||||||
22 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205667 | ||
Hi Brother Tim, Sorry if I missed the point. I think 72 hours because this was a sign. If it was anytime between 25-72 hours it would certainly diminish it as a sign. Why would Jesus not say "three days" only or "within three days?" I agree that Peter was not saying that private individuals cannot interpret Scripture, but he referred specifically to prophesy. I think you would still say the same principle applies. You were very clear and I appreciate your answer at a late hour. Thanks, Jim |
||||||
23 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205637 | ||
Hi WOS, The original question I had: where is the scriptural evidence? You are in error on the point, none has been provided. Please see my response to Tim Moran. I’ve always hear it explained that it was an idiom, but if it was just the way people understood what 3 days and 3 nights was, that still does not address my original question. How do we know from scripture? I don’t think it really matters if you call it an idiom or an understanding. Thanks, Jim |
||||||
24 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205634 | ||
Brother Tim, That is an excellent question! I would say the following scriptures would apply: Genesis 1:5 – God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Genesis 1:13 – There was evening and there was morning, a third day. John 11:9 - Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But, for the sake of discussion, “three days and three nights” was meant to be one day and parts, perhaps only minutes, of two other days. Then my question is: who decided Jesus was crucified on Friday as opposed to Thursday or Wednesday and why? Under this reasoning could it not have been any of those days? Next question: Does this way of thinking by the Hebrews also apply to scripture concerning 7 days and/or 40 days? Example: the spies for Israel spent 40 days spying out the promise land. Could this have been 38 days and just small parts of two other days? They certainly got the full 40 years of punishment! Were the three days of thick darkness in Egypt really only one day and parts of two nights? I have tried to look at 2 Peter 1:20 in different ways, but keep coming back to the fact that “scripture interprets scripture.” I figured that is where the quote must have come from. I would really appreciate your elaboration on the point. Many thanks, Jim |
||||||
25 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205628 | ||
Hi WOS, Thank you for your response. Matthew 24:4 “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘See to it that no one misleads you’.” We should not be relying on “those far more knowledgeable,” but we should examine the scriptures with eagerness to determine the truth of the matter. (Acts 17:10-11) Jim |
||||||
26 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205627 | ||
Hi Tamara, Many thanks for your response and effort in answering my question. You said “Fact - Jesus said He too would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, that makes that part fact, right?” Correct, I agree. You said “Okay now turn to Mark 15:42-47 - Jesus was buried the day before Sabbath could begin, the Sabbath begins on Saturday, so Jesus was buried on Friday. Yes, Jesus was buried just as the Sabbath was to begin. (Luke 23:54) However, this was not the weekly Sabbath observed on Saturday. This was the Sabbath that took place on the first day of the Passover feast. This Sabbath could occur on any day of the week. (John 19:31) There were two Sabbaths that week. This is why it was possible for the women to buy spices after the Passover Sabbath and prepare them before the Saturday Sabbath. You said, “Look down at Mark 16:1-6 - Mary and the women came on the first day of the week to anoint Jesus and get told, He is risen that morning of the first day of the week.” Please read that again. It says, “He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.” It does not say he arose that morning. Mark 16:9 says “Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.” My understanding is the New Testament Greek is without punctuation. The punctuation was added by translators. It could just as easily read, “Now after He had risen, early on the first day of the week He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.” You said, “What Jesus actually was saying was accurate when you factor in that what He meant was figuratively a period, not twenty four hour periods. This issue is about a figure of speech, it has to do with the use of the word Hemera as being it's last listed meaning - a figurative period.” I don’t think Jesus would state it that way when this was to be the only sign he would give the Jews that he was the Messiah. John 11:9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. Thanks again, Jim |
||||||
27 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205608 | ||
Hi Val, If there are no scriptures that show that "three days and three nights" is an idiom, then it is not. "Three days and three nights" must be taken on its face as meaning exactly what it says. If I take "three days and three nights" to mean something else, then it must be supported by scripture. I am not entitled to make my own private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20) Jim |
||||||
28 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 205569 | ||
Doc, Someone, at sometime, must have made the decision that when Jesus gave the only sign that he was the Messiah by saying “three days and three nights” that it was an idiom. I read John Gill on the subject concerning Matthew 12:40 wherein he took it as an idiom that when Jesus was placed into the tomb just before sunset, that counted as a full day and night, Saturday counted as a full day and night and whatever time Jesus may have been in the tomb on Sunday was the 3rd day and night. So what Jesus really said was “as Jonah was one day and one night and parts of two other days in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be between 24 hours, 2 minutes and 72 hours in the heart of the earth.” This is the only sign Jesus said that he would give that he was the Messiah! 2 Peter 1:20 states, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. . .” John Gill does not back up his interpretation with scripture; therefore it does not comply with the requirement of 2 Peter 1:20. My question remains, what scriptures interpret “three days and three nights” to mean anytime between 24 hours, 2 minutes and 72 hours? Thank you for your assistance. Jim |
||||||
29 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Jim Estes | 205278 | ||
Hi Brother Tim, I would say that “about to begin” would indicate that the sunset and the High Sabbath were imminent and there was not sufficient time for the women to return home and prepare spices, even if they had already purchased the spices in contradiction to Mark 16:1. Jesus cried out about the ninth hour and died a short time later. This would have left about 2 ½ - 3 hours before sunset. Then there was the earthquake. Later the Jews were becoming so concerned that the bodies would still be on the cross at sunset that they requested Pilate to have their legs broken. When it was already the evening, Joseph gathered up his courage and went in to see Pilate to ask for Jesus body. Pilate then summoned the centurion to determine if Jesus was dead. Only then did he grant Joseph permission to take the body. Joseph then bought a linen cloth, took Jesus down from the cross, wrapped him in the linen cloth with about a hundred pounds of spices and laid him in the tomb and secured it with a large stone. Even with help from Nicodemus, all these events had to take some considerable time. I agree with you that these scriptures in Mark and Luke do not constitute a Biblical discrepancy, contradiction, or error. They are very clear and precise. However, they do contradict the idea of a Thursday or Friday crucifixion. Jim |
||||||
30 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Jim Estes | 205145 | ||
Hi Tim, Thank you for your response. Can you give me an actual timeline how this would work. Jesus was placed into the tomb as the Sabbath was about to begin. The women were there watching. How did they then prepare any spices and perfumes (all or part) and then rest on the Sabbath as stated in Luke 23:56? Thanks, Jim |
||||||
31 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Jim Estes | 205144 | ||
Hi Tamara, Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. If Jesus was indeed using an idiom as the only sign he would give that he was the Messiah, then I thought the answer might be that Luke 23:56 was written out of sequence and they had rested on the Sabbath and then prepared the spices. But, as you point out, Luke was writing “in consecutive order.” Therefore, the only explanation I see is that Jesus was not using an idiom, being crucified on Wednesday. After the Thursday High Sabbath, they purchased the spices and prepared them on Friday. They then rested on the Saturday Sabbath. I would very much like to hear any other possible explanations as to how the two scriptures (concerning the spices) could be reconciled. My experience has been that when I find such a conflict, it is due to a misinterpretation of the scriptures and that the scriptures are in harmony. Thanks again, Jim |
||||||
32 | Angels or the Cainites with Sethites? | Gen 6:2 | Jim Estes | 198395 | ||
Hi Cheri, See my response to Bandit on this thread. Jim |
||||||
33 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 196763 | ||
Thank you Cheri! | ||||||
34 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 196741 | ||
Since I have never met the person or know his heart, I will not judge him as lost, a fool, or a numskull! Matthew 7:1-2 | ||||||
35 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194080 | ||
Steve, Many thanks! Jim |
||||||
36 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194072 | ||
Hi Steve, Can you give me the scripture to support your statement, "Rahab was under the ban and should have been executed with the rest of the city." Thanks, Jim |
||||||
37 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194071 | ||
Hi MP, In my answer to your first comments on this tread, I stated the following, “More telling is verse 17, wherein Ruth uses the name LORD, translated Jehovah. Jehovah was the covenant name given to Israel in Exodus 6:3. It is doubtful that the writer of Ruth would have recorded Ruth as using the name Jehovah had she not been an Israelite and had every right to do so.” I see in Joshua 2:9-10 that Rahab, the harlot, also used the name “LORD.” Therefore, my statement was wrong and no such inference can be made. Jim |
||||||
38 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194002 | ||
Hi Steve, Thank you for your response. 1. It would not have been the first time that a son of Israel sinned with the daughters of Moab. When Israel arrived at Shittim in the land of Moab, between the Arnon and Jabbok, they began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. This was before they crossed the Jordan and before the land was given to Gad and Reuben. The Lord was angry against Israel for this and ordered Moses to execute the leaders of this harlotry in broad daylight, so that the Lord’s anger would be turned away. 24,000 died as a result of their sin (Numbers 25:1-9). However, it was not wrong for Elimelech to travel in the land of Moab because that part of Moab had been taken from Moab by the Amorites who were then conquered by Israel. The land of Moab was the land of the tribes of Gad and Reuben. 2. Yes, Rahab was saved by her faith which led her to help Israel by hiding the two spies. Ruth was also a woman of great faith, but where did she get it. If she was indeed a daughter of Moab, then Elimelech and Naomi certainly were not very good role models by disobeying God’s law, for which 24,000 Israelites had paid with their lives. Now Salmon, the father of Boaz, was present at Shittim when all of this happened. You would think that both Elimelech and Naomi would be very aware of that incident. Another reason to doubt that they went to the Nation of Moab, instead of the “land of Moab” which was occupied by fellow Israelites. As for your closing comments, all I can say is “Amen!” God bless, Jim |
||||||
39 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193991 | ||
Hi MP, Thank you for your clarifications and thoughts on Ruth. I appreciate your arguments; you have made a commendable presentation of your views. My apology if it seems I twisted or misrepresented your thoughts as that was not my intent. Your words speak well enough for themselves. I was not offended by your reference to ABC, just my little attempt at humor. I didn’t ignore your conjunction that created a joint assertion. (I’m not that smart!) But, now that you’ve brought it to my attention, I still don’t see the connection. However, did you notice in the verse what was opposite “the fords of the Jordon”, the land occupied by Gad and Reuben? The fact that the nation of Moab is clearly identified as an enemy would support that Ruth was Moab by residence in the occupied area. (Judges 3:28) The translation of the words Elohim and Nokriah would depend on the context in which they are used. If you think Ruth was a daughter of Moab, then God and foreigner would seem correct. If Ruth is a Moab because she is an Israelite from “the land of Moab,” then Judge and stranger would be correct. I cannot get over the hurdle of “the land of Moab” being Israelite occupied country. Land that was good for livestock, which indicates it could have been fairing better in a time of famine. Nor can I get past the law in Deuteronomy 23:3. It seems that if Ruth was a Moabite by birth it would make a mockery of God’s law. If Mahlon was foolish enough to violate God’s strict law and marry a foreign woman, then surely there was no requirement in the law that would require any other Israelite to perpetuate the offense. Certainly, this would have been the first argument of the closest kinsman when he refused to redeem Ruth. Yet we are to believe that all of these kinsmen of Naomi who were so diligently and correctly observing the law would simply overlook the fact that she was a Moab by birth. Some may think that the nearest kinsman rejected Ruth for that reason. Yet, it was not a matter of “if”, but by whom would she be redeemed. Boaz was waiting, willing and eager to make Ruth his wife. He was encouraged to do so by the nearest kinsman. Would all the people in the court, and the elders rejoice at this further violation of God’s law and actually compare a foreign woman to Rachel and Leah? Remember, the law applied down to the 10th generation! But for the sake of argument, lets say that Ruth was a Gentile and so was the mother of Boaz, that is, Rahab the harlot. That would mean that Obed, the grandfather of King David, was ¾ Gentile, being ¼ Canaanite and ½ Moab. How then can scriptures be consistent when we read Ezra’s reaction when he learned that the exiles who returned from Babylon had intermingled with the Moabites and other foreign women? (Ezra 9:1-3 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness." When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled.) Did Ezra not know of Ruth? What chance would Ezra have to actually enforce Deuteronomy 23:3 if Ruth was a Gentile? Yet that is exactly what happened in Ezra 10:3, not only were the foreign women put away, but also the children of those marriages. As much as we might like Ruth to be Gentile, we would do well to remember the words to the Hebrews recorded in Deuteronomy 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Jim |
||||||
40 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193860 | ||
Hi MP, Your arguments: 1. “things that are generally accepted are generally correct”; 2. The book of Ruth is boring and irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth; 3. It has always been taught that way!; 4. Without Ruth being Moabite there is no divine purpose!; and 5. My arguments sound like ABC News! Ouch! At least you didn’t compare me to Dan Rather! I will let others judge how valid these arguments are. 6. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’. I did not ignore the fact that Ruth is referred to, a number of times, as a Moabite or Moabitess. This referred to where she was from, not that she was a Moabite by birth. Like Jesus was called a Nazarene. 7.”she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (Ruth 2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land.” The word translated “foreigner” is “Nokriah” and it can mean either “foreign” or “not known to you.” It depends on the context. When Ruth met Boaz she did not yet know he was her kinsman and he was a complete stranger to her. She was surprised that he would treat her in this generous manner. In Genesis 31:15 Rachel and Leah use the same “Nokriah” or “foreigners” to describe their relationship to their father Laban. I think you would agree that a better translation is “strangers.” ABC? God bless, Jim |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |