Results 21 - 40 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Why Saul Does Not Know David's Father? | 1 Sam 17:55 | bowler | 206623 | ||
Azure Thanks for the post. Left with more questions though after reading it. In chapter 16 Saul's servants identify to Saul who David's father is in reccomending David to Saul as "the Son of Jesse the Behtlehimite". David may have been 12 when He first went to Saul as musician and armor bearer? Chapter 16 says David was a handsome man and already a warrior, not a young boy. Armor is heavy, David also became Saul's armor bearer it is unlikely that David was a child doing this. Saul was huge and later David even has trouble wearing Saul's heavy armor because its was "untested". There is nothing to tell us that David stopped being Saul's musician or armorer bearer, only that at some time, maybe back and forth we do not know, David went and tended his father's flocks and came back to kill the Philistine. I am wondering if perhaps Saul became upset as soon as David killed Goliath because he knew that David had already been annointed king even before David became Saul's musician and armor bearer this happened. And now Saul sees David do the impossible and the prize for killing the Philistine will be Saul's daughter as wife, make the man rich, and free his house in all Israel. Saul has to bless greatly his rival to the throne. Later on we find Saul unwilling to give David his daughter as he promised to do for killing the Philistine. It may be, I could be very wrong on this, that Saul pretends not to know who David is because he is starting to be afraid that his days as king are soon over, as evidenced in chapter 18 right after David kill Goliath, Saul starts in on trying to kill David because the Lord was with David, but not with Saul. Your post was helpful though, I enjoyed it and all the branches that went with it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
22 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208051 | ||
Tim Moran I agree and am aware with the princple that the Old Testament "narratives" are not to be taken as Christian "normative" behavior for today. I will stick strictly to this post please, I am not trying to redress another post, although I understand you transferring an applicatoin principle from one to the other.:-) My question not to center around WHAT CORRECT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE. My question centers around WHAT CONSTITUTES FAITH seeing as how sins were committed in gaining that title of having had FAITH. Question for you; how does saving a life by the mid-wives become obeying God rather than men? What command did God give the mid-wives that they were to do? By applying your principle that God has forbidden murder how does saving a life by the same means as those mid-wives, which included disobeying the king's edicts and ostensibly lying to anyone who would ask if they were hiding babies, not apply to us now? Ps. I do understand the difference between a narrative passage and a didactic passage, I want to know, not what to do, but how to view everything in the process of what ends up getting declared as "having been done right" by those in the Bible. What I do with the answer is up to me, and is not why I want to know about it or discuss it. blessings abound, bolwer |
||||||
23 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208060 | ||
Tim Moran Yes those things had not been written yet. Sin is sin, it was before those things had been written whether they had the law or not, although God may not have imputed any punishment to them until the law actually came in. So was Abraham sinning by laying with Hagar? I think we could safely say yes, adultery is adultery even though the law had not yet been written. But let me understand you correctly here - is a sin not truly a sin until the law came in? That would be important for me to know... It definitely would change how I might look at things. But that would also mean that no one who had not been given the law was guilty of any wrong thing they did, but we know that God did not condone any sin even before He gave the law and imputed punishment on the wicked before the law. Or am I wrong about that part, as I am thinking that God says the life blood will be required? One thing is coming clearer from talking back and forth with you - not what you are saying, but something else - God forgave all those wrong things all those people did in gaining their titles of FAITH because one cannot be said to have faith through works. Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question... blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
24 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208068 | ||
John Okay John I will be quiet. I will sit back and rest while everyone else continues on asking their questions okay? I will just rest in Jesus for a while. See you around. blessings abound, bowler blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
25 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208055 | ||
Tim Moran Esther chapter one - her husband's advisors had him put out an edict to make sure all wives would obey their husbands. The concept of scripture applying to a Persian is not even worth considering. And yes there were scriptures showing, not the didactic direct teaching of obdience to husbands but the narrative example of women doing so in ancient Biblical times. The Old Testament cannot be applied forwards as didactic teachings because they are narratives so the principle of adhereing to a literary form that says you cannot apply the OT to interpreting the New Testament in many instances applies. The same cannot be said of the New Testament in its didactic portions in that it definitely can be used to interpret parts of Old Testament narrative to deduce whether or not the actions of the participants was correct or right. Not based off whether or not they knew New Testament teachings in the OT, but on whether or not God has decreed for all time in the NT what is correct and right and good. On that basis, if it is right to obey your husband now, it was always right whether Vashti new it was right or not, and her not knowing it was right would not excuse her of sin in regard to that, it just shows what a pagan she was. We don't need to speculate, but we can take what the whole counsel of scripture teaches about obeying your husband, or obeying God and apply it to an understanding about whether or not Vashti was wrong or right. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
26 | who said if I perish I perish and who di | Esth 4:16 | bowler | 206550 | ||
azure My apologies, did I commit a faux pas? I was not aware I was answering a homework question, I am sorry. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
27 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | bowler | 206620 | ||
beja I appreciate what you are saying here. I am wondering since the disciples do not mention this Psalm at all if Jesus did indeed fulfill the Psalm to show them He was this person? It seems more likely that although He did fulfill it His major point was to point out their level of faith. In both the instances where He is walking on the water and in the boat sleeping He says the same thing "where is your faith", and the disciples question, "who is this man who does these things"? As if they are not aware He is God? About your question, was it one, which was mine as well? I think so based on Psalm 107:28 they cried to the Lord in their trouble. But I had to go back and look at the Psalm before I really noticed that. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
28 | Sheol Hell or World of the Dead? | Eccl 8:14 | bowler | 207324 | ||
John Not trying to quibble with you. It seems that Sheol as death and as hell are interchangeable at points according to their usage throughout the OT - and that there is also another name for death in the same sentence, at times, as Sheol, which in those sentences render it Sheol to be hell as we understand hell. It makes me wonder since Lazarus and rich man were in the "world of the dead" (Hades) also another meaning for Sheol, as if that is what the writer of Ecclesisates meant as well by using the word. I guess you are right. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
29 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206618 | ||
beja I am thinking of what you say about "who is being referred to" I think that is very key here. God was referring to the people of Israel under the leaderhsip of Moses and in this passage God is promising to punish those who practiced idol worship by punishing their descendants of those who had hated God, that is a clear. It reminds me of how God did not necessarily punish Ham for his crime, but punished Canaan and his descendants instead. This is why I do not see how "visiting the inquity of the fathers on the children" in Exodus, is not somehow being changed by God to that He will no longer do that in Ezekiel. Father's iniquity is father's iniquity. There seem to be two differences between passages. In Exodus it is talking about idol worship, in Ezekiel is seems to be talking about any sin including idol worship. In Exodus it is talking about corporate sin, in Ezekiel it is talking about individual sin. In answer to your three questions - 1)Exodus is saying God avenges the sins of idol worship of the father on the sons. Ezekiel is saying sons no longer carry any of the sins of the father regardless of the type of sin it is. 2)Exodus is saying God will avenge the sins of the fathers who turn away from God and worship idols down onto the third and fourth generations of the sons without qualifying if they also do so. Ezekiel is saying the person who sins will bear their sin and their soul will die unless they repent, and the types of sins are qualified in verse 5-13 and includes idol worship. 3)Exodus has God both giving specific commandments of what Israel should do and what He will God if Israel did not comply, and is also a snapshot of His character as in Exodus 34. Ezekiel has God giving specfic explanations of what He will now do things like in keeping with both passages of Exodus of how He deals with sin, and as well provides a next snapshot of what kind of character He has in dealing with sinners. 4)In both the Exodus and Ezekiel passages God lays out how He will deal with sin, either corporately, or indivdualy, and in both passages deals with idol worship. Question, may we safely say that while God surely intended to punish corporate idol worship onto generations, that God was willing to only impute individual sins to the doer rather than the descendant, and be able to says this about those who committed idol worship? Next question - or is it that God did a progression of how He chose to impute the punishment of sin? That there was a change then, of imputation of sin from the father onto the sons back onto the original doer? Thank you very much for your insights. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
30 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206719 | ||
beja Thank you very much for your continued thoughts on this and for getting back to me about it. I hear where you are coming from that the Exodus passage is about sins effecting future generations and the wrath and love of God, and that the Ezekiel passage is about the moral issue of sin before God of standing before God and persishing. I choose to stop posting about this, but would welcome anymore thoughts you or anyone else would care to add. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
31 | 70 A.D. or Revelation? | Dan 11:31 | bowler | 206732 | ||
hopalong Thank you very much for giving me the link. I listened to Azurdia on Revelation chapter 13. He has a great application, but no exegesis of the verses in terms of backdrop, or verse sources, which is what I need. I appreciate the help though, that is a huge site, I am going to bookmark that one,and look through to see if there might be an answer there so thanks again for a great link. I also tried Precept Austin and the Ethereal Library to no avail, alas. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
32 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | bowler | 207259 | ||
preciouspup I do apologize to you! I assumed first that you did not read it, that was wrong of me! Second I assumed that because God rebuked Jonah about wanting to die, that Jonah was allowed to live! Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
33 | Verse 14 About Judas or Israel and Judah | Zech 11:14 | bowler | 206619 | ||
beja I tend to agree with your assesment here. The problem becomes with what Mathew did with one verse as taking it out of context from what Zechariah meant as if it was a prophecy about Judas rather than a prophecy about evil shepherds back then. And a further problem becomes that it is attributed to the wrong author by the apostle Mathew as being Jeremiah, but it only appears in Zechariah. The next problem becomes that it is a prophecy about Judas that did come true and that Mathew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote about Judas and the 30 pieces of silver. Verse 14 which is what I asked about, being the Staff Union breaking the brotherhood of Israel in two parts could be talking about the breaking up of Israel over Jesus Christ. Which it did do, which is why I asked. There are times when prophecies get doubly fulfilled and I am wondering if this is one of them? The whole passage? Because the elements fit both time periods and came true in both time periods - the flock was scattereda after the betrayal of the one shepherd, the group of shepherds became evil and God decided not to pastor them anymore, God broke His covenant in both instances, Zechariah threw the thirty pieces of silver to the potter after being paid by the people and Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver to those who did not value the one shepherd, Israel became divided in both instances, the sheep were devoured in both instances, the evil shepherd was punished in both instances. I wonder what you think? Perhaps I am wrong? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
34 | Why were they called wise/foolish virgin | Matthew | bowler | 207502 | ||
son of god I am well aware that a virgin in the Bible is the designation of all unmarried women! I was not making "the designation that virgin has anything to do with sex". I was making the point that a virgin by virtue of the definition of the word virign is not one who has sex, or else they would cease to be one... My mind was not in the gutter; I tried to use sound reasoning to demonstrate that the foolish virgins were foolish because they did not get ready for Jesus to come, and I demonstrated before hand that their virginity was never the issue becuase that is not a possiblity, a virgin is a virgin. I don't know if you can see the difference now, between what you are saying in your post here, and what I was trying to convey in my previous post? That it is impossible for the foolish virgins to be foolish for the reasons the original questioner answered their own post with? Mathew 25:32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
35 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207130 | ||
Doc Oh Jolly Good Doc, Jolly Good! I am very impressed. Your math is better than mine.:-) Thank you for that. Just an unworthy son. blessings abound |
||||||
36 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207132 | ||
Azure Thank you Azure. I perhaps was thinking about the fact that the ages of men went slowly down from around 900, then by the time of the end of Genesis a good bit lower, then we have Moses at 120, then the Psalms speaks of 80 years if by strength. I was merely trying to apply what "might" be possible according to the "record" of scripture to the question at hand by using a little math. I pray I have not offended you by this. Did you see Doc's post? I must say his math was far superior to mine. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
37 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207176 | ||
Jim Estes You were addressing Doc, but I would like to jump in, although I wouldn't presume to answer for Doc or anyone else.:-) When we consider Sola Scriptura there is a tendency to think in term of Scripture first and only Scripture should interpret Scripture. Your post here got me to thinking about this important doctrine and how we use it. I while ago there was another post, unrelated to this whole branch, in which it came up that there are different ways to go about getting an interpretation. Don't worry, I am coming back to your point with this. The discussion started one place and got off onto styles of interpretation. That post and this one got me, as I say thinking about how we use Sola Scriptura. The "Great Divines" as some like to call them, at least the ones some Christians pay attention to, sat down and studied according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They spent laborious amounts of time pouring over all the various aspects of Bible Study using exegesis. They came to the conclusions they came to about what scripture is saying to all of us by various methods of interpretation. Many of them agree about a great number of things. I have a theory for you without attempting to speak for anyone, including myself. When so many theologians have studied a topic, a passage, a book, a doctrine, and all come to the same conclusion, it is seen by a great many individuals picking up their works and reading them that they have hit upon the truth. Numbers of people believing the same thing does not make it true. However, there is only one true interpretation of any part of the Bible, there are not two, or three. "Authorities external to the Scriptures" they may be, but they may have studied these scriptures to a high degree that some of us are not capable of, or would not have the time for, and have all come to the same conclusion about the same thing. Now, all that was not in defense of anyone, or anything, but just a careful observation of these "Great Divines". I myself have found I disagree strongly with them, regardless of the numbers of them that have said, this, or that because in studying for myself and arriving at a different conclusion, I could not agree. And after talking to people outside of here, whose credentials I will not get into, they aslo did not agree. So, don't get me wrong, because I have, even in here, disagreed with the findings of the "Great Divines". You are not looking for sympathy, and I don't offer any. I do see your point. I aslo see that there is a different way to view what constitutes adherence to Sola Scriptura than to say that "authorities and doctrines" are acting or are having views outside the "authority of scripture". This is just my humble opinion and is not to put anybody down, or to act like it is my job to solve some apparent difference between two people, or to push my views on you. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
38 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207226 | ||
Jim Estes I would like to see if it would be possbible to look at this from a diferrent angle. Let's please put down the "Great Divines" as part of the discussion just for a minute. The Bible is the plenary inspired word of God - every word is not dictated to the writers word for word, but the actual words themselves are the scriptures God-breathed by God the author. 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16. That being said we have three New Testament writers speaking about Rahab the Harlot. Mathew 1:5 says Rahab is in Jesus lineage. Hebrews 11:13 says Rahab the Harolt had faith. James 2:25 says Rahab was justified by her works. All three writers are referring to a Rahab from the OT, and there is only one Rahab in the OT. The word Rahab appears as Rachab in the OT in Joshua, with a "c" in the Hebrew. The word Rahab appears in Hebrews and James as Rhaab borrowed from the Septuagint. The word Rahab appears in Mathew as Rhachab with an "h" and a "c", and is a derivative of the Hebrew Rachab, and is not from the Septuagint. The translators settled on Rahab for all texts. The time lines may not be something we can ever resolve. There are mysteries in the Bible, they belong to God. Both Rahab and Ruth took the God of the Hebrews to be thier God, nowhere does it say they went back to paganism. Why can it not be that they converted to Judaism and are therefore truly Jews? Paul says being Jewish is a circumsion of the heart, on that basis alone, they qualify to be in Jesus lineage - by God's sovereign will. This is just my humble opinion. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler We may not have to place our trust in the Great Divines, but we can place our trust in the same thing they did, the authority of the Bible - Sola Scriptura. |
||||||
39 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207231 | ||
Doc I went back to see what we were discussing. I would be happy to hear from you or Val, whoever that saint is, or anyone else on inductive study methods for post #207078.:-) I don't believe I heard you correctly! Ponificate, Pontificate? Oh, no, no, no! That is not how I view people who carefully state what they beleive in graceful terms! No matter how many times, as long as they do not apply gracefulness to the art of "graceful" insult! Let the Liberty of Christ prevail here, I am open to discussion! Now, about what you are saying in this last post Doc you made further up the branch - That there are things you do not agree with from some of the great theologians. In the instance of John Calvin for instance I happen to agree with you. In a totaly irrelevant post to this one I tried nicely as I could to differentiate between quoting the direct source theologians and quoting those who have derived creeds. That those who have made creeds whose work has partialy depended on the original source, I usually have no problem with depending on the creed. It is the source theologian's original unchanged, uninterpreted work that I often find some trouble with. Like elements of Luther's Small and Great Catechism, like the parts of the content of John Calvin's Institutes in addressing the heretics. Each has elements that show certain beliefs I cannot hold. I agree with you in this branch that the whole line of "Great Divines" have gotten this one right. If Mathew and Hebrews and James are all talking about the only Rahab that exists in the OT, then it can be none other than the Harlot. I will post you about inductive study and such in the appropriate post. I look forward to hearing from you about it. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
40 | Repentance is Sorry or Walk From Sin? | Matt 3:8 | bowler | 206810 | ||
Jayell I agree with you one hundred percent on this issue. What I have been running across is the practice of turning around from sins that are easy to walk away from by some, but these same some won't walk away from a sin that requires a drastic and devasting life style change becuase they would lose way too much in the process. Acts 26:20c to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, preforming deeds apporpriate to repentance. Yes repentance requires picking up and walking away from sin to "turn around" and have a "change of mind" - you can't repent and then stay in the same sinful situation and be said to have truly repented until you "change your mind and walk away from sin". I wonder how else thinks something? I am open to different understandings than my own. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |