Results 21 - 40 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | How can you explain the SDA faiths? | NT general | biblicalman | 229491 | ||
The word baptizo means 'to drench', and derivatively 'to overwhelm' (looking at both Biblical and secular usage). What a word means is not determined by its root, but by how it is used. (The use of bapto is therefore irrelevant to its meaning). The Pharisees did not wash their hands they drenched them, pouring water over hands and wrists. Paul's use in 1 Cor 10 was metaphorical. The Israelites were not really baptised, thus whether they got wet or not is irrelevant. Paul is using the word as a technical term. Certainly in the UK you will not find any baptists that I know of who suggest that baptism saves. Indeed they could not, otherwise they would not allow a delay in baptism after salvation. I know of no UK baptist church thast insists on baptising people the moment they believe. Most would insist on a course of instruction to ensure that the person knows what they are doing. Salvation occurs through faith in Jesus Christ and His blood shed for us, not through baptism. Baptism is simply a final visible seal indicating outwardly that the person is claiming to have been sealed by the Spirit, baptism in water being important but not vital. The reason Baptists practise immersion is: 1) because they believe that that is how it is portrayed in Scripture. 2) because they believe it better portrays the idea of dying with Christ and rising with Him, which is the main meaning of baptism in Scripture. It is only a sacramentalist who would suggest that it mattered whether every part of the head and body were covered. Few UK baptists are sacramentalists. But of course as immersion means going right under the water it is difficult to see how any part could not be covered by water. Thus if there is absurdity, the absurdity that talks about a part not being covered lies with those who suggest otherwise. (It is a pity that Christians try to point to other Christians as having absurd ideas. Whatever they may be they are rarely if ever absurd. Baptists could say that sacramentalist ideas are absurd, some probably do, but I do not think it right to do so. Such ideas may be wrong, but they are not absurd. We should respect each others views). I write this not in order to promote baptists but in order to correct any fales impressions that may have been gained from what has previously been said. Best wishes. |
||||||
22 | Did God create light twice? | Gen 1:3 | biblicalman | 229705 | ||
There are two things we are wise not to be dogmatic about, the first is the beginning of all things, and the second is the end of all things. Both are outside the sphere of our understanding. We are told that in the beginning God created hashamayim (the heavens) and haaretz (the 'earth' or 'the place'). Now as angelic beings are introduced early on (in chapter 3) it is clear that this includes the heavens where they dwell. Nothing further is said about this creation. We are probably unwise to speak of 'before creation'. That assumes time, but time was created along with the universe. We can speak of eternal time, but humanly speaking that is impossible when looking back. There had to be a beginning. And here we are told that that beginning was in the act of creation. It is true that Jesus does speak of 'before the world was' but that is using human language to describe the indescribable. We simply have to accept things as they are recognising thst we cannot understand eternity. All the emphasis in chapter 1 is on the creation of ha-aretz. And it is soon apparent that this term includes the skies, and the heavenly bodies. Thus it does not strictly mean earth. Eretz is indeed a broad term. It can mean our earth, it can mean dry land as opposed to sea, or it can mean 'a country'. In other words it refers to what finally contains man. Thus prior to the creation of light and dry land it probably indicates 'the stuff of the universe' (it includes sun, moon and stars and the sky). We are told in verse 2 what the stuff of the universe consisted of. It was shapeless and empty and totally lacking in light, although at some stage prior to the creation of light there was 'the deep'. But that is probably intended to indicate simply that there was no land which was liveable on. The whole point of this description is that God was about to work on a 'blank canvas' (shapeless waste and uninhabitable) and create our universe. Darkness was not created. It was simply lack of light. God then introduced light by His word. What had been empty and waste and totally dark suddenly became changed at God's word. Light pervaded our universe. This is probably an indication of the creation of electro-magnetic-waves which are a form of light. Suddenly the stuff of the universe had form and substance. Let God withdraw light and the universe would collapse into nothingness. Holmes is right to suggest that this started the first yom. Thus the first yom did not have an evening and a morning. It started with light. This is a warning not to take evening and morning literally. It clearly simply means beginning and ending. As light had not been separated from darkness until in the midst of this first yom an evening and a morning were previously an impossibility. This also demonstrates that we are not to take the yom pattern as a 'day' in our sense of the term (strictly yom means a period of time). This is confirmed by the fact that times and seasons, days and years were not fixed until the fourth yom. There were no 'days' in our sense of the word before that. It was on the fourth yom that God caused the heavenly bodies to rule the times and seasons, days and years. That means that they had not done so before then. Nights and days as we know them did not exist until then. That was God's purpose in fashioning the sun and the moon and bringing them into play. But it should be noted that God did not create light on the fourth yom as well. What he brought into action were the 'lamps' that gave light for man. Thus there were not two creations of light. |
||||||
23 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228429 | ||
What has to be recognised is that there was no 'godly line of Seth'. Seth's descendants were as ungodly as Cain's. That is why thousands of them perished in the Flood and only one family survived. Some godly line lol. Why on earth should a line which was to be largely destroyed for sin be called 'sons of God'?And why should their subsequent offspring have been so unique as to be 'men of renown'? In fact of course many of Cain's descendants worshipped Elohim. Why were they then different? We cannot condemn them all because of the sin of Lamech and the folly of Cain. And what about the descendants of the other sons of Adam? Did they not worship YHWH also? And notice 6.1. 'Men (not Cainites) began to multiply on the face of the earth.' Why should that description be restricted to half the population? Why should it mean Cainites? Were the Sethites not men. And what about the children of all the other sons of Adam? They too were 'men'. And it was the daughters of these men in general who are referred to. Indeed the phrase the bene elohim (sons of God) was elsewhere only used in the Old Testament of angels (see Job 1-2). Thus sound exegesis demands that we see here the angels leaving their first estate (Jude 6). It explains why their offspring were so exceptional, and also why God had to take such drastic action. The only way to remove the effects of these unions was total destruction. Men had become possessed by evil beyond their understanding. |
||||||
24 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228446 | ||
Hi Holmes, Genesis 4.26 depicts when men began to worship YHWH. Two people does not constitute a 'line'. So there were some godly people in the days of Seth and his son? That does not explain the calling of people hundreds of years later by the title 'sons of God'. They were not 'sons of God'. They were particularly sinful men. As far as we know the godly line of Seth ceases at his son Enosh (which incidentally means man in his frailty). Indeed you will notice it was 'men' who began to call on the Name of YHWH (not sons of God). Then in 6.1 it was 'men' who had daughters born to them. Thus the same people are in mind. You say does it make sense that demons (evil angels) are called sons of the elohim? Yes it does. Satan is called a son of the elohim in Job 1-2. Does that make sense? 'Elohim' can equally indicate the spirit world. (Thus in Psalm 8 man was made a little lower than the elohim which AV translates as angels). Angels are therefore called 'sons of the elohim'. The witch of Endor said, 'I saw elohim arising out of the earth'.(1 Sam 28.13). She was thinking of disembodied spirits. So it is very apposite that fallen angels be called 'sons of the elohim'. Goliath was just a large men. He was not some exceptional being. The Anakim were famous for their size. Compare the Zulus. But they have no connection with Genesis 6. All described in Genesis 6 were wiped out by the Flood. Yes I have read the passage very carefully. So there were large men on the earth? Now why should that be mentioned if there is no connection? And certainly the 'men of renown' were borne by the daughters of men who had relations (whether physical or demonic) with the angels. You still have not explained why the whole of the line of Seth apart from one family was wiped out by the Flood if they were 'the godly line of Seth'. They were wiped out precisely because they were ungodly. Who suggested that God would strive (or abide)with demons? It was man in his association with demons who would be rejected by God. Have you never heard of demonic intercourse? It even takes place today. This is therefore probably describing such intercourse. Remember the writer is trying to describe in simple terminology something profoundly evil. What other terminology had he for the idea of evil angels becoming one with earthly women? It was in the early days of language, when language was limited. In fact of course we do not know whether fallen angels could have intercourse with earthly women. Are you an expert on angels? Have you ever met any? How then can you say what they could do? If they can appear as men, as they regularly do, then they could have intercourse with women. The fact that it is unnatural for them is precisely the point. They were the 'angels who left their first estate'. They went against God's ordinance. Best wishes |
||||||
25 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229140 | ||
Hi Holmes, I don't remember mentioning Passover? You must have have misread what I said. It was in the days of Abraham (around 1900 BC - Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ur of the Chaldees had not been yet destroyed, and both were destroyed around 1900 BC)) that a generation was one hundred years, while the forty year generations of the days of the Exodus were at least 500 years later, even if you take the early date for the Exodus. I fail to see where I am misquoting Scripture. It says 'strangers in a land (singular) which is not theirs where they would serve them and would be afflicted for four hundred years, and also THAT NATION whom they serve will I judge, and afterward they will come out with great substance '. Clearly one nation was in mind. And besides they were not afflicted in Canaan, nor did they serve the Canaanits. The family tribe of the patriarchs was too powerful (Abraham had 318 fighting men born in his house). It can thus only refer to Egypt. So the Bible used 100 years as a generation in 1900 BC and 40 years at least 4-500 years later. How is that the same time period? Well if Moses' genealogy is complete how then do you explain the genealogy of Joshua which clearly goes over 10 generations from Ephraim to Joshua? I have based my ideas on stated Biblical facts, not on my own unsubstantiated theories. Best wishes. |
||||||
26 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229141 | ||
Hi Searcher, Because the four generations of Genesis 15 occur over 400 years, thus indicating that a generation was seen as 100 years (it was in the days of longevity). The actual genealogy of Joshua is given in Chronicles which was 11 generations inclusive from Jospeh to Joshua. Over 400 years that is 40 years to a generation. By the way we must beware of reading back into the ancients our very mathematical modern outlook. The ancients did not on the whole cope with mathematical ideas very well. It is questionable how many of them could count above, say, 20. (I have done a deatailed study into the use of numbers through history). Best wishes |
||||||
27 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229152 | ||
Hi Doc, I was not of course speaking of Moses. He is hardly an example of the average Israelite, although I should point out that the Egyptians did not advance in complicated mathematics like the Sumerians and Old Babylonians did. And even their mathematics deteriorated after 1800 BC. Egyptian hieroglyphs were not helpful in enabling advanced calculation. The Egyptian mathematics largely concentrated on practical measurement. But I presume you are not suggesting that Moses set up schools in the wilderness to teach mathematics? They had enough problems finding water. The people were troublesome enough without that. But there is a huge gulf between a relatively few expert Egyptian builders, and certain Sumerian mathematics experts, and a nation like Israel where, before the time of David's court there was ittle need for mathematics. Of course if you have in mind the 'wise men' at David's court no doubt SOME of them could use mathematics reasonably proficiently. But they would be the exceptions. There were very few schools, and little opportunity for the ordinary man to go to school. Nor was counting needed. The shepherd and herdsman knew each of his cattle by name, and trading was carried out using tally sticks and stones in order to indicate quantity. These were tried and trusted methods which had been in use well before numbering began (around 3500 BC). Before that no one could count, however sophisticated. I would not take too much notice of Josephus if I were you. He is reasonably reliable for ths history of his time (although he tended to exaggerate) but he was not reliable for past history. And he was trying to impress the Romans. Furthermore he lived 1900 years after Abraham. It would be like me trying to say what happened in the 2nd century AD without having any records to go by. Meaningless. In fact his statement is ridiculous. What possible use would Abraham have had for advanced mathematics and primitive physics? His interests were trading, herding, and farming. Have you noticed how in recording the statistics of Saul the Bible writer used a non-numerical system? 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years in Jerusalem'. Now what does that mean? It means that he began to reign in the first stage of his life (below twenty) and continued to reign into the second stage of his life, but died before he reached the third stage (possibly 60). There was clearly no recorder at Saul's court!! Many of the number problems in the Old Testament are best explained by the fact that numbers were used adjectivally. And number words had other meanings. Thus the word for 1000 (eleph) could also mean a clan, or a fairly large military unit, or if repointed a military captain. Thus two eleph could mean two clans, or two military units without any reference to numbers. 40 eleph could mean forty military units, and often did (even if we do incorrectly translate it as 40,000). You really cannot compare the average Israelite with high ranking Babylonian priests, and advanced Egyptian thinkers who had nthing better to do with their time. Of course Israel did eventually develop an intellectual elite. But that is what they were an elite. The nearest comparison we can make with the Israelites are modern tribes untouched by by 'civilisation'. And without exception they have been found to be unable to count beyond twenty. Most could not count beyond three. And yet many were highly intelligent and engaged in shepherding, farming and trading without any need to do so. Before you criticise further I suggest you read some reliable books on the history of mathematics by scholars who have genuinely researched the subject and have no axe to grind. Best wishes |
||||||
28 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229166 | ||
Hi Searcher, You make a good point when you stress that Isaac was born when Abraham was one hundred. However we also have to take into account the previous longevity of the patriarchs. To us if someone lives to 100 we are amazed. To them it was second nature. Seeing 40 as signifying 'a generation' would not of course mean that everyone was born at 40. It was an average, and quite possibly based on the period God allotted for the passing of the wilderness generation (Numbers 14.33), who would die out one by one. The actual real length of a generation in most cases was probably around 25. It is interestimg how often 40 occurs. It was the stated age at which the patriarchs took wives (Isaac - Gen 25.20; Esau - Gen 26.34). It was the stated age when Caleb was sent to spy out the land (Josh 14.7). It was regularly the length of the period of rest in Judges (Judges 3.11; 5.31; 8.28). It was the stated period of Philistine oppression (Judges 13.1). Eli judged Israel for 'forty years' (1 Sam 4.18). The aim in these cases may well have been to indicate 'a generation'. Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign (2 Sam 2.10). David reigned for 'forty years' (2 Sam 5.4; 2.11). It was 'after 40 years' that Absalom decided to rebel (2 Sam 15.7). Solomon reigned in Jerusalem for 'forty years' (1 Kings 11.42). All this suggests that at this time 'forty' was a round figure, possibly indicating a generation. Best wishes |
||||||
29 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229174 | ||
Hi Doc, My statements with respect to counting were not based on the views of higher critical scholars, but on the researches of scholars into the use of numbers without any specific reference to the Bible. They had no axe to gind. As I have pointed out, 'modern' tribes who had not been brought into contact with 'civilisation' were regularly found not to be able to count, usually beyond three or four, although very occasionally up to twenty. It was simply not 'natural'. They not only had no use for numbers but in some cases even resisted the attempt to teach them numeracy. A recent researcher, speaking of Mediaeval England stated 'By this time schools were reduced to little or no arithmetic, it is doubtful whether few knew more than basic counting and finger reckoning.' This the whole of Mediaeval England. And they would not have been seen as 'primitive' (unless you wanted a dagger in your throat:-)) ). Actually many men in ancient days were quite literate and yet unable to count beyond twenty. Numbering was left to the experts. I have at no stage said that no Israelite could count. No doubt Israel also had numerate scribes (as Scripture suggests). But they would be specialists. It is probable that Eliezer, Abraham's steward, was numerate. Indeed Abraham himself may well have been, for he came from Ur of the Chaldees, which was a centre for ancient mathematics, and he was the equivalent of royalty, although whether he went to school in Ur ia another question. As semi-nomads they probably lived on the periphery.(But even the Sumerians were hindered because no one had come up with the concept of a 'zero, nought'. That concept was not invented until the 6th century BC). We certainly know that a king of Egypt after the time of Abraham was unable to calculate. For it was said that when he went into the underworld he was challenged as to his ability in numeracy in order to enter it (thereby proving himself to be royalty) and was baffled, only to be saved because he remembered a verse of poetry which contained numeracy. He was consequently looked on by the Egyptians as 'a great magician', demonstrating the awe in which numeracy was held. It is quite possible that Samuel learned to count beyond 20. But he was hardly the average Israelite. He ruled Israel, and was a scholar besides. However, I cannot see why a man being a prophet of God should necessitate advanced numeracy. Amos was a herdsman. To us numeracy is second nature. We are taught it from our earliest years. The average Israelite had no schooling, was probably not literate (although of course some were to a limited level. But we must remember that the average Israelite before the exile had no reading material), and had no real need for numeracy beyond a limited level. Ancient peoples had managed without it for thousands of years. Of course once money was invented in around 6th century BC numeracy would increase to a limited extent among those who used money. It would at last become more useful. It was, however, the Greeks who turned mathematics into an art, and even a religion (but not of course to the average Greek). Best wishes |
||||||
30 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229181 | ||
Thanks Tim that's very useful. Best wishes |
||||||
31 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229196 | ||
Hi Doc, Well it is true that we all have axe's to grind, you as well as me. And that is why it is important that we consider a wide range of views. LOL I have never suggested that there were people who could use numeracy and not read. Numeracy was a highly skilled art unlikely for those who could not read. Although of course as writing grew out of the original use of numbers in ancient business documents you may have a point in the initial stages. In both the UK and the US today there are people who cannot read and write. And that in spite of intense efforts to make everyone literate. And the standard of numeracy for many is very low (you would probably be surprised to know how low, even after years of schooling). So why should it be surprising that in a land of farmers, who never went to school, and who worked hard from daybreak to nightfall trying to extract a living out of their small plots of land, and their few sheep and goats, and had no books to read or need to send letters, literacy should be at a very low level? It would be surprising if it was otherwise. Of course, there were always those who could read and write to some extent (especially among the relativey wealthy), and there were the comparatively few who were 'scholars', especially among the leading priests, but they were almost certainly in the minority. To you the word of God is written text, but to the ancients it was memorised text. It is true that copies of the Scriptures were available in the Temple, but comparatively few had access to them. And they were not easy to read. And copying was an arduous task, and writing materials very expensive. There would not be many copies outside the Temple, especially before the time of David. The ancients had retentive memories. As the Law was read out to them at the feasts (Deut 31.11-13; etc), it would not be long before they could repeat it word for word, especially as their fathers would have taught them it. And they would then repeat it to their children, as the Scriptures told them to do. Note that Moses was told to write the song and 'put it in their mouths' (not on their tablets). So Moses agreed with me. You may say, 'they were told to write it on their gates and on their doorposts' (Deut 6.9). But they would call in the signwriter to do that. Yes, they would repeat the Shema every day, but they would not read it. Few would have any written material. They knew it by heart. Consider how Muslims today consider knowing the Quran by heart (even though they do not understand it) to be something to be earnestly sought after. I am afraid I do not look on modern Rabbis as authorities on ancient history. Like most they look back from a biased viewpoint. Reading and numeracy is so second nature to us that we find it difficult to conceive of a world where it was limited. But I am even now involved in teaching my granddaughters to count, and it is an arduous business, even with all the numeracy games available. Do you think the poor among the ancients had time to spare for such activity? What use would it be to them? There were far better things to spend their limited time on. Best wishes |
||||||
32 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229203 | ||
Hi Holmes, It ie when statements are made that is the crucial question. The statement in Gen 15 was made at least 500 years before the statement concerning the wilderness generation. It was made at a time of great longevity. Thus the view of a generation at that time was different. (If you look back you will find that Tim cited four recognised commentaries that agreed with me on this point:-)) ). With regard to genealogies it was a regular occurrence for only the important names to be given. But we can square Moses genealogy (four generations) with that of Joshua (eleven generations) in two ways, either by assuming a generation of 100 years for Moses, and 40 years for Joshua (Moses' family were long-lived), or by recognising that in Moses' genealogy only the important names were given. In the case of Paul's statement he was of course citing the four hundred and thirty years mentioned in Exodus 12.40. 'Now the sojourning of the children of Egypt who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years'. Taken naturally, that is a clear statement that the 430 years applies to the time of sojourning in Egypt, thus confirming what we have said about Gen 15. You will notice that Paul speaks of the period from the CONFIRMING (not the giving) of the covenant to the giving of the Law. The covenant was given to Abraham and confirmed continually to Isaac and Jacob. Thus the period of 430 years is from Jacob to Moses (which is the period in Egypt per Exodus 12.40). Paul was not giving a chronological table of dates. He was indicating that Scripture made clear that the Sinai covenant came at least 430 years after the confirming of the Abrahamic covenant because that was the length of time that they were in Egypt. Of course the Israelite were sojourners in Egypt. They never saw it as their home country. Joseph makes clear that even he expected them to return to the land of promise (Exod 50.24-25). It does not necessarily say that they would be oppressed for four hundred years, only that they would be in Egypt for four hundred years and at some stage be oppressed. God's people were sojourners in both Canaan and Egypt. But it was the time of their sojourning in Egypt that is stated twice to be 400 years. Why try to force a meaning on verses, when they are perfectly clear and reconcile without difficulty? Best wishes |
||||||
33 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229204 | ||
In Ex 12 read 'children of Israel' NOT 'children of Egypt' Too sleepy LOL. | ||||||
34 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229210 | ||
Hi Holmes, So Ephraim's granddaughter married a rich Canaanite and returned to Canaan say 200 years before the exodus, rebuilding 3 cities? As Ephraim's family would also be rich this is not surprising. But you are surely not suggesting that she returned with Moses and with her great great great great great grandson Joshua? That would be stretching credulity too far. Her return to Canaan is irrelevant for the question we are dealing with. I fail to see the connection. No doubt you will explain it a little better if you think it worth your time. It doesn't affect anything I have said. It was when Joshua returned that was important. Best wishes |
||||||
35 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229223 | ||
St John May I suggest that you read 1 Corinthians 4.1-5, followed by Romans 14.10-12? At least your friend was humble and admitted that he was in no position to judge. It is a pity he did not stop at that. Having read the posts I see little speculation, but carefully argued posts based on Scripture on things that God did reveal. The dating in 2nd millennium BC might not seem important to you, but it is very important for some Christians and seekers who may be put off by things which appear to contradict secular history. It is very important evangelistically therefore to know what the Scriptures actually say. My non-Christian friends challenge these things. With regard to the use of numbers it is my view that it is one of the most important things to grasp when reading the Old Testament. It explains a lot of seeming contradictions and anomalies. And to some believers and seekers these things are important. That was why the question was originally asked. After all you do not have to read them if you do not wish to. You will note in fact that all my posts have been in response to questions. It would be exceedingly impolite and unChristian not to reply to them. |
||||||
36 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229269 | ||
Hi Holmes, LOL wildly speculate? Let others judge who is wildly speculating :-)) Joshua was thirty eight years old at the Exodus (Joshua 14.7). So now per your schemat all his ancestors will have had to marry at 14 and have their first son at 15. Meanwhile all Moses' ancestors are having their sons at 95, Amran having his first (Aaron) at 92? It does not sound very convincing to me. Indeed I challenge you to produce one birth at the age of 15 (or 16) mentioned in the Pentateuch. And yet you postulate ten. It appears to me that the wild speculation you mention is yours :-)) I will just list a few errors in your statements then I will withdraw from the argument. I do not think it anymore suitable for the forum. You have not shown that the 400 years mentioned in Gen 15.13 includes the time in Canaan. The Hebrew text in fact gives the opposite impression. YOU SAY: . Exodus 12:40-41 indicates that the sons of Israel were in Egypt for EXACTLY 430 years. Correct, that is what it does say, in Egypt for exactly four hundred and thirty years. So why are you arguing differently? YOU SAY: The original text also indicates this was both Canaan and Egypt. Which original text? Nowhere does any Hebrew text suggest that Canaan was included. Paul's 430 years commenced with the 'confirmation of the covenant'. This is a vague date. The covenant was confirmed over the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see e.g. Gen 35.11-12). Paul's point was that the Law was given 430 years after the whole period of covenant confirmation prior to entering Egypt. With the rest you are just playing with figures to suit your argument, inventing figures for birth dates as you go along. Wild speculation? Well, certainly not scriptural facts. I suggest now that we drop the subject. Let people judge for themselves. Best wishes |
||||||
37 | How many sons does jacob have? | Gen 29:31 | biblicalman | 228504 | ||
Jacob of course had twelve sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Dan. | ||||||
38 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | biblicalman | 229464 | ||
Hi We are accounted as righteous (justified) as a free gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and this as a consequence of our faith in Him (Rom 3.24). This occurs while we are still ungodly (Rom 4.5) and makes us acceptable to God at the moment of truly believing. The fact that He justifies the ungodly demonstrates that this happens at the moment of believing. One moment we are ungodly. The next moment we are accounted as righteous. So once we have believed in Jesus Christ as our Saviour we are no longer counted as ungodly. We are accounted as righteous before Him (Rom 4.3). It is something that happens once for all at the moment of believing. This is because God has set Him forth to be a propitiation (means of turning side God's antipathy to sin) through faith in His shed blood (Rom 3.25). At the same moment we are accounted as holy (sanctified), that is, set apart wholly to God (1 Cor 1.2, 30; 6.11; Heb 13.12; Acts 26.18) and seen as holy in Christ. We are 'sanctified ones' (1 Cor 1.2). Then begins the process of making us holy (2 Cor 3.18). Having sanctified us once for all in Christ the moment that we believe, covering us with His righteousness and holiness, God then begins to sanctify us in reality through the process of sanctification (God has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified - Heb 10.14), a process which continues on through our lifetime. Our Justification and initial sanctification are once for all. Our continuing sanctification commences from that moment and continues on through life as God works within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2.13). And this goes on until we are presented perfect before Him. |
||||||
39 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229320 | ||
Hi Holmes. The term Hebrew was initially used by outsiders of Abraham and his descendants. Genesis 14 was describing a covenant made between Abraham and Melchizedek. This would almost certainly be drawn up by Melchizedek's Chief Scribe. (Note the totally unusual style of chapter 14 in contrasst with the rest of Genesis). Thus he speaks of Abraham as Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham would of course keep a copy of the covenant. Being semi-nomadic and non-Canaanite Abraham's tribe would be seen as similar to the Habiru (Apiru), landless people and without a settled home. It was not used of Isaac or Jacob's family tribes. It was then used by the Egyptians of Joseph in an Egyptian situation, followed by its use by the Egyptians of Israel in Exodus 1-10. It does not then occur until Exodus 21. It occurs in Exodus 21 of a special type of servant in a contract typical of the Habiru, as witnessed at Nuzi (repeated in Deuteronomy). Thus this was dealing with Habiru bondservant contracts. Its next use was by the Philistines of Israel (1 Samuel). Thus its use up to this point was clearly as I said, a use by foreigners of Israel. Saul then took it up as a reaction and taunt against the Philistines. It is not used anywhere in any other contexts. It was next used of Jonah by foreign sailora. By the time of Jeremiah (its final use) Jewish slaves were being described as Habiru, being on typical Habiru contracts. So Hebrew was a title gradually being assimilated to Israel. Best wishes |
||||||
40 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229788 | ||
I am baffled by your response. The verses themselves are scriptural support. The connecting of them by me with covenant circumcision and the shedding of blood relates to two important continuing elements of Scripture. That is why I said the answer was basically obvious. You cannot surely expect Scriptural support for the incident itself. It is unique, apart possibly from when God wrestled with Jacob. But there was no 'attempt to kill' there. Are you then saying that no one should try to explain it? I notice from past threads that no one has satisfactorily dealt with the matter. Surely if you consider my attempt unsatisfactory you should give us your own attempt? It is surely not good to leave questioners in the air about the matter. best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |