Results 21 - 40 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Does Satan Exist Part III | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166289 | ||
If the fallen angels were once angels of God in heaven, then Matt 22:30 still applies. If the angels of God in heaven can became fallen angels and then die, then that means the angels of God in heaven CAN die - by sinning and falling. This is in direct contradiction to Christs teaching. This verse on its own smashes the myth of Satan. As for Jude, the word "angels" as you probably know is also used repeatedly of men as messengers. There is no reason to believe the messengers of Jude 1:6 are fallen angels, especially in the context of Jude as an exhortation against the false doctrine of ungodly men. Indeed, if these are the fallen angels and they have been reserved in chains until the judgement of the great day, then you contradict your own translation of Revelation 12, where they have got out of the chains and into heaven to have a war! Anyway... as you may or may not have seen I have mentioned in a post to CDBJ that I am going to quit doctrinal discussion, because I agree that it is not what the creators and moderators of this site intended. This is my last post of debate. Thanks for all your input throughout - it has been quite revealing! :) Dr. B. |
||||||
22 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166302 | ||
Hi, and thanks for the post! As you may see from other posts, (please do see my final posts to mark and CDBJ if you can, they say far more than I will here to avoid repetition). I am in the process of wrapping things up as far as doctrinal disputation goes. It does not appear that this is the place or time for it. As for the points in your post, I will answer them, and then shut-up and keep my postings to non-doctrinal, non-argumentative issues. I hope you understand the sentiment. 1. I may not have explained myself fully regarding "Is Satan a person". What I meant is that I fully believe that people have been Satan, but that Satan is not one individual supernatural fallen angel. The comparison of 1 Chron 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 show that God can act as a Satan, Numbers 22:22 shows that an obedient non-fallen angel can act as Satan and Matthew 16:23 shows that Peter could act as a Satan. These are all different people, all acting as adversaries. a.) God acted as an adversary to Israel. b.) The angel acted as an adversary to Balaam and his ass. c.) Peter acted as an adversary to Christ. None of these Satans were referred to as fallen angels. 2. The answer to the point about Ezekiel is at the end of this post. It is quite long and cut and pasted from the full answer I gave regarding Ezekiel 28 which was restricted from view by the moderators (I fully agree with their decision by the way.). 3. I agree that God gives Divine permission for what befell Job. It is interesting to note who is held responsible for what was done to Job: Job 1:16 the fire of God (not the fire of Satan) Job 1:21 LORD gave and the LORD has taken away Job 2:10 accept good from the LORD and not trouble Job 19:21 the hand of God has struck me Job 27:2 Almighty, who has made me taste bitterness Job 42:11 all the trouble the LORD had brought on him It is clear that it is God that struck Job, and not Satan. As Isaiah says: Isaiah 47:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Okay, that sums it up for me. In future I will only be posting on non-doctrinal issues - I just felt it rude to leave this post unanswered. If you feel that I am trying to "get the last word in" as it were, by all means post in response and I will read it. I will not answer though. I hope you agree with this. Best regards, Dr. B. EZEKIEL 28 ANSWER: "He was in Eden. (Ezekiel 28:13). This appears to be a prosaic device, or for want of a better definition, a metaphor. There is clear evidence that Ezekiel uses this device elsewhere – in fact in chapter 31 Ezekiel describes Assyria as a tree in the Garden of Eden. Unless Assyria WAS in fact a literal tree in the Garden of Eden, and was somehow later transmogrified into a nation or person, this argument does not stand. It is more probable that Ezekiel is here comparing the fall of Tyre to the fall of Adam in Eden. This is borne out in verse 15: Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." This verse exactly fits the fall of Adam, which is a historical event already recorded in The Bible, unlike the fall of Satan. If a verse in the Bible refers us to another part of Scripture, surely we must analyse this before we introduce an extra-Biblical conception. In other words, we must extrapolate Scriptural teachings from Scripture, not interpolate extra-Biblical teachings into Scripture. And you cannot back-up your argument that Ezekiel 28 refers to the fall of Satan by presenting Ezekiel 28 as corroborating evidence. If your best source of evidence for the fall of Satan is Ezekiel 28, and the only way you know it is the fall of Satan is "because it sounds like the fall of Satan" then yours is a circular argument. If we are told that this person was in the Garden of Eden and was perfect until iniquity was found in him, then the only logical step is to see who The Bible (not man) says was in Eden and was perfect until iniquity was found in him. There is only one candidate – Adam. This must therefore be a comparison between the fall of Tyre and the fall of Adam. In fact, the comparison between Adam and the king of Tyre runs throughout Ezekiel 28: Ezekiel 28:2 "thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God". Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods" According to The Bible, this was the sin of Adam – that he set his heart as the heart of God. That he believed that he could become "as God". Note that this is NOT the sin of the serpent, at least not according to The Bible account." |
||||||
23 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | drbloor | 166621 | ||
Christ taught that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This would indicate a physical (water) baptism and the spiritual baptism that you mention. If he had only meant spiritual baptism then he would have only mentioned spiritual baptism. The baptism of Moses was through the physical water of the Red Sea. The baptism of John was with the physical water of Jordan. The baptism of Christ is with physical water (as witnessed by Christ, his disciples and the apostles) and with spirit. Show me your faith without your baptism, and I will show you my faith by my baptism. |
||||||
24 | Elijah went where? | Genesis | drbloor | 171499 | ||
If Elijah went to Heaven how and why was he back on Earth writing a letter to Jehoram King of Judah nearly ten years later? (2 Chr 21:12) How can Enoch or Elijah have been taken up to heaven if "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). Did Jesus lie? |
||||||
25 | 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. |
||||||
26 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166700 | ||
One of the strangest Biblical claims I have come across is that Cain was not the son of Adam. Any thoughts? | ||||||
27 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166702 | ||
Thanks - I believe Cain WAS the son of Adam - I was simply interested to see how widespread the alternate belief is. | ||||||
28 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166764 | ||
Hank, without getting too deep into the point, I would not agree with the sentiment of the first half of your last sentence. That is why I asked the question. I just wanted to know what the prevalent interpretation of the birth of Cain was, and I believe my question has been answered. Thanks! |
||||||
29 | what man was born but never died | Gen 5:24 | drbloor | 168951 | ||
Congrats Kalos, I don't believe that Melchisedec had neither father nor mother, nor do I believe that he lived for ever. Nor do I believe that Enoch and Elijah never died. These events are simply [not recorded]. Goodnight from here, Dr. B. |
||||||
30 | Show him the truth | Lev 18:22 | drbloor | 168561 | ||
Leviticus 18:22 tells us that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Note that verse 21 tells us not to sacrifice our children by burning them to death, and verse 23 tells us not to have sex with animals. Clearly this chapter is dealing with what God views as the most terrible human perversions. This is why homosexuality is not only prohibited, it is called an 'abomination'. |
||||||
31 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168823 | ||
We are not told that Enoch did not die - we are told that God "took him". In Hebrews Paul tells us that Enoch was not found because he had been "translated." Hbr 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him" The original Greek word for "translate" is metatithemi which means to transfer, transport, exchange, or change sides. So put simply, it appears that Enoch was transported by God so that he wasn't killed by someone or some event. He wasn't found because no-one knew where he'd been transported to. He can't have gone to heaven because "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man" (John 3:13). And he wasn't the only person in the Bible to be "translated". Jacob was translated in Acts 7:16, but the word "metatithemi" is translated as "carried over" (i.e. transported). |
||||||
32 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168889 | ||
Hi Brad, I doubt that we will stand before the judgement seat and be divided based on what we believe happened to Enoch, but, for what it's worth, I do believe he was simply transported and died just like everyone else. If we are told that "No man hath ascended up to heaven" then I have to accept that. If Enoch didn't go to heaven then he must have gone somewhere else, and the language of Hebrews seems to back that up. When we are told that Enoch "walked with God", we know that's not a reference to his being in heaven because Noah also "walked with God" without being translated. Jacob was 'translated' because he was "metatithemi'd". Acts 7:16 says that Jacob was "carried over into Shechem", "metatithemi'd into Shechem" or "translated into Shechem". By comparing Acts to Hebrews I am trying to get a better understanding of what the word we read as "translated" actually means. And it seems to me that it just means transported in this case. If the Genesis account doesn't refer to Jacob being translated but Acts does, then either one is wrong or "translated" just means "transported". Finally, Enoch is mentioned amongst the righteous in Hebrews 11:5 and just a few short verses later Paul says in verse 13: Heb 11:13 "These all died in faith, not having received the promises,". He is at this point referring to Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sara. Therefore I have to accept that Enoch died just like the others because Paul says he did. Personally I believe that the curse of death passed upon all men and that all of us (including Enoch, Elijah and Christ) had/have to die at some point. While we are on the subject of men whose deaths were not recorded, you did miss one: Which man is recorded as having never been born and never dying? Yrs Faithfully, Dr. B. |
||||||
33 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168923 | ||
Hi Brad and thanks for the answer, 1. I think this may be a point to agree to disagree on. I see that Jacob, being dead, was transported somewhere, not by his power, but by the power of someone else. That is how I see the translation of Enoch, Elijah and Jacob as being the same - a transportation not of their own power. As I've said, if you were reading it in the original Greek you'd be lead to believe that whatever happened to Enoch in Hebrews happened to Jacob in Acts. It's the translation from Greek to English that changes it for us. Translation may seem like mere semantics but it is important. For example, your translation of Hebrews 11 which uses the phrase "taken up". That phrase simply doesn't exist in the original Greek - it's the word we've discussed "metatithemi". And it doesn't mean "taken up" - that's an incorrect human translation based on a pre-conceived idea that Enoch went up to heaven. 2. The reason that we are not told explicitly that Enoch died in Genesis may actually be self apparent. The writer knew exactly how long every one else lived, so he records that age and notes that they died. But if no one could find Enoch after he was translated then it would be impossible for any human writer to know when he died. All that could be done was to record how long he lived until his translation. 3. Again, this may boil down to semantics. You believe that God translated Enoch so that he would never, ever experience death. I believe God translated Enoch so that he could temporarily avoid death – I would say that Enoch was threatened with death but because he walked with God, God took him away from that situation. Both of these stem from what we understand of the phrase "not see death." I suppose that could be argued either way. 4. I would however differ on the point in Hebrews 11. The phrase "these all" grammatically includes those who precede as well as those which follow - the relative pronoun embraces all those named in the list of the righteous. "These all" in verse 13 applies to those of the whole chapter, just as "these all" in verse 39 does. To say that it applies to some and not all is an arbitrary choice which ignores the grammatical and contextual setting. Anyway, it's late here and I really could do with getting home. I'll just leave you with a few things to ponder: 1. If Elijah was translated from Earth to Heaven how and why did he write a letter to the King of Judah nearly ten years later? (2 Chr 21:12) 2. How can Enoch or Elijah have been taken up to heaven if "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). 3. The person whose death is not recorded that you overlooked was Melchisedec, of whom it was written he was, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." (Hebrews 7) Okay and as always, thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
34 | 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) |
||||||
35 | 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. |
||||||
36 | 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. |
||||||
37 | 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. |
||||||
38 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171677 | ||
Dear Searcher, You say that you know the letter was not written at the time because "the BIBLE tells me so" in 2 Chr 21:12. Where in 2 Chr 21:12 does it say that Elijah wrote the letter before his chariot ride? You must have a different Bible to me. You keep saying that you have proved this already, but you have yet to provide a single verse that supports your argument. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
39 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171683 | ||
Dear Tim, In answer to your two posts on the timing of Elijahs exit: If you take the simple chronology that is set out in 2 Kings then Elijah left after Ahaziah died and about the time that Jehoram began to rule in Israel. If are not sure that the chapter has been placed chronologically then we can move on to 2 Kings 3, where we read this: 2 Ki 3:11 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may enquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. This verse tells us that the principle prophet in the land was now Elisha, not Elijah, otherwise they would have called for Elijah. The King mentioned at the start of the verse is Jehoshaphat, the father of Jehoram of Judah who received the letter. Jehoram killed his brothers after Jehoshaphat had died and they were no longer under his protection, and as we have seen Elijah must have left before Jehoshaphat died because Elisha had already taken over his role. As the letter arrives after 6 years of Jehorams reign as King, Elijah must have been absent for at least 6 years, and quite possibly several more. As for your point that "it is quite possible that Elijah could have still been alive." - that's still perfectly true. We are not told that Elijah died, but merely that he was taken through the sky on a chariot. I hope this helps. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
40 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171694 | ||
Dear Tim, As we can tell from 2 Ki 3:11 that Elisha had taken on the mantle of Elijah while Jehoshaphat was alive, we know that Elijah made his disappearance during the time of the co-regency, and before the murders of Jehorams brothers. 2 Chr 21 indicates that the letter arrived after Jehoram had ruled in Jerusalem for 6 years after his fathers death. So whilst I agree that Elijah sent the letter personally, I firmly believe that his chariot ride must have taken place at least 6 years previously. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |