Results 21 - 40 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2718 | ||
Thank you, Dacajunwolf, for a very informative and helpful explanation. I haven't studied Greek (yet, but hope to) and hadn't heard of Westcott and Hort. I'm sure this (and the other replies, as well) will help prevent misinformation. Thanks to RevC for the question -- for the same reason. | ||||||
22 | "is" italicized or not italicized? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2927 | ||
Maybe it was a typo in the original edition. That would seem to me to be the most logical answer. I know there have been a number of typos in well-respected translations (including the several original revisions of the KJV). With all those extra words, the Amplified would be much more likely to have uncaught typos than most other translations. |
||||||
23 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3083 | ||
I think this is a great question, and I'd like to leave some suggestions in case Longman is watching this question for input. First, it would be wise for Lockman to have some responsible, knowledgeable and respected people (either from their own staff or from among publicly recognized experts who would be willing to be counted upon to participate voluntarily) watching the list -- as well as someone to administrate by delegating questions to these watchers to see that all questions were covered. I don't believe it would be necessary to publicly identify these watchers as representatives of Lockman, and Lockman may already have some on the list. Perhaps they should have a "future" list to draw from as the numbers of questions and-or participants increase. These "watchers" could simply join in on the discussion whenever a question was left unanswered and-or answered incompletely or unbiblically. This would serve to help people get solid answers without shutting down participation. While I'm less concerned if there are some "bad" answers in the postings, it is definitely disconcerting when someone's careful question is left without an answer or when I dig for a question that I saw previously only to find that it disappeared without being completely answered or with only an answer that may be really way out there. This seems to happen very rarely, and there do seem to be people who try to watch the list to prevent this. It should probably be broadened and or (if not currently in practice) initiated more deliberately (behind the scenes) by the hosts themselves. I agree with others' suggestions that it would probably not be appropriate to filter postings before placing them on the forum. However, it would be helpful to have some official direction and intervention from Lockman (rather than simply members from among us who may at times appear to be self-appointed rule-makers whether they are truly self-appointed or not) regarding preferred methods of hermeneutics, netiquette, and such. It may also be helpful for certain gracious administrators to privately contact individuals for correction, as long as users are notified of this practice BEFORE it starts (and new users at the time of registration). In addition, I think it would be helpful for us to try and direct our replies to the person who asked the initial question and simply refer to previous postings. That way, the person who actually posted the question would be aware of the responses (assuming he or she had requested automatic notification of answers). Finally, it may be necessary or helpful to archive questions and their answers after a certain period of time (particularly as the list grows, and it becomes difficult to "watch" late additions to old questions to make sure that twisted theology isn't slipped in to the questioner with no corrective response after the guards are down. The official "watcher" (or watchers) for the question could briefly summarize or make final comments under a different officially-recognized Lockman name before archiving them. |
||||||
24 | why is masterbation a sin. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3558 | ||
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 This is simply a short(?) excerpt from a longer response to an earlier question from "searchingfortruth" on 4/3 (which may be the same question that "prayon" referred to earlier). I'd suggest looking over several of the many responses to that question, which were insightful and helpful. The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. It is difficult for me to conceive of deliberate contact (e.g. masturbation) resulting in orgasm as unaccompanied by some form of fantasizing or pursuit of temptation. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). (As a side note, I would consider this to be very different from "wet dreams" -- which are often a natural release not directly related to any deliberate pursuit of temptation on the part of the individual prior to going to sleep. They may be irritating and unpleasantly messy, and the lack of control of one's thought may feel disturbing and "dirty", but I believe this is often a false guilt.) |
||||||
25 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 7554 | ||
An excellent source would be the compilation of Wesley's writing on the topic of "Christian Perfection" and "Entire Sanctification" that you can find at the following URL. http:\\www.whatsaiththescripture.com\Fellowship\Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html Within the the denominations and independent churches that seek to pursue Wesley's desire for "entire sanctification" -- there is a significant variance in understanding and explanation, but this article is from Wesley's own writings. He quotes the Scriptures extensively in this piece to guide his explanations. My understanding is that passages and verses such as Luke 14:25ff and Matthew 6:24-Luke 16:14, Romans 12:1f, etc. give the clearest indication of what Wesley meant by entire sanctification. It is not a condition of sinless perfection or an ability to set aside the flesh completely. Rather it is a state or condition of being fully set apart, not only positionally by God but in one's own heart and will -- a condition in which (by the Spirit's empowerment) nothing is allowed by the will to compete with God for allegiance. While there is great disagreement among those who have the pursuit of "holiness" as one of their central guiding principles -- I believe Wesley seems fairly clear in his own (later) writings that any state of "entire sanctification" can be lost and regained without at all affecting salvation itself. I believe Wesley would interpret 1 Corinthians 10:13 as a very real possibility for the true Christian at any given time and not simply a worthy but unattainable goal. This is an important part of the doctrine of many churches, as are other secondary doctrines for others. You do well to consider whether you could commit yourself to a long-term affiliation with such doctrine before you step into a new pastoral role. It is important that you follow your own conscience before God and not that of Wesley or any other great theologian -- since none of them are in full agreement about everything. (At least they weren't in agreement while in the flesh; Wesley and Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones and G. Campbell Morgan, Luther and Calvin, and others are surely in strong personal agreement now on many such matters that they disagreed upon before they entered God's presence without their fleshly limitations.) It's difficult to trace exactly what Wesley believed, as his "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" approach to doctrine resulted in his doctrine(s) being repeatedly revisited and retested by the Scriptures (maintaining the Scriptures as the supreme authority) makes it difficult to lock in on his final definitions of many concepts. Wesley was not a systematic theologian (most of whom also maintain the Scriptures as the supreme authority) who kept past conclusions on secondary doctrines as fixed and foundational -- immutable due to the height and width of subsequent doctrines built upon them. His views on secondary doctrines were somewhat more malleable -- for better or for worse. In brotherly encouragement, Brent |
||||||
26 | IS MICHAEL AND JESUS THE SAME PERSON? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 37490 | ||
This is a valuable question to consider and look at carefully in the Scriptures because it is a point of doctrine common to some cults and is a sign of danger when encountered in teaching. 1) No, Michael and Christ are definitely NOT the same person. Michael is one of the archangels, and Christ is greater than the angels. The angels of God worship Him. (Hebrews 1:6). This concept of linking Michael and Christ has been an attractive idea to some who seek to expand beyond the Scriptures to some "deeper" understanding, and it seems to be a repeated tendency among cults of different ages (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). Be very wary of any group or teacher who comes to you with this suggestion, and go to the Scriptures directly to test it. There are numerous references to Michael as one of the angels, and specifically as an archangel -- or one of the chief princes among the angels. For example, the angel speaking with Daniel in Daniel 10-12 refers to Michael as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), and identifies Michael as the archangel specifically assigned to watch over the nation of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Some actually argue that the one speaking to Daniel in chapters 10-12 is the pre-incarnate Christ. The speaker refers to Michael in the third person as a prince who fights alongside him in battle. Regardless of the identity of the messenger, Michael is clearly identified by him as simply an archangel and not God. As already pointed out by srbaegon, Michael did not dare pronounce a railing judgment against Satan in Jude verse 9 either. God the Son would have no problem pronouncing judgment if He so decided to do. Michael and Satan are archangels, one faithful and the other fallen. Michael is not the judge of Satan. Finally, again in Revelation 12 Michael is identified as the leader of an army of angels who defend Israel against Satan and his army of angels. He is again portrayed as the faithful counterpart to the fallen Satan. (Rev 12:1-9). In contrast, Christ is carefully distinguished from all the angels in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere as being unique and unlike any of the angels. He is "the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3) 2) The Angel of the Lord, on the other hand, is God. He receives worship (Judg 13:20), is referred to by Himself and others interchangeably as God Himself (Gen 22:12; Exodus 3; Judg 2:1-4; Judg 6:22; etc.), and conversation with Him is treated as conversation with God (Genesis 16:10-13). It is reasonable to assume that He is the pre-incarnate Christ, since their qualifications match and their roles can be seen as parallel (One "The Messenger of God" and the other The eternal "Word"), and this is a common assumption among the experts whom I've read. I believe there are earlier threads to search related to the identity of the "Angel of the Lord," where additional passages are cited and better clarification is offered. |
||||||
27 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 79355 | ||
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There are 2 separate questions. One question is whether there is a POINT before which people may be given special grace due to a lack of the faculties necessary to exercise faith. It sounds like this is the issue you are considering, and there are varying opinions within orthodox Christianity. This is separate from trying to consider a standardized AGE of accountability. Anyone seriously considering a specific AGE of accountability has already assumed that there is some kind of prerequisite level of cognitive (or other) functionality for accountability to be present (or that God would not be willing to somehow act in advance based on His perfect foreknowledge of what would have happened in the person's life had such faculties been present). The question at that point is then whether we can assign a specific AGE that everyone before that age is considered safe and everyone after that age is considered liable -- similar to a voting age, driving age, age to buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. It's not surprising that the Scriptures are basically silent on such an age. I believe that attempting to set such an age is a dangerous and slippery slope theologically. The most natural fleshly result would be a contrived attempt to identify specific unbelievers as guilty before God while identifying other specific unbelievers as not guilty based on some abiblical calculation. God has not given us a neat formula nor the freedom to make such judgments. |
||||||
28 | How long were years of Noah's life? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 150 | ||
There's no reason to assume the length of a year was any different, although this forces the question of how Noah (and virtually everyone who is mentioned as living before him) could have lived such (incredibly?) long lives. The most common (and reasonable) explanation I know of is that the earth's climate was completely changed by the flood. - Gen. 1:6-9 indicates that there were 2 "waters" associated with the earth, which were separated by air. Gen. 7:11-12 indicates that BOTH the springs from under the earth and the "gates of heaven" were poured out onto the earth. If these "waters above the earth" (or the "firmament" as they are often referred to) were a thick water-like protection of vapor (perhaps similar to a thick ozone with some kind of gaseous barrier holding it in place over the earth), it would function as a sort of terrarium, keeping out the harmful solar rays that significantly increase aging. - Increasing disease no doubt affected lifespans, as well, but there is an extreme drop in age immediately after the flood, which is most reasonably attributable to a major change in climate caused by the flood. - There is no mention of rain falling prior to the flood, and it's very possible that the method of watering described in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:5-6, 10 (water flowing out from underground and dew covering the surface) remained until the time of the flood. |
||||||
29 | where did God come from? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 13821 | ||
It sounds like your son's basic question is, "Who or what is God, and how can we know?" First of all, I agree that we have to be careful not to create a definition for God. However, the Christian Scriptures make no claims to be the philosophizing of man in trying to define God; rather they are the revelation of God and truth FROM GOD HIMSELF. Therefore, what is stated there carries the full weight of truth. One aspect of God's revelation of Himself is that He uses personal language and expression, repeatedly identifying Himself as a personal being, NOT as an impersonal force. The Scriptures repeatedly represent God as relating to His creatures in a personally active way. He also consistently portrays Himself as relating and reasoning personally within Himself (both before and after creation). The Scriptures clearly do not present God as an impersonal force but as an infinite and personal being Who desires to know and communicate with His creatures. Others can probably provide better Scriptural support for this. I'd be glad to give it, but I have to go back and review my previous study and research first, since I don't have those resources immediately at my disposal. Hopefully others will jump in and give you this more quickly than I can. This leads to a further question of how to test the authority of the Scriptures. There are many excellent books written that present the tests available to prove that the Scriptures of the Bible are truly supernatural revelations from God that are without error in their original content. There is absolutely no comparing any other so-called "Scriptures" with the tests that prove the authority of the Bible; it stands alone. |
||||||
30 | dinasaurs? did they exist? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 39099 | ||
Welcome, Strongfellow, and welcome to the family. The Institute for Creation Research -- at www.icr.org -- the organization suggested in Hank's previous posting, is an excellent reference for information on Creation Research. They come from a decidedly "young earth" creation standpoint and are very solid. Another "young-earth" group with lots of dinosaur information is Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism -- www.drdino.com. This group probably has the most extensive presentation specifically related to dinosaurs. Finally, Dr. Hugh Ross and the researchers at "Reasons to Believe" -- www.reasons.org -- have some excellent input from an "old-earth" creationist perspective. The old earth and young earth creationists sometimes disagree strongly on interpretation of the possible meaning(s) of the Hebrew work "yowme" used for "day" in Genesis 1 (for each of the 6 creation days separately) and in Genesis 2:4 (referring to all 6 days as a whole). However, both groups fully affirm the accuracy of the Scriptural account and the creation (rather than evolution) of plants, animals, and mankind. There is an in-house debate among them as brothers and sisters in Christ, and together they can refer you to many excellent resources that help to investigate the wonder and certainty of creation. |
||||||
31 | It is a general argument among believers | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2088 | ||
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere. (I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.) Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view. 1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
||||||
32 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3419 | ||
Hank's concise earlier response pretty much answers this. I would simply add some of the logical observational basis for the common assumption that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry -- based on when the Scriptures do and don't say about Joseph. 5 observations are included below, which I believe indicate that Joseph died some time between Jesus' 12th birthday and the beginning of his public ministry. 1) Joseph appears in Matthew and Luke (particularly in Matthew, where Joseph's involvement is a primary focus) at the time of Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:19 specifically identifies Joseph as "being a righteous man." 2)Luke 3:23 and 4:22 identify Joseph as being the pulicly assumed and recognized father of Jesus (and 4:22 gives the indication that this reflected positively upon both of them, as they were all "speaking well of" Jesus at the time). 3) Luke 2:23 and following shows that Mary and Joseph regularly celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem and that both parents were with Jesus when he went up to Jerusalem at the age of 12. 4) The trip to Jerusalem at age 12 is the last mention of Joseph's active involvement with Jesus, and nothing at all from that time until the beginning of Jesus' public ministry is mentioned. The specific events of the (approximately 20 years of) interim are not apparently significant enough to the central message(s) of the Gospel to be included in the Scriptures (or available written history for that matter). 5) John 19:26,27 indicates that Jesus asked John to take responsibility for caring for Mary's welfare now that Jesus was gone and that John responded by taking her into his household from that day forth. (The logical implication of this is that Mary was a widow whose remaining children were not of sufficient age to care for her properly. This is an interpretation, but it's the only logical interpretation I've heard for this interchange on the cross. For further explanation of the guidelines and importance of caring for widows, see Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Tim 5:2-3,14-16). |
||||||
33 | Age between John the Baptist and Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3548 | ||
Luke 1:24-26,36 confirms that "Elizabeth was in her 6th month" when the angel appeared to Mary, so John was at least 5 months older than Jesus, since Jesus' conception was still in the future tense when the angel revealed this to Mary (Luke 1:31,35). We don't know at exactly what point the Holy Spirit came upon Mary to conceive Jesus, but it would appear from Elizabeth's greeting in Luke 1:42 that Jesus was already growing in Mary's womb when she arrived at Elizabeth's home. Six months, as DiVash already indicated, is probably a very close estimate. (For a little bit broader context related to the timing of these events, look at Luke 1:24-57.) | ||||||
34 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | Brent Douglass | 229349 | ||
I would agree with Tim. The best answer, which follows the context, is that Matthew gave the genealogy of Jesus through his adopted father Joseph whereas Luke followed the genealogy through Mary. Perhaps more clarification would be helpful. The context of Matthew focuses upon the experience and involvement of Joseph, whereas Luke focuses on Mary and treats Mary as the primary source. Matthew says nothing directly of Mary's encounter with the angel or of Mary's travel to visit Elizabeth, but it includes Joseph's decisions, his encounter with an angel in his dream, his decision to take Mary as his wife but remain celebate until after the child's birth, the visit of the Magi and Joseph's dream after they left, etc. It is also more directly connected to establish Jesus as the Messiah who would inherit the kingdom of David -- which passes through Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), the last king assigned by the Jews rather than by a conquering power. However, although this would be the natural expected line of descent of kingship, Jeremiah had also prophesied that no blood descendant of Jehoiachin would ever sit on the throne (Jer 22:30). Thus prophecies regarding the re-establishment of the progression of the throne of David through a permanent future king (through the lineage under which the kingship passed down) would have seemed impossible -- until we see Jesus come as the adopted descendant of Jeconiah with all rights of inheritance, but not a blood descendant. Nevertheless, Jesus was also a true blood descendant of David's son Nathan through his mother Mary and her father Eli. I believe that adding parenthesis to the Luke 3:23 description would better fit the intent of the text -- "being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli..." Since Luke explicitly points out that Jesus was not really Joseph's son, but only supposed/thought to be so, it would be quite illogical to then immediately give the genealogy through Joseph. In addition, Jewish genealogies were very carefully recorded, particularly for descendants of David, and the writer of Matthew and/or Luke (whichever wrote later) likely had access to the other's writing as well. Therefore, the blood father of Jesus is Mary's father Eli, who is descended through David through his son Nathan, not through the kingly line of Solomon. Thus he meets the test of being a blood descendant of David (through Nathan, Eli, and Mary) and also receiving the passing of the kingship itself directly through Solomon and Jehoiachin/Jeconiah through adoption as Joseph's oldest son (adopted and treated as a son and heir before any other children were conceived). |
||||||
35 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 714 | ||
It is pure speculation to consider how many other people may have been around, but there are a number of indications that there were others. There are many people whose existence is indicated in Scripture but whom we know little or nothing about. For example, King David had a son named Nathan, who was identified as an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, but I don't think there is any mention of him in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is apparent that Adam and Even (as well as their descendents) probably had many children who are not mentioned by name. Those whose lineage has significance for other Biblically related events are listed. God was selective in what he included in the Scriptures. | ||||||
36 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 724 | ||
Oops! Found David's son Nathan in 2 Samuel 5:14 -- but just the mention of his being born in Jerusalem. Bad choice of examples, but I'm sure you get the point. | ||||||
37 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 725 | ||
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. | ||||||
38 | WAS THE ANGEL JESUS | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 731 | ||
This is the most commonly held view of the Angel of the Lord -- that he was the Preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus. There are several reasons for this. One is that there is no mention of the appearance of the Son prior to his incarnation, and so the assumption that he was the Angel of the Lord answers the question, "Then what was his involvement prior to the incarnation?" Secondly, there are numerous references identifying "The Angel of the Lord" as being "The Lord" himself. It is hard to come away from an honest reading of the following verses wtih any other conclusion -- Gen. 16:1-13; 22:11f; Ex. 3:1-4:17; Judges 13:17-22; Zechariah 3:3. He is repeatedly referred to as, "The Lord, and seeing him is repeatedly equated with seeing God -- yet those who see him do not immediately die. The Angel of the Lord appears only in the Old Testament, and the Son appears only in the new (although he is mentioned in the Old). If they are separate, it is odd that they are never mentioned together; this would also add a fourth person to what we call the Trinity, and it would seem odd that the fourth person be left out in Matthew 28:19 while the other Three are all mentioned. For these and other reasons, the most logical and widely accepted conclusion is that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the preincarnate Christ. |
||||||
39 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 734 | ||
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question. The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
||||||
40 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 770 | ||
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative. I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account. There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |