Results 221 - 240 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Jesus meant what in Matt 10:23 16:28 | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 204445 | ||
Greetings RC! Plain and simple? Okay! Matthew 10 starts with the sending out of the 12 to minister. However, as the passage progresses, events at the end of time come into view. How do we know? Simple, v. 22 tells us. That verse speaks of those who stand firm to the 'end'. Thus, v. 23 is simply a promise that when that 'end' comes, those who are being persecuted will not be able to travel throughout Israel before Christ returns. 2) Matthew 16:28 simply says that some of those standing there would not taste of death before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. What event that would be is not revealed in the text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
222 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | Morant61 | 204212 | ||
Greetings Thomas! There are 11 words in the Old Testament which are translated "wine." There are 4 words in the New Testament which are translated "wine." Each of the words have slightly different meanings and can refer to the product of the grape in each of it’s various stages. The Strong’s numbers are included for each word. Old Testament Words 1) yayin (03196): This is the most common word in the Old Testament. It is used 140 times. It can refer to either a fermented or unfermented beverage. One example of a fermented beverage would be Gen. 9:21, where Noah became drunk. However, Jer. 40:10 uses this word to refer to the harvest of grapes, which is to be stored. One scholar, Dr. Robert Teachout, estimates that the word is used 71 times to refer to an unfermented juice and 70 times as a fermented beverage. 2) tiyrowsh (08492): This is the second most common word in the Old Testament. It is used 38 times. It always refers to a fresh pressed juice, with one possible exception. 3) shekar (07941): This word is used 23 times in the Old Testament. It seems to always refer to a fermented drink and it only used in two ways. The first is in condemnations and the second is in drink offerings (poured on the offering). 4) yeqeb (03342): This word is used 16 times and always refers to unfermented wine. It usually refers to the presses themselves or the fresh product of the presses. 5) Õashiyshah (0809): This word is used only 4 times. It is always translated by the KJV as a "flagon of wine." However, more modern translations translate it as "a raisin cake." Thus, it would refer to grapes themselves, not a beverage. 6) chamar (02562): This word is only used 6 times in the Old Testament. It is actually an Aramaic word. The context makes it difficult to decide how it is used. It seems to be used in both ways. It’s 2 occurances in Ezra probably refer to unfermented wine, while it’s 4 occurances in Daniel probably refer to fermented. 7) gath (01660): This word is only used 5 times. It always refers to the press itself. 8) mamcak (04469): Only used twice. Seems to always refer to a fermented drink. 9) cobeÕ (05435): Only used three times. Seems to refer to a fermented drink, but one which is soured or diluted. 10) chemer (02561): Only used twice. Always refers to unfermented fresh juice. 11) aciyc (06071): This word is used five times. It seems to refer to an unfermented sweetened or spiced drink, with one possible exception. New Testament Words 1) oinos (3631): This word is used 33 times in the New Testament. It is comparable to ‘yayin’ in that it can refer to either fermented or unfermented wine. The prime example being Mt. 9:17, where the fresh new wine is to be put into a new bottle to keep it from fermenting. 2) gleukos (1098): This word is only used in Acts 2:13. Some have said that since the crowd was accusing them of being drunk that this had to be a fermented wine. However, the crowd was mocking them and the word usually refers to a fresh pressed juice. It could have been that they had a reputation for only drink fresh pressed juice and the crowd was making fun of them for it. 3) paroinos (3943): This word is only used twice and both times in a prohibition against drinking. It most likely refers to a fermented beverage. 4) oinophlugia (3632): This word is only used in 1 Peter 4:3 and refers to an excess of wine that some of engaged in in their past lives as unbelievers. It most likely refers to fermented wine. In the case of Rev. 17:2, the Greek word used is 'oinos'. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
223 | Mary - "maidservant" or "bondslave"? | Luke 1:48 | Morant61 | 203641 | ||
Greetings Arnold! I'm not sure how much background you have in Greek, but any noun can have a masculine, feminine, or neuter ending to it. The meaning of the word has not changed, only the gender. Thus, in cases like Luke 1:48, there really isn't any reason to translate 'servant' in any special way since it refers to Mary and we know that she is female. :-) One instance in which the gender of a word would make a difference is if several people of different genders are mentioned and one wants to determine to which one a particular noun refers. Then, the gender of the noun could help make that determination. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
224 | "time" not italicized in Heb 9:28 | Heb 9:28 | Morant61 | 201917 | ||
Greetings Rigunsmith! Some Greek words, used in a phrase, have a meaning somewhat different from the sum of their parts. In this case, 'ek deuterou' literally means 'second time'. It is used 6 times in the New Testament in this fashion. The occurrences are found in: Mt. 26:42, Mark 14:72, John 9:24, Acts 10:15, Acts 11:9, and Heb. 9:28. That is why 'ek' is not translated and 'time' is not italicized - the two together mean 'second time'. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
225 | What exactly does John 10:10 mean? | Ps 116:15 | Morant61 | 200873 | ||
Greetings Priss! I am very sorry to hear about the death of your son. My wife and I lost a son many years ago to illness. He would have been 21 this month. So, I know what it is to grieve over a child. I am not sure that anyone can say for certain who is responsible for someone's death. However, we do know from Scripture that God is sovereign and that nothing can happen apart from His will. He does not take death lightly. Psalm 116:15 says, "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints." The Bible Knowledge Commentary says this about this verse: "The psalmist, knowing that the Lord cares intensely about the death of His saints, acknowledged that he was a servant (vv. 15-16) of the Lord and would praise Him publicly (vv. 17-19). The death of a saint is not something the Lord considers as cheap; He does not let His people die for no reason." We may never know in this life why God allowed our children to die, but I do know that we can trust Him to do what is right. His will is always good, pleasing, and perfect (Rom. 12:2). You are in our prayers! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
226 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | Morant61 | 200689 | ||
Greetings MJH! There is no rule against your translation, but it does not seem to be the more natural reading. Barnes says of this point: "By nature - By some, this phrase has been supposed to belong to the previous member of the sentence, “who have not the law by nature.” But our translation is the more natural and usual construction. The expression means clearly by the light of conscience and reason, and whatever other helps they may have without revelation. It denotes simply, in that state which is without the revealed will of God. In that condition they had many helps of tradition, conscience, reason, and the observation of the dealings of divine Providence, so that to a considerable extent they knew what was right and what was wrong." The NET Bible commentary says, "tn Some (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:135-37) take the phrase(phusei, "by nature") to go with the preceding "do not have the law," thus: "the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature," that is, by virtue of not being born Jewish." Personally, I would go with the majority on this translation. :-) I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
227 | Why the difference between 6 and 8 days | Luke 9:28 | Morant61 | 199803 | ||
Greetings Jim! There are a couple of possible answers to your question. Luke may have started counting at a different time than Matthew and Luke. However, the easiest response is to note that Luke approximates the time. He says it was 'about' eight days, while the other two give a specific time. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
228 | God working for our good | Rom 8:28 | Morant61 | 198843 | ||
Greetings Trish! It is great to have you back on the forum! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
229 | what is the Granville Sharpe's Rule? | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 197631 | ||
Greetings There is an established rule in Greek grammar called the Granville Sharp rule. It says, "When the copulative 'kai' connects two nouns of the same case, if the article 'ho' or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first-named person." (Dana and Mantey's, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament," p. 147.) This is exactly the case in Tit. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, and 2 Pet. 1:11, all of which call Jesus God. The actual Greek text for this phrase reads: "of the Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
230 | what does it mean by watering my camels | Gen 24:1 | Morant61 | 197555 | ||
Greetings Rfwhite! The phrase means exactly what it sounds like it means. Abraham was asking God to give his servant a sign that a particular woman was meant to be his son's wife by having that woman offer to water Abraham's camels. When a woman did this, Abraham's servant would know that she was the one that Isaac was to marry. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
231 | "all good things come to those who wait" | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 197186 | ||
Greetings Jamie! That exact phrase is not found in the Bible. Lam. 3:26 does say, "it is good to wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
232 | why join army? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 197182 | ||
Greetings Ssongssu! Are you aware that God commanded killing at times throughout the Bible? Was God wrong? Consider the following examples: Saul was commanded to totally destroy the Amalekites: 1 Sam. 15:1-3: "Samuel said to Saul, ‘‘I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”" In Deut. 13:15, the Israelites are commanded by God to completely kill anyone living in a town that is engaged in idol worship. Deut. 13:15 - "you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock." There are other examples. While most of us would agree that most wars are unjust, there is no Scriptural principle that forbids wars or killing absolutely. To make that claim would be to call God Himself unjust. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
233 | Advise me please (Galatians 6:1) | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 196503 | ||
Greetings Cious! The best advice I can give you is to go see your local pastor and allow him to work through these issues with you and your boyfriend. A forum like this isn't really set up to handle sensitive issues like these. However, I would add that no matter how big your sin, or mine, might be - God's grace is bigger! :-) Go to your Pastor, seek God's will, and tell your boyfriend the truth. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
234 | Geneology of Jesus | Luke 3:23 | Morant61 | 196474 | ||
Greetings Perplexed! Here is some information from the Bible Knowledge Commentary that might be useful to you. ************ 3:24-38. Verses 23-38 list 76 names including Jesus and Adam and excluding God. Contrary to Matthew’s genealogy, Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works back to God. Matthew began with Abraham and worked forward to Jesus in three sets of 14 generations. Other differences exist between the two genealogies. Luke included 20 names prior to Abraham, and he stated that Adam was “the son of God.” In addition Luke’s and Matthew’s lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David’s line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. Following Shealtiel’s son, Zerubbabel, the lists once again differ until both lists unite at Joseph whom, Luke noted, was “thought” to be the father of Jesus. Little doubt exists that Matthew’s genealogy traced the kingly line of David—the royal legal line. The question is, What is the significance of Luke’s genealogy? Two main possibilities exist. 1. Luke was tracing the line of Mary. Many interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary. 2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. In this view Jacob, Joseph’s uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and then Jesus would have been brought into the royal line. Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32). ************* I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
235 | How to look up a word by Strongs number | NT general | Morant61 | 195968 | ||
Greetings! Strong's Number for 'for' is 1063. This site doesn't support Strong's numbers, but I believe the Biblegateway site does. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
236 | Bible version vs Bible translation | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 195011 | ||
Greetings Every translation is a version, but not every version is a translation. For instance, the Living Bible is a version, but it is not a translation - it is a paraphrase. Your Brother in Christ Tim Moran |
||||||
237 | Bye | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 194738 | ||
Greetings Cheri! I really hope that you don't think that we are untouched by your post sister! I have been praying about it. In fact, my wife works with a family who is in the process of trying to adopt a child from Guatemala and they have specifically asked us for prayer. I think that most people left your post unresponded to so that it would stay up on the home page for awhile. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
238 | ... | NT general | Morant61 | 194522 | ||
Greetings Don! First of all, welcome to the forum! Secondly, please watch your language on this site! :-) Now, allow me to address your question. The reason you are struggling with this concept is that you start off with a wrong assumption. Neither Jeffery Dalmher nor Gandhi deserve Heaven. Scripture is quite clear that all are sinners (Rom. 3:23) and that all deserve death because of that sin (Rom. 6:23). Salvation is a free qift of God given to those who by nature are God's enemies (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 5:6-9). You are looking at the two individuals as though one of them deserved Heaven and one of them did not, while the truth of the matter is that neither one of them deserved Heaven. I don't if Dalmher accepted Christ or not, but if he did Scripture is quite clear that he would be saved, as would anyone who would call upon the Lord (Rom. 10:13). But, Christ is the only way to Heaven - Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
239 | clarification of John 1:27 | John 1:26 | Morant61 | 194375 | ||
Greetings Cheri! I would go with your last option for several reasons. There is no evidence that Jesus was a priest, a levite, or a pharisee. It is possible that Jesus could have been in the crowd, but this is unlikely since v. 29 mentions Jesus coming and John introducing Him to the crowd. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
240 | Heb.10:26 | Heb 10:26 | Morant61 | 193829 | ||
Greetings Bream925! One could make the case that most, if indeed not all, sin is willful. Yet, as Christians, we are given the great promise of 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." However, Heb. 10:26 seems to be speaking about a much different issue. Here is what Clarke had to say about this verse: "For if we sin wilfully - If we deliberately, for fear of persecution or from any other motive, renounce the profession of the Gospel and the Author of that Gospel, after having received the knowledge of the truth so as to be convinced that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and that he had sprinkled our hearts from an evil conscience; for such there remaineth no sacrifice for sins; for as the Jewish sacrifices are abolished, as appears by the declaration of God himself in the fortieth Psalm, and Jesus being now the only sacrifice which God will accept, those who reject him have none other; therefore their case must be utterly without remedy. This is the meaning of the apostle, and the case is that of a deliberate apostate - one who has utterly rejected Jesus Christ and his atonement, and renounced the whole Gospel system. It has nothing to do with backsliders in our common use of that term. A man may be overtaken in a fault, or he may deliberately go into sin, and yet neither renounce the Gospel, nor deny the Lord that bought him. His case is dreary and dangerous, but it is not hopeless; no case is hopeless but that of the deliberate apostate, who rejects the whole Gospel system, after having been saved by grace, or convinced of the truth of the Gospel. To him there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin; for there was but the One, Jesus, and this he has utterly rejected." I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [83] >> |