Results 21 - 40 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Different languages already in place? | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132807 | ||
Hey there, Someone identified as "Restored" just asked a question very similar to yours which has seemingly gone unanswered for more than 3 years. I have offered a possible explanation (message ID 132804) and would appreciate your thoughts. |
||||||
22 | what does "Must be put to death" mean? | Ex 31:15 | RWC | 233528 | ||
Hi Jenny, Yes, God meant what He said and He said what He meant. Breaking this law was a capital offense meaning it was punishable by death, usually an execution by being stoned, a form of execution that was most unpleasant for *everyone* involved. The reality is that all sin is, spiritually at least, a capital crime: *all* sin is punishable by death. There are *no* exceptions to that. In large part, God is teaching humanity through the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant just how serious sin is - and that includes *all* sin, not just some of it. That is the whole point of the sacrificial system. That is the whole point of capital crimes. That is at least part of the point of the limited retribution (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) laws. Today we (believers) do not live under that Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant. We are to live under the Law of the Spirit, the Covenant of Grace and Mercy that has been brought about and put in place by the work that Jesus did when He willingly took upon Himself the sin (all of it!) of every human being that has ever lived or ever will live and paid the penalty for it by dying *in their place.* There is no human being who will ever be sentenced to eternal spiritual death (hell) because they are a sinner, since Jesus paid for that already. They will receive that sentence for no other reason than that they did not trust the One and Only Living God. God takes sin *very* seriously; so seriously that the One and Only Son of God (Jesus) gave (sacrificed!) His life because of it. |
||||||
23 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | RWC | 232777 | ||
Hi Jenny, My apologies, I have not been as quick to getting back to your questions as I had hoped. The simple answer to your son's question is, as is suggested by 00123's answer above, probably that God does not so much 'approve' of slavery, but rather 'condones' it, and His condoning is conditional upon some significant rules and restrictions. The New Atheists would then immediately want to say - or at *imply* - that "If God approves of slavery, then God must also approve of all of the mistreatment of humans that have occurred in the name of slavery as well, and what kind of horrible God must that be!" Of course, that is neither logical nor true. One verse often referred to in this discussion by these New Atheists is Ex. 21:20-21 [NASB] "20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." In large part, slaves were supposed to be treated much like anyone else in the community. That same kind of corporal punishment spoken of in the verse above could executed upon *anyone* in the community for serious wrong-doing. It wasn't just slaves that could be treated that way. Nor was a master given the freedom to treat slaves (punish them) that way for no good reason. And it should be noted that some of the restrictions that God placed on slavery under the Mosaic Law were significant improvements upon some of the practices of the Ancient Near East (ANE) at that time. If you like, I found an interesting article that might be worth reading, or at least skimming through: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html I hope this helps a little. Have an awesome day. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
24 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | RWC | 233526 | ||
You have answered well in parts 1 and 2 here, and you asked and answered well in your discussions with Ed above. Good job! Live ready! | ||||||
25 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232554 | ||
Hi Hoth, I am assuming you did not see her plea for help: question id 219669. She is not violating the rules of the forum or any other rules of decorum, but rather pleading for your help. Grace. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
26 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232555 | ||
Hi Jenny, The verses your question should be attached to are Deut. 21:18-21. The short answer to your question is "yes." That is exactly what God is saying. Of course we, in our culture, see ourselves as being somehow above such things and much too 'advanced' for that. But the reality is that *every* sin is in fact a capitol crime; a crime worthy of and punishable by death - not just physical death, but spiritual death meaning eternal separation from God and everything that is holy. The sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was, by our modern standards I think, even less of a crime (sin) than rebellion, but even it was punishable by death. Something else died physically in their place that day, but they died spiritually that day and then later on physically as well. From God's point of view, the sin of rebellion is comparable to the sin witchcraft or divination (1Sa. 15:23), also punishable by death. I don't think the problem is that God takes sin too seriously. I think the problem is that we do not take sin nearly seriously enough. Having said that, we do not take our rebellious children to the edge of our towns and stone them to death any more (not that the people of Israel probably obeyed this law very often in the first place), nor are we required to do so. But that does *not* mean that it is any less of a sin. |
||||||
27 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232558 | ||
Oops, I think I got the wrong id #. It should be (I think) 219676. Sorry. | ||||||
28 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15352 | ||
Does this mean, then, that God is in fact the author of sin? This verse was cited to me in another discussion (Gal 2:17) about this same subject (see the message "Bob: What did you think of my view th... Reformer Joe Fri 08/24/01, 8:57pm"). I have done some preliminary reading from my rather limited library, and have come to no satisfactory answers. What this verse (and verse 12) say litterally, or so it would seem to me, is that God Himself would directly cause sin to take place. Granted, it was in judgement of previous sin. But if two wrongs don't make a right for humans, it certainly wouldn't for a holy God either! How can God do this and still be called holy? |
||||||
29 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15391 | ||
Thanks for your response, Debbie. I would agree with that God is holy and righteous. But I don't know how to understand this passage. It does not say that God would *allow* this sin to take place. I would have no problem with that. But what it says is that God would *cause* it. God is speaking and He says, "I will..." three different times in these two verses. How are we to understand this? | ||||||
30 | Can it really be translated otherwise? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15395 | ||
I'm no Hebrew scholar by any means, but from what I can determine from my interlinear and every translation that I have, God is speaking in the first person as the subject and is stating that He would perform the action, not just that the action would happen. Are there any Hebrew scholars out there (maybe even you Kelkat?) that can shed some definitive light on this? |
||||||
31 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16454 | ||
Hello Joe, You're right. I haven't read a response here that really seems to answer my question. And, I'm afraid, I must include yours in that statement. You come close to *asking* my question when you wrote: "Q: So how can God decree sin (along with all other things) without being the author of it?" Depending on just what you mean by your use of the word "decree," it maybe that you are asking here the same question as I am. (I refer you back to our discussion under Gal. 2:17 and again ask that we get some of these words we are using well defined so that we can clearly understand each other.) But, it seems to me, that your answers to this question miss the mark. The first part of your answer to this question was: "...by bringing sinful people into EXISTENCE..." I am not sure how this answers the question. Yes, God brings sinful people into the world (and/or allows sinful people to be brought into the world). As I understand it, He loves each of them, cares for each of them, and does not tempt any of them or cause any of them to sin. And yet, it would seem that this passage is saying something very different. It says that *God* caused this sin. What I want to know is if this is a figure of speech of some sort, or a misunderstanding based on cultural difference, or if it really means exactly what it says and therefore I misunderstand something about God! The second part of your answer to this question was: "...by providing the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to sin." Again, I am not sure how this answers the question. As I said in our discussions on Gal. 2:17, real choice must include both the real ability to choose and the real opportunity to choose. It seems to me that, if this is correct, then we can only be held responsible (guilty) to the degree that we had real choice. My point in that discussion (Gal. 2:17) was to ask, "how can God hold us accountable for things in which we have no real choice?" In other words, if God has predestined every detail of history, including every sin, what *real* choice does anyone have? It was at that point, if my memory serves me correctly, that you referred me to this passage that we are now discussing seemingly as a proof (or evidence) that God really does predetermine (decree, predestine) even the sins that we commit. But my question (from Gal. 2:17) still stands: how can God do that and not be the author of sin? That seems to be a blatent contradiction. In the passage we are discussing here, how can we say that God is not the cause (author) of this sin? The third part of your answer to this question was: "...by limiting the EXTENT of the expression of the sinful act." Again, as I think I said in our discussion attached to Gal. 2:17, I have no problem with the idea of limited freedom. But there is a vast difference between limited freedom and absolute predestination wherein there is no freedom - and therefore there can be no responsibility. But in particular reference to the passage that we discussing at the moment, it gives no indication of God simply limiting the available choices. It quite specifically says that God Himself *would do* this thing. I am finding that to be a very uncomfortable thing. You began your message by writing: "Your post does bring me to something I had wanted to fit in earlier: whether using the words "author," "cause," and "source" synonymously is correct here." Are they not essentially synonomous? I do not see in the remainder of your message an explaination of why they are not. Then, immediately following that statement, you wrote: "Here is my understanding: Q: Where does sin originate? A: The sinful hearts of human beings." I do believe that sin originates in the hearts and minds of God's created beings (angels and humans), and that we are sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. But the strongly Calvanistic point of view, if I understand it at all, says more than that. It says that sin originates from God before the foundation of the world in that God decreed (predetermined, predestined) every detail of history! Am I mistaken in this? Anyway, that question more properly belongs back in our discussion on Gal. 2:17. The question I would like answered here (2Sa. 12:11-12) is "how can God say and/or do this without it compromising His holiness?" If it is wrong for people to perform these actions, then must it not also be wrong for God to *cause* them to do this? Have a very good day. As always, I am looking forward to your reply. Bob |
||||||
32 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16455 | ||
Good day, I am not sure how this passage could reasonably be understood as an anthropormorphism. It is, seemingly at least, a direct statement of what God was going to do. When God is said to repent or change His mind, it is, I think, always in response to a change in the way that humans are responding to Him. And I'm not sure that I would call that an anthropormorphism either. Anthropormorphism is, I believe, a figure of speech (ie. not to be taken litterally) where a human characteristic is figuratively applied to God in order to make a particular point. I don't see how that could be true of these two verses. If I am missing something here, please show me what it is. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
33 | If God causes all, how can He be holy | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16457 | ||
Hello Tim, If Hebrew culture "viewed everything as ultimately caused by God" (which I assume must include sin), how did they understand God to be holy, righteous, and good (which certainly they did)? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
34 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16460 | ||
Hi Charis, You write that you "have been through this one before." Did you come to some answers? How do you understand these two verses here? I did not raise this question for the sake of trying to stir up dissention or any other kind of trouble. I too am convinced that God is good. It is precisely because of this that I am really perplexed by this passage (and a couple of others that I have now encountered) and desire to understand. Simply ignoring passages of Scripture that I do not understand - and especially those that seem to contradict what I think I do understand already - is not an acceptable option for me. I'm sorry if my question has offended you, but I think it is a good question that desires consideration, even if I may not ever have a compete answer this side of heaven. If you have some insight into this that may be helpful to me (or others who are also reading this), it would be much appreciated. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
35 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16606 | ||
Dear kalos, Please accept my humble apologies!! I read this post when you first posted it just over a week ago. I fully intended to reply to it, but never did. I also noticed that you have posted this same message in a few other threads related to this same basic question, but (just going by memory here) I don't recall anyone responding to it significantly in any of those places either. There is very little in what you wrote and quoted here that I would seriously question or take exception with. The problem is that it doesn't seem to answer my question, or, at least, if it does I have failed to see how. I am quite convinced that 1) God is in fact good and that 2) all that He created was good in its original creation. If I may, I'll leave you with two questions that will hopefully clarify what it is that I am asking, both in this particular thread and in the thread which spawned this one (Gal. 2:17). 1. Isaiah 45:6-7 is indeed a fairly easy text to deal with. But how do you understand the passage to which this thread is attached, and (just as importantly) why do you understand it that way? 2. You wrote: "God is certainly sovereign over evil. There's a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree." I am not exactly certain of what you are intending by the use of the words "sovereign" and "decree," but if, as the strongly Calvanist position seems to take, you mean that God has predetermined (ordained, predestined) every detail of history before any of it came to be, than how can He not also be properly called the author (source) of sin? I suppose it would be best if you are going to respond to the second question, that you do so in the thread attached to Gal. 2:17, since that is the question that is asked there and it would be at least somewhat outside of the scope of this particular thread. Again, please accept my apologies. It was not my intent to ignore what you had written. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
36 | Is this about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:1 | RWC | 231537 | ||
Is this song really so much about David, or at least _just_ about him? I wonder if it isn't as much or more about Jesus than it is about David. For example, how could David say (about himself!) the words found in verses 21-25? It would be incredibly arrogant for any human besides Jesus to utter these words about themself, would it not? | ||||||
37 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:8 | RWC | 231538 | ||
When did this happen in David's life? Could this be more a predictive prophecy of the earthquake that occurred at the death of Jesus? | ||||||
38 | God riding on an angel? | 2 Sam 22:11 | RWC | 231540 | ||
Why is God pictured here as riding on a cherub (an angel)? I can't think of anywhere else in the Scripture where this kind of language (description) is used. What is the significance of this (if any)? | ||||||
39 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:12 | RWC | 231541 | ||
When did David experience this? Could this more legitimately be interpreted as a prediction of the darkness that occurred during the last three hours of the crucifixion? | ||||||
40 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:16 | RWC | 231544 | ||
Further to my questions about this song being more about David or about Jesus, when did David see or experience anything like this? Would this not perhaps be better understood as having application (fulfillment) at the end of time (as we know it)? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |