Results 21 - 40 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171666 | ||
Searcher, You say - "My answer ... it is the belief of some, that they wanted something from Elijah, because "why else would they want to look for Elijah?" The Bible tells you why they went to look for Elijah: 2 Ki 2:16 "let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley." I believe what the Bible says, not what "some" believe. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
22 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171663 | ||
Dear Searcher, If you believe that Elijah was taken into the heaven of the sky in 2 Kings 2, then where does your belief that he went to Heaven to be with God come from? Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
23 | Dr. B. Who're the angels (2 Pet 2:10-11) | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171660 | ||
Dear Searcher, I'm leaving for today after this post, you'll be glad to hear, so time for a time out. Jude 1:6 is parallel to 2 Peter 2:4. I agree with you, but I've already shown several times how the language here indicates they died, and how that is confirmed in the Genesis account. I won't keep repeating myself. Jude 1:7 is parallel to 2 Peter 2:6. I agree that these people were killed by brimstone, however: Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:9 both tell us that the punishment on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was exactly the same as on the aggelos. So if the aggelos never died, as you claim, then neither did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible however clearly says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed, so according to both Peter and Jude, so were the aggelos. The men in Jude 1:8 appear to be the same men in Jude 1:4, who are accused of reviling "angelic majesties." That's got nothing to do with Genesis - they were men alive at the time of Peter. Okay. Over and out for a while, Dr. B. |
||||||
24 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171658 | ||
Searcher, Please, please, please go back and read what I have written regarding Tartarus and the chains of darkness, otherwise you're just going to keep repeating the same pointless comments over and over again. The Bible says that the aggelos were thrust into the depths - by definition of the ocean - at the time of the flood. And this means that they were killed. Look at the use of Tartarus in the LXX Septuagint for proof of this, or have the courtesy to read my previous post on the subject. You can think what you want, but the Bible disagrees with you. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
25 | Dr. B., Did He inspire Peter and Jude? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171655 | ||
Dear Searcher, I agree 100 percent that the writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I can't agree that they did not use or refer to other inspired writings. That would be absurd. The later writers of the gospels clearly referred to the writings of the earlier gospels. And the whole of the New Testament is infused with the Old Testament. A full list of examples would be huge. Why would you claim such a thing? Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
26 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171652 | ||
Dear Searcher, If you were reading my answers to you, you would have already read this: ---------------------------------- "This also comes back to a point I have made before on the angels: Luke 20:36 "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels." Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death" I hope you see the point. If the wages of sin is death, and angels cannot die, then neither can they sin, or they would die, which they cannot do. At least, not according to Jesus. ---------------------------------- Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
27 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171650 | ||
Dear Searcher, Quite the pedant. Let me rephrase. Please prove that the letter was written before Elijah departed, and that it was not written at the time. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
28 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171649 | ||
Searcher, An explanation of a word does not mean that I have changed it. If I read in the newspaper that a man had been eaten by a Hippo, I would be quite correct to say that he had been killed. It does not mean that I have changed any of the words. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
29 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171645 | ||
Dear Searcher, Regarding the letter which you claim is prophecy, you have yet to prove that it is a prophecy. The context of the chapter and the proof I have given that Elijah did not go to Heaven render your discussion of prophecy pointless. Come back to me when you can prove that it is prophecy. Dr. B. |
||||||
30 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171644 | ||
Dear Searcher, I can only assume you have not read a word I have written. I have not changed any words - I directed you to the original Greek word "Tartarus" to explain what was being referred to by "hell". I directed you to the examples in the Psalms to explain what the "chains of darkness" are. And I proved from Peter that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are "reserved for judgment" in precisely the same way as these aggelos are. The similarity in their state is obvious because they are all dead humans. Please do not accuse me of changing words when I have not done that. In answer to what happened to the others, have you read 2 Peter 2 or Genesis 6? The aggelos of Peter were not spared and neither was "the old world". Everyone died apart from Noah and his family. Jude 1:6 and 7 are direct references to Peters letter, so there is no reason to cover the same issue twice. I don't understand this sentence - "Plus, if those in Genesis 6:2, how did they have relations?" You are very good at asking questions but not very good at answering them. So here's a few to start with (some of which you have already blatantly ignored): Please explain how angels can sin, when Christ told us that they can't. Please explain how the 50 men looking for Elijah thought they'd find him when Elisha had already told them that Elijah was in Heaven and, according to you, they had most probably watched Elijah go there. Please explain why you have invented a belief that they were after Elijahs spirit, when 2 Kings 2 actually tells us that they "afar off" and on the other side of the river Jordan during the conversation about double portions of spirit, and also tells us the exact reason they went to look for Elijah – that they were concerned about Elijahs safety and went to make sure he was okay? They urged Elisha until he was "shamed", not until he got angry with them for wanting Elijahs spirit! It is clear they cared about Elijah. Your claim they wanted double portions of Elijahs spirit is invented un-Biblical nonsense. In your own words, "Where is your Biblical support?" Please prove that the heaven we are referred to in 2 Kings 2 is the Heaven where God abides and not the heaven of the sky. Please prove your convolution that Elijahs letter was a prophecy and not simply a letter written at the time. Please explain why when Jesus said, "No man hath ascended up to heaven," he was actually lying. I look forward to your answers. In future, please read what I have written before you write your answers. It will help prevent you from making false accusations. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
31 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171634 | ||
Dear Searcher, I have already proved that Elijah did not go to Heaven, and that the letter was not just written, but came directly FROM Elijah, which would be impossible if he were in heaven. So your prophecy issue is moot. Dr. B. |
||||||
32 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171632 | ||
Dear Searcher, I have proved from Peter that the aggelos in Peter were people who sinned at the time of the flood and were killed. I went on to prove from Genesis that these people were men. Case proved. Dr. B. |
||||||
33 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171620 | ||
Dear Searcher, Was John the Baptist an angel? Matthew 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger [AGGELOS] before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Were John the Baptists disciples angels? Luke 7:24 And when the messengers [AGGELOS] of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Where the spies sent to Jericho angels? James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers [AGGELOS], and had sent them out another way? The word Aggelos means - a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God. As you can see, it certainly does not always refer to the angels of heaven, and there is no reason to automatically believe that the angels of 2 Peter 2 were angels of heaven, especially in the context – which is of wicked humans who had abandoned their positions as sons of God, and were killed by the flood. This also comes back to a point I have made before on the angels: Luke 20:36 "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels." Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death" I hope you see the point. If the wages of sin is death, and angels cannot die, then neither can they sin, or they would die, which they cannot do. At least, not according to Jesus. Therefore the angels of 2 Peter 2 are definitely not spirit angels because they cannot sin. Likewise the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 were not angels because they sinned. Look even for a moment at the context in Genesis to see who the sons of God were. First Genesis 4:26, which chronologically immediately precedes Genesis 6: Gen 4:26 ... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. Dr. Boothroyd and others translate the passage, "Then began men to be called by the name of Jehovah." How would they do this? They would obviously not all be called "Jehovah". So the descendants of Seth separated themselves from the descendants of Cain by calling themselves the sons of God. Gen 6:2 ... the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, The Lord did not say "My spirit shall not always strive with angels" but with men. God did not repent "that he had made angels on the earth", but that he had made man. This is because the descendants of Seth had become as wicked as the descendants of Cain, and only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The sons of God were men, and it was those men, not angels, who caused God to bring the flood. Okay, Dr. B. |
||||||
34 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171619 | ||
Dear Brad, I think you may have mixed up two separate issues here and become hung up on Dr. Powell. I introduced the critique of Dr. Wuest in order to show the fact that Dr. Wuest has his own detractors on the simple veracity of his translation, and that even other Greek translators may disagree with him. The point in doing so was to show that you cannot simply wave a copy of Dr. Wuests work around as if it were gospel truth. Like any other source of information, it should be verified instead of being swallowed whole. I then introduced the Wikipedia quote to show that Dr. Wuest has other critics who claim that he brings what they call "preconceived theological and doctrinal considerations" into the task of pure exegesis. I did so to explain that the majority of the information Dr. Wuest provides regarding hell is not taken from the Greek words he uses to construct his vision of hell around, but from his preconceived notions of what he wants to talk about. I then provided information on the words Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus, and I must point out that this information was certainly not taken from Dr. Powell, so any aspersions on his bias are irrelevant to that part of the discussion. Gehenna - The Valley of Hinnom. Hades – Sheol. Tartarus - The lowest depths. The rest of the information that Dr. Weust brings to the table is clouded by his preconceived notion of hell as a fiery, subterranean world of demons. None of those words describe any such thing. Okay and thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
35 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171605 | ||
Dear Brad, The way to discover if Dr. Powell is a more credible authority than Dr. Wuest is to analyse the information for yourself. I admit I have been unable to put much effort into it myself because I have none of Dr. Weusts works and only the words of Dr. Powell. But equally the question can be asked - "Why is Dr. Weust any more of a credible authority than Dr. Powell?" The more poignant point was raised from the Wikpedia page, which is far more easily verifiable. Dr. Weust in his examination of hell is clearly influenced greatly by pre-conceived Christian beliefs regarding hell, hades, tartarus and gehenna which have arisen since the New Testament was written, and quite clearly does not limit himself to an anaylsis of what the words meant when they were written. I don't need Dr. Powell or Wikpedia or anyone else to make that any more apparent than it already is. Okay and goodnight! Dr. B. |
||||||
36 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171604 | ||
Dear Searcher, Thankyou for your thoughtful response. Elijah makes his exit in 2 Kings 2, shortly after King Ahaziah of Israels death (Dies in 2 Kings 1) and about the time King Jehoram of Israel took the throne (Begins to reign in 2 Kings 3). Elisha is clearly the primary prophet of God at this time (2 Ki 3:11), and even deals with King Jehoshaphat of Judah - the predeccesor of Jehoram of Judah (the one who receives the letter.) So Elijah was well out of the way before Jehoram of Judah comes to power. Now the Jehoram who received the letter from Elijah was Jehoram King of Judah, and he began to reign in the 5th year of King Jehoram of Israel (2 Ki 8:16). So it was about 5 years after the departure of Elijah that Jehoram of Judah killed his brothers. Now Jehoram of Judah reigned for 8 years (2 Chr 21:20) and the letter from Elijah arrived 2 years before he died (2 Chr 21:19), so Jehoram of Judah had been on the throne 6 years when he received the letter. So you have a gap of about 5 years between Elijah disappearing and Jehorams coming to power and then 6 years of his reign making, well, at least 10 years between the disappearance of Elijah and the arrival of the letter. Now I've got to admit that maths isn't my strong point, and I haven't just copy and pasted that, so you can check it if you want and make sure it's right. As to your other question: How do I know the letter was sent after he was taken? Because the letter addresses events that occurred after Elijahs disappearance, and refers to them in the past tense, and it gives a direct prophecy in the future tense which would begin to happen immediately. It was clearly written at a specific point in time. To claim that Elijah wrote the letter before disappearing and left it around for someone to deliver is a sad attempt to ignore the obvious truth which is in front of you regarding Elijahs destination. There are three different heavens spoken of in the Bible: 1. The heaven where God abides. 2. The heaven where the stars are. 3. The heaven where the birds are. The word for "heaven" in this case is "Shamayim" which is far more frequently and appropriately used to refer not to Heaven where God abides, but to the air above us. In fact in 1 Kings it is translated several times as "Air". But let's try and prove exactly which heaven we are dealing with here. As already discussed, Jesus categorically states that no-one has ever ascended to the Heaven where God abides, so Elijah didn't go there. I very much doubt that God transported Elijah into outer-space to kill him, so we can safely predict he didn't go there. The only option left is that the chariot containing Elijah took off from the ground into the heaven of the sky, until Elisha "saw him no more". This is backed up by the eye-witnesses who went to look for Elijah. (N.B. It is unclear whether the 50 men had seen Elijah leave, but it is possible, and at the very least they had a first hand account of the event from Elisha.) If they had seen him shoot straight up into the sky, or Elisha had told them he'd gone to be with God in Heaven they would not have gone to search for him in the direction they HAD seen him travel. Elisha had faith that God would prevent Elijah from falling from the chariot, but the others feared he may have fallen out part of the way through his journey which, as we've said, was laterally and not vertically. Okay, I had better post this to the board and go home. Searcher, if you disagree with this, please explain why when Jesus said, "No man hath ascended up to heaven," he was actually lying. As I mentioned before, the answer you directed me on the subject was totally inadequate. It referred to a context that simply isn't in any verse in that chapter. And please explain why those sons of prophets went on a long trek to look for Elijah if Elisha had told them he'd just been transported into Heaven. Okay, and thanks for your consideration, Dr. B. (Apologies for the late reply - my internet cut out about 3 hours ago) |
||||||
37 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171597 | ||
Dear Searcher, Apology accepted and thanks. Sometimes the written word can be misinterpreted and a statement can be read in a way which the writer did not intend. Yrs, Dr. B. (Answer to follow shortly) |
||||||
38 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171594 | ||
Searcher, Give me a break please and stop being quite so rude. I will answer your question as soon as I can. In fact, I have been composing the answer for the last half hour. Please note the length of the last response I gave to Brad. I have a job and I am not some kind of magical speed-typist that can work and type and read the Bible and answer all of you at once. Please have a little patience and grace. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
39 | Jesus decended into hell? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171585 | ||
Dear Brad, Hello again, and thanks for your reply! As you may know, Ken Wuest has his own critics. A study of his corruption of parts of the book of Romans can be found here: http://members.citynet.net/morton/others/greekpre.htm And even a quick trip to Wikpedia will tell you that "Some critics have charged that in specific instances, Wuest’s translations and commentaries go beyond a strict analysis of grammar and word meaning, and bring preconceived theological and doctrinal considerations into the task of exegesis." Kens study of hell is a prime example of this. GEHENNA: Gehenna is a place, better known as the Valley of Hinnom. You should not translate place names. Would you translate the words Paris, Rome or London? Of course not. Gehenna is a source of misunderstanding for many Christians because of what happened there. Refuse, dead animals and executed prisoners were burnt in Gehenna. Fires were kept burning continually for this purpose. When you realise that there was an everlasting fire in a physical place just outside Jerusalem, you can see that it is not referring to any imaginary place called "hell" but simply to the physical location of Gehenna. HADES: Hades, as has already been said, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which means "Grave". The representations that Mr. Kenneth Wuest makes about Hades are his own pre-conceived notions, and are not derived from the word Hades. The fact that Hades is used as a translation of Sheol can be seen from the Septuagent OT. TARTARUS: Strangely enough, Mr. Wuest makes no attempt to explain the meaning of the word Tartarus. I will attempt to do so with an explanation of II Peter 2:4. The misunderstanding of this verse has arisen mostly because it is taken totally out of the context of the passage. II Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; An interesting and clearly deliberate contrast. God spared not those which sinned, and spared not the old world, but saved Noah from the flood. Clearly one and the same incident is referred to here - the flood. Those that sinned were killed in the flood, but righteous Noah was saved. The "angels" being referred to then are not the angels of heaven but humans - the "sons of God" from Genesis 6:2 who "kept not their first estate," but saw the daughters of men and did evil in the sight of the Lord. II Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: Again, a contrast. Sodom and Gomorrha were condemned and overthrown, while Lot was saved. One and the same incident is referred to here - the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. Peter is therefore using these two incidents to contrast the judgment on the wicked with the salvation of the righteous. This lesson of Peters is then summed up in verse 9: II Pet 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: Thus both the "angels" and Sodom and Gomorrah are reserved in exactly the same way. His argument is that God is consistent in His judgment of the ungodly and His preservation and reward of the righteous, but he is clearly talking about judgments upon men, not spirit angels. So why claim that these people were kept in "chains of darkness"? Well chains or bonds are used in the Bible as symbols of death: (NAB) Psalm 18:6 The cords of Sheol tightened; the snares of death lay in wait (NAB) Psalm 116:3 I was caught by the cords of death; the snares of Sheol had seized me Just like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mat 10:15), these people were punished with death until their final judgment before Christ. So what or where is Tartarus? Well, rather than refer you to Greek mythology, I will refer you back to the version of the Old Testament that Peter was using – the LXX Septuagint. Speaking of the Leviathon: Job 41:31 ... he regards the sea as a pot of ointment, 32 and the lowest part of the deep [Tartarus] as a captive: he reckons the deep as his range. The word Tartarus literally means "the lowest depths" and is used in the Septuagint to refer to the lowest depths of the sea. Thus it is an excellent word to use when Peter refers to the people killed by the flood. They were cast into Tartarus, the lowest depths of the sea, and killed. They remain to this day in chains of darkness (death), but they will stand before the judgment seat at the last day, just like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and just like us. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
40 | Elijah went where? | Genesis | drbloor | 171518 | ||
Dear Searcher, My apologies that the question on Heaven and Elijah was not posted under a verse, but it was a direct response in a discussion thread, not a new question. Thank you for directing me to those two answers, but I must admit that if those are the best answers that can be given then the answerers are grasping at straws. 1. "No man hath ascended up to heaven". The answer given to this is basically to dismiss the words of Christ because you disagree with them. That's unacceptable. Your claim is that "Jesus insisted that no one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return and talk about heavenly things". I have no doubt that Jesus is stating his authority to talk about heavenly things, but he does so by explicitly stating that no-one else has ever ascended to heaven. Your Bible may well add the words "and returned to talk about it", but mine doesn't. Also, your argument about context is simply wrong. You claim that Jesus is refuting teaching that people went to heaven and returned with revelations. Yet that issue is not addressed once in the entire chapter, so your context doesn't exist! (In fact, I'm uncertain whether that issue is raised in the entire length and breadth of scripture.) If Jesus said that "no man hath ascended up to heaven" then you either agree with him or you call him a liar. 2. "A letter came to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet"... Again, the answer to this is to dismiss what is obvious in favour of the fantastical. The answer given to this is to claim that the letter was written before Elijahs disappearance. However, this would necessitate not only the foreknowledge of the specific particulars of the letter – events that had not occurred at the time of Elijahs disappearance, such as Jehoram murdering his brothers – but it would also require for God to have condemned Jehoram before he committed any sin and it would require Elijah to have allowed these murders to take place without attempting to stop them. That is an implausible reach. In addition, we are not told that the letter was written by Elijah, but that the letter "came ... from Elijah". If Elijah was in Heaven, then the letter came from Heaven! Your attempt to force 2 Chr 21 to fit your version of events is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You are right to say that the Bible does not contradict itself, but respectfully that does not mean that the Bible does not contradict you. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |