Results 21 - 40 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | what day should the sabbath be? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229029 | ||
It should be noted that Gen 2.3 says nothing about the Sabbath. It should also be noted that there was no evening or morning on the seventh 'day'. It was a day without end. Thus the sanctifying of the seventh 'day' was not necessarily the inauguration of the Sabbath. It was rather an indication of God's blessing on the future of His creation, having finalised His creation in the previous six time periods (yom). The first actual mention of the Sabbath is in Exodus 16. Then it was fixed as the seventh day after the commencement of the manna. And it is clear that 'all the rulers' at least did not then know of the Sabbath day (verse 22). It had to be explained by Moses. And it was not based on the seventh day of creation, but on the seventh day of the gathering of the manna. It was not necessarily in line with the seventh day of creation. There is no suggestion that it was. It is true that in the ten words in Exodus 20 God related the sabbath to the seventh day of creation, but it is only used as an example. God did it thus they must do it. Scripture gives no impression that the sabbath day was observed before Exodus 16. The Sabbath thus arises out of the Mosaic Law. God blessed and sanctified the first day of the week when He raised His Son from the dead (Luke 24.1; John 20.1). This was why it changed. Was the change warranted? Certainly the early church began meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20.7). It was also the day for setting aside money for the poor (1 Cor 16.2). This would appear to suggest that it was the day on which Christians met. We must remember that while the Sabbath could be observed by Jews by special order of the Roman empire, the same was not true for Christians. Thus many Christian slaves could not observe the sabbath. Certainly by the time of Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD) and the Epistle of Barnabas (135 AD) Sunday had replaced the Sabbath in many places, and even where it was observed it was not as a day of rest but as a day of doing good, following Jesus' example. But Paul had previously authorised this in Romans 14.5-6. And he had underlined it in Col 2.16. The shadow had been replaced by Christ. Thus the shadow no longer applied. After all Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2.28) and could determine how it be observed contrary to current Jewish practise. |
||||||
22 | islam/Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229042 | ||
Theoretically, if they followed the teaching of Muhammad Muslims would welcome Christians as the people of the word and would acknowledge the Gospels. Muhammad accepted the Gospels of his day as the word of God, and bade his people to welcome Christians and Jews and not interfere with them. Although they were required to pay a poll tax. In practise Muslims make the excuse that the Gospels have been interfered with and that they can no longer be relied on (even though we have papyri and MS from long before the ones accepted by Muhammad). They have to do this because the Gospels contradict the Hadith (Islamic later tradition). As the Gospels as we have them were accepted by Muhammad this is clearly s deliberate refusal to follow what Muhammad and the Quran taught. But that does not seem to worry them. In theory they believe the Quran. In practise they put the Hadith (later traditions) above the Quran. They also believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but refuse to believe that He died on the cross. The latter on the authority, not of the Quran, but of the Hadith, which says that somehow Judas replaced Jesus on the cross, Jesus being raised to Heaven. The Quran is vague on the subject of the cross and never hints at any part played by Judas. The Hadith also teach that Jesus is coming back again, but will die in battle fighting for Islam. They also reject the fact that Jesus was the son of God (i.e. the son of Allah and Mariam). But that was because Muhammad had a very strange view about the Triunity of God. He had only met heretical Christians and believed that in Christian eyes the Trinity was composed of Allah, Mariam (Mary) and Isa (Jesus). Thus Muhammad never rejected the Trinity as we know it. (He also mixed up Mariam, Moses' sister, and Mary). In fact the Quran exalts Jesus well above Muhammad. It states that He was virginally born, was able to argue and dispute from birth, and turned clay birds into living birds. And that finally He was exalted to Heaven without dying. It is clear from all this last that its ideas are based on the later heretical so-called gospels. |
||||||
23 | islam/Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229057 | ||
To a large extent the difference between us lies in the fact that I presented what Muhammad taught in the Quran whilst you are describing Islam as it has become. I thus pointed out that in their attitude today Islam did not obey the whole of the Quran. In other words they deny the teaching of their own holy book. As this is not a site for discussing Islam I wil merely say that Muhammed did not include Christians and Jews as infidels in the Quran. It was polytheists who were called Infidels. Muhammad in fact gained a large part of his ideas from Jews and heretical Christians. No doubt you will be able to cite me the verses in the Quran to which you refer where Christians and Jews are called infidels? Sura 2.62 says, 'Those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with the Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Sura 5.69 says, 'Surely those who believe (Muslims) and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians --- whoever believed in God and in the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Now I must stress that I do not believe that the doctrine thus taught is true. Nor do I suggest that Islam is an alternative truth. Islam is a total distortion of Christianity. But we must be honest in our presentations. Best wishes |
||||||
24 | jesus...2year old-30.where was he? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229178 | ||
Hi, Welcome to the forum We know that as an infant He was taken to Egypt by His family and remained there for some time. Later He returned with them to Nazareth. We do know what is important in Jesus childhood, that He 'grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon Him' (Luke 2.40), and that 'He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man' (Luke 2.52). We also know that when He was twelve He demonstrated His knowledge of the Scriptures and ability to ask searching questions even from the great Scribes (Luke 2.42-50). And also that, when the other children were enjoying a riotous holiday at the Feast, He saw the Temple as the place for Him to be, interesting Himself in 'the things of His Father'. But the Gospels were not 'a life-story of Jesus'. They were a presentation of Jesus, revealing Who He was and what He had come to do. Best wishes |
||||||
25 | Did Jesus exist? No writings at His time | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229180 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum, You can always find scholars who will support any outlandish position. You must remember that many scholars are militant atheists. But there are very few scholars who deny the actual existence of Jesus (even atheistic ones) for very good reasons. If you get rid of Jesus you then have to explain the source of the greatest moral teaching that the world has ever known, a teaching admired by men of all religions, and who it was who totally exposed the weaknesses of the teaching of the scribes in the way that we find in the Gospels. These are facts because we can still read and appreciate them today. You have to explain the source of some of the most beautiful parables known to man. You have to explain who it was who gave answers to questions that previously no one had been able to answer. And when four reliable men testify as to who it was, you have to acknowledge that they must be right. They were not clever enough to have invented it No one of the day ever denied the historicity of the man spoken of in the Gospels, not even the Rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore your date of 'forty years' after the death of Jesus as the date for the Gospels is probably an exaggerated one. There are good grounds for thinking that they were written earlier. And certainly we know that Paul's letters were written earlier, and that he testified to Jesus within ten years of His death. It is not really surprising that books were not written immediately. The Apostles and their followers were busy reaching the world for Christ, and books were difficult to write with the material available, and would require long abstinence from active service. And then they had to be copied individually, an arduous task, and even then they would reach few hands (they were very expensive). But the living voice could go anywhere and immediately be heard by many, and could be recognised to be that of an eyewitness. The Gospels were written when the large churches looked for people who could write down what was known about Jesus, much of which had been memorised as men had listened to the Apostles. Matthew and John had been there, and we should remember that Matthew was used to recording things in writing and had no doubt done so while listening to Jesus. Mark wrote down what he had learned fom Peter. Luke had every opportunity to consult eyewitesses especially during the years he spent in Palestine with Paul. So the existence of Jesus is not really in doubt. If you are feeling shaken, read the Gospels. And ask yourself, was this the One Who was coming as prophesied by the Old Testament, or should we look for another? And my advice is to remember that anyone can wrte what they like in wikipedia. What it says is only as reliable as the person who wrote it. And you do not know who that was. |
||||||
26 | what is the rapture, what should i do? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229309 | ||
Hi, What is called today 'the Rapture' refers to the taking away of living Christians, to be united with those who have just been raised from the dead, to be ever with the Lord. It is described in 1 Thessalonioans 4.13 ff and 1 Corinthians 15.52. As far as Christians are concerned that will be the end of time. it is only what follows (if anything other than the new Heaven and the new earth - 2 Peter 3.13) that causes problems. What should you do? Be sure that you are ready to meet the Lord at any time, for he will come unexpectedly. Thus you should rid your life of all known sin, you should openly confess Christ before others, and you should read and study His word and continue constantly in prayer. Those things are far more important than spending a lot of time on eschatological theories and interpretations on which there is such wide diversitirtes of opinions. Best wishes. |
||||||
27 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229493 | ||
Hi Peggy, Welcome to the forum. Numbers are regularly used in the Bible to convey ideas rather than in order to indicate exact amounts. Thus both Isaac and Esau were 'forty yars old' when they married. The idea is probably that they were seen to have reached maturity. If you look at ages in Genesis you will be surpirsed how many end in 0, 5, or 7 (in those days 5 was the base number, not ten, and 7 was seen as a divine number. It is clear that the number forty is often connected with God's judgments. The rain came at the Flood for forty days and forty nights. Goliath challenged Israel for forty days. The children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for forty years (although strictly for thirty eight years, as the first two years included the wait at Sinai, and the journey from Egypt. But it is thought of in terms of forty years). The maximum number of stripes that could be given were forty. Israel was delivered into the hands of the Philistines for forty years. Forty is also seen as a period of waiting on God or similar. Moses went into the mount for forty days and forty nights. Elijah fled to Horeb taking forty days. Jesus Himself was tempted for forty days and forty nights. It is quite possible that in some cases it simply indicates 'a little over a month'. In Judges the land regularly 'has rest for forty years', probably indicatiing 'for a generation'. In one case it is eighty years (twice forty). Eli judged Israel for forty years. Ishbosheth began to reign when he was forty years old. Both David and Solomon reigned over Israel for forty years. These are probably round numbers (note how these were all within a comparatively short period). Thus the number does appear to be important to God, as representing His activity. Best wishes |
||||||
28 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229494 | ||
The Bible speaks of the natural man. The natural man is the unsaved man, man without Christ (1 Cor 2.14). Such a man does not have the Spirit of God within Him. But a Christian can be called 'carnal'(fleshly). See 1 Cor 3.3-4, in contrast to spiritual. Being carnal is revealed by behaving in a carnal way (1 Cor 3.3). Just as being spiritual is revealed by behaving in a spiritual way (Gal 5.22). But the reason for the latter is that they behave in that way as a result of walking in the Spirit (Rom 8.4-9). It is best not to speak of a carnal nature, as though a Christian man had two natures. It is rather two tendencies within one nature. He is a man by nature, influenced by both flesh and Spirit. The old man is the man that I once was. The new man is the man that I now am in Christ. I am to put to death the old man so that the new man might live through me (Eph 2.22-24). It is misleading to speak of the old nature. Best wishes |
||||||
29 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229496 | ||
None of us know all God's promises. The Bible is full of them. As you read the Bible you will discover more and more what God has done for you in fulfilment of His promises. As you come across them rejoice in them and give Him praise and thanks. Don't worry too much about the others. As you come across them it will like finding diamond after diamond. You have a whole lifetime in which to discover them and enjoy them. best wishes |
||||||
30 | Do God hear/answer prayers of unsaved? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229521 | ||
Hi Joe, Welcome to the forum. While agreeing with all that has been said, I am always a little hesitant about telling God what He must do. The Scripture reveals His usual practise, and that is that God does not hear the prayers of those living complacently in sin, or treating Him lightly. But when unsaved men begin to seek Him I think He may well begin to hear their prayers. Consider the people of Nineveh when Jonah preached to them. God heard their prayers and spared Nineveh. Or consider the people of Israel, who time and again when they were in a period of backsliding prayed in times of need and God delivered them, e.g. when Jerusalem was spared from the Assyrians. In both cases God heard their prayers as part of the proocess of bringing them to Himself. Of course I accept that we do not know at what point such people are 'saved', thus it may come under the heading of responding in salvation. All I am saying is that we should beware of discouraging people from praying,as long as their prayers are genuine, while at the same time warning against glib prayers. Such praying may be part of the process whereby He is wooing them to Himself. Best wishes |
||||||
31 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229547 | ||
I cannot agree that if we give a significance to a number in certain contexts it has to be consistent throughout the Scriptures. The use of numbers developed over time. It may well be that in some cases a number had a significance for a certain time, and that that significance was then dropped. I would see the 40 years old of Isaac and Esau when they married in that light (although I suppose marriage could be seen as a trial - lol). The periods of forty years in the wilderness, forty years rest on Judges (three times), forty years of Eli's rule, forty years of David's rule, and forty years of Solomon's rule are in a cluster. They may well indicate 'a generation'. But this does not tie forty down to always meaning a generation (it could only do so in the case of years). Or it could be that the same number has twofold significance, used in one way sometimes, and another way the other. The Bible was written by a large number of different authors and they could well have had their own viewpoint. This is why when a pattern does emerge it suggests that it is significant. The spies went out for forty days (possibly a round number) which may well have been intended to indicate a significant period of testing out the land. The 'forty years' of wandering, was in fact thirty eight years. Thus the 40 years brought in their journeying, and encampment at Sinai, before they started wandering. But it was called forty years because instead of Canaan being tested, they were being tested. Note how in fact they are deliberately contrasted. The forty men who sought to kill Paul parallesl the forty days of Goliath's testing of Israel. Both had a death in mind. It was certainly a test of Paul's faith, and of his calling, as it was with Israel. 1 Kings 6:17 and 7:38 are measurements which may well not have been seen in the same light. There is in fact a forty year period during which Israel was under the rule of another country (Judges 13.1), and this may well be intended to cotrast with the 40 years periods of rest. It was thus both a period of trial, and indicating a generation. I am not sure why just because forty is intended to indicate a period of testing and trial it must therefore follow that all periods of testing have to be forty years. Approximate length of time also has to be taken into account. Incidentally Judah were not in Babylon for seventy years. Even if we commence the period from the first exile in 605 BC the period was only 67 years. But Jeremiah did not say that they would be. His seventy year prophecy was concerning the period when 'these nations (including all the nations round about) will serve the King of Babylon'. Thus we can date it from 609 BC (when Nebuchadnexzzar first operated against the nations) to 539 BC. And of course 70 is the number of divine completeness. We can compare the deliberate manipulation of the names of the patriarchs who went into Egypt (Genesis 46.8-27), who of course went with 'their households' probably numbering a few thousand. Best wishes |
||||||
32 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229555 | ||
Hi Searcher, Both of us believe that the final words written by the Scripture writers were verbally inspired by God, so that in one sense each word is God's, but where we differ is on how God went about it. I am in no doubt that God allowed each writer to write from his own viewpoint, although kept from error, and that each writing reveals the personality and slant of its author. One obvious example is where in Samuel we read that God caused David to number Israel, whilst in Chronicles we read that it was Satan who caused David to number Israel. Both are correct. If you study Samuel you will discover that he writes with a strong emphasis on God's sovereignty in everything that happened. He rightly sees God as the prime cause of everything that happens. The Chronicler on the other hand looked at second causes. That too is correct. There are many second causes. They also wrote in terms of their own times, and used the ideas in vogue in those times, while again being kept from error,although of course gradually a tradition would build up, as it did in the use of numbers. Indeed that all this is so is clear when we examine their writings. God was quite happy for them to use numbers as they wished as long as it did not produce error when looked at from their viewpoint. We have to be astute. Thus if one wanted to use 40 or 70 symbolically, and another did not, God did not intervene. The Bible is not so artificial. Take for example the numbers connected with the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings. In some cases there appear to be blatant contradictions. But the truth is that some sources dated the reigns from when they became regents with their fathers, others dated them from when they began their sole reigns. Again some included the year of accession, while others excluded the year of accession. Both methods were in use at the time. Best wishes |
||||||
33 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229556 | ||
Re Point 2. Well I would count the three period of rest in Judges as having one and the same significance. But there are good grounds for suggesting that even the periods of rest were test periods to see if they would continue faithful, which in the main they did not. Once the generation that had learned its lesson passed away the past was forgotten. Judges is a book of testing, see Jud 2.6-23. Best wishes. |
||||||
34 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229557 | ||
Point 3 Searcher said: ... On 70 ... in Numbers 7:37 "his offering was one silver dish whose weight was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels" ... so does that mean one bowl was of "divine completeness" and the other not? Also read other passages (Jdg 1:7, 8:30, 9:2 …) My reply: as I said when measurements are in use we would expect exact numbers. However in the case of your Judges examples they may well all indicate divine completeness to the author, which is probably why he stresses them. Adoni-bezek may well have been using a round number with the idea that the kings he had mutilated were given to him by his god. The numbers 7 and 70 were almost universally seen as indicating divine perfection at the time. Best wishes. |
||||||
35 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229562 | ||
LOL We don't know whether there were exceptions or not, as we don't have histories of all the peoples in the world. How can that affect anything? But it was true throughout the Middle East (the Ancient Near East). Everyone in Palestine, Sumer, Babylon and Assyria saw 7 and its multiples (e.g. seventy sevens) as indicating divine perfection, and thats good enough for me. No, creation was finished in SEVEN days, six was the number of MAN (just as 666 is the number of the Man of Sin) and man was created on the sixth 'day'. But creation was completed when God blessed the seventh day. Apart from you everyone speaks of seven day creation. However, it doesn't really matter what you think or decide to do. What matters is that I have provided the information requested, and everyone can judge for themselves. Best wishes |
||||||
36 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229566 | ||
Searcher I object to your implication that I twist Scripture. In fact what do you say of someone who takes the seven days of Gen 1.1 - 2.4 and tries to suggest that the important thing is only the first six days, as though that changed anything? To any intelligent person it is quite clearly a seven day pattern. Finding 'an exception' proves absolutely nothing. No one says that all numbers are always used in that way, only that a pattern can be discerned of numbers often used in a certain way, something agreed by many reputable commentaries. Finding hidden codes is something quite different. They were not put in deliberately. Just because you do not agree there is no need to sink to insults. |
||||||
37 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229573 | ||
StJohn Searcher was arguing against my indicating that numbers have a meaning in Scripture. He said 'I do not twist Scripture to fit what I want. I could make numbers, names Whatever you say that is a general implication therefore that I am twisting the Scriptures. I suspect you did not follow the thread through. For some strange reason Searcher was trying to avoid the number seven in relation to creation and this was immediately after we had been discussing the number seven. My words were not 'revenge'. They were a reply to his argument and drawing attention to the fact that you quite obviously could not avoid the number seven in regard to creation. So once again I have to reject your strictures. No my feathers do not get ruffled. But i do think we should treat each other with respect. Best wishes |
||||||
38 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229588 | ||
What is StudyBibleForum.com? For the teacher and scholar, it's an opportunity to freely share your knowledge. It is not a discussion group or topical survey, but an ever growing "expository repository" that gives the layman and scholar an opportunity to share truth and contribute wisdom. (I will remember in future not to answer people's questions). |
||||||
39 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229600 | ||
... | ||||||
40 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229670 | ||
Hi, Should Christians pick up serpents? The answer is a decided NO (unless they are experienced zoologists). Jesus informed Satan that although He knew that He was safe whatever He did, it would not be right to put God to the test (Matt 4.7). So picking up a serpent 'by faith' on purpose is putting God to the test. It is therefore an act of disobedience. The promise given was not in order to encourage being spectacular (Jesus refused to do that), it referred to accidental contact with serpents. If someone picks up a serpent deliberately they are asking to be bitten, and faith will not save them. They may of course be lucky, but it will not be God Who will be protecting them. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [19] >> |