Results 241 - 260 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223979 | ||
Sonofmom, Very true. I actually hesitated several times before actually daring to even write the word coincidence! Don't we serve a wonderful God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
242 | Cain's offering | Gen 4:5 | Beja | 233301 | ||
Sbate08, I agree with what Ed has said to you in that the fundamental difference of why God accepted Abel's offering was a matter of faith. However, I would go a step further and say that what they brought to offer to God did have to do with it as well. When I consider this question the assumption I bring with me to the text is that faith is not some vague feeling towards God, but rather faith is a believing response to what God has already spoken. From this it is my thinking that God had infact told them previously what sacrifice would be acceptable to Him. Cain presumptuosly brought a sacrifice that he saw fit, thinking the works of his hands ought to be acceptable to God. Abel took God at his word (faith) and brought the previously commanded blood sacrifice. So faith was the difference, but the faith was a response to the word of God, not just a belief of God seperate to the sacrifice. Now that said, I admit that I am speculating here. I would not press this as dogma because we most certainly are not told explicitly here beyond that "faith" was the difference. However, I offer to you my own opinion on the question along with what train of thought brought me there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
243 | Noah's flood ended curse on the land? | Gen 5:29 | Beja | 232339 | ||
Loavesnfish, Here is something John Gill wrote on it. I have no clue how much value to place in the answer but as this is the time of question that is likely to sit for a long time with no response, perhaps this extended quote will be of at least more benefit to you than nothing. Gill: "Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah,.... Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest, see 2Sa_14:17, where a word from the same root is rendered "comfortable", and agrees with the reason of the name, as follows: saying, this same shall comfort us, concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground, which the Lord hath cursed; this he spake by a spirit of prophecy, foreseeing what his son would be, and of what advantage to him and his family, and to the world, both in things temporal and spiritual. In things temporal: the earth was cursed for the sin of man immediately after the fall, and continued under it to this time, bringing forth thorns and thistles in great abundance of itself, which occasioned much trouble to root and pluck them up, and nothing else, without digging, and planting, and sowing; and being barren through the curse, it was with great difficulty men got a livelihood: now Noah eased them in a good measure of their toil and trouble, by inventing instruments of ploughing, as Jarchi suggests, which they had not before, but threw up the ground with their hands, and by the use of spades, or such like things, which was very laborious; but now, by the use of the plough, and beasts to draw it, their lives were made much more easy and comfortable; hence he is said to begin to be an "husbandman", or a "man of the earth", that brought agriculture to a greater perfection, having found out an easier and quicker manner of tilling the earth: and as he was the first that is said to plant a vineyard, if he was the inventor of wine, this was another way in which he was an instrument of giving refreshment and comfort to men, that being what cheers the heart of God and men, see Gen_9:20 and if the antediluvians were restrained from eating of flesh, and their diet was confined to the fruits of the earth; Noah, as Dr. Lightfoot (d) observes, would be a comfort in reference to this, because to him, and in him to all the world, God would give liberty to eat flesh; so that they were not obliged to get their whole livelihood with their hands out of the ground: and moreover, as Lamech might be apprised of the flood by the name of his father, and the prediction of his grandfather, he might foresee that he and his family would be saved, and be the restorer of the world, and repeople it, after the destruction of it by the flood. And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
244 | Gen 6:6-7 vs. allmighty and omniscient | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221199 | ||
Dear Bruno Dosca, I wanted reply to your original post so forgive me if I side step some of the later discussion. The question you posted is how does God in his omnicience and his omnipotence ever feel sorrow for his actions. The answer is that God's "relenting" is in fact a constant aspect of God. Keep in mind that we are trying to convey Hebrew words here into english concepts. So, lets look at the passage you cited. Gen 6:6 "The Lord was sorry (nacham) that He made man on the earth." The word used for sorry here is actually the hebrew word nacham. Now its a good question that you asked, but lets look at a passage that specifically talks about God doing this. We should always let scripture answer our questions when possible. Jer 18:7-10 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent(nacham) concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of (nacham) the good with which I had promised to bless it." Can you see here how scripture is saying that this "sorrow/relenting/repenting/changing His mind" is actually a constant feature of God? It is not to suggest that God failed to see something coming and then thought to Himself, "Man, I sure blew that one!" Rather it is trying to communicate in human terms that whenever God sees such sin as He did in the context of Gen 6 He will revoke His blessings, and whenever He sees repentence, He will forgive and pardon, relenting from the judgment that would have come had the sinner continued his path. When we let Jeremiah 18 inform us how to understand this language concerning God, it moves from a troubling notion, to a beautiful and constant attribute of God. Praise God that we serve One who in Jesus Christ relents of the evil we deserve when we repent in faith! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
245 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221215 | ||
Dear Bruno, Indulge me a long response in three steps. First let me state your question in easier terms. I'm not sure everybody understands words like "caprice" and "anterior." The sum of the question is this. Is morality something that God authoritative even over God Himself such that He is obligated to follow it, or is morality rather something that God has chosen and set out of His own good pleasure? The real "catch" that this question seems to give us is two troubling thoughts. On one side is the notion that there is something above God that governs his actions. On the other side we wonder if it would have been just as possible for God to perhaps have decided that murder, stealing, and survival of the fittest was "good." Could God have chosen a completely backwards set of morality, right? Alright, so there is the question. Let me continue by offering some pastoral advice on questions like this. This is a question that I suspect many Christians ponder as they mature and think more deeply about God. I myself have wondered over this before, so I would never be harsh with one who did. However, just because it is a common question does not mean that it is a good one. Contrary to popular sentiments, there are such things as bad questions. Let me give you my deffinition of a bad question. A bad question is any question that is continual pursued despite scripture not addressing it. What I am saying is that when you've managed to frame a question that no passage in scripture seeks to answer, then you've framed a poor question. Somewhere in your mind, prior to the question, you have some sort of unbiblical thinking. The best thing you can do at this point is go back to studying what scripture does say, and about what lest you wander off into speculations and eventually heresy. I repeat: when you ask a question that scripture doesn't, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Ofcourse we typically have to study quite sometime before we realize it doesn't. Ok, now to an answer. As I ponder this I think where the question has gone wrong, is in understanding morality as something so seperated from who God is, rather than flowing from who He is. We are asking is it something prior to God that God must bow to, or is it God's invention? Neither is true. Let's find a starting point for exploring this...I suspect I'm going to reach my limit in length here so I will post this and finish in a reply to my own response. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
246 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221216 | ||
Dear Bruno, ...to continue my post... Let me give the starting point for our thinking. The number one foundational truth of reality is this: There is nothing so wonderful, powerful, worthy, glorious, desirable, spectacular, unique or worthy of praise as God. Let that be the beginning of all our thinking. Now, if this is true the greatest good in all existence is for God to be made much of, and the greatest evil in all of existence would be for God to be belittled. Can you see how that follows? God's "holiness" is the starting point. Things are right in as much as they come into line with that reality. Things are wrong in as much as they diverge from that. Lets see if scripture indicates this? What is the worst of crimes? Or rather what is the most important thing that you should do or not do? If we thought of morality as divorced from flowing from God's holiness then we might say murder, rape, child molestation or some other horrid sin. Yet what did Christ say the greatest of all commandments was? To love God with all our being! Doing this is the greatest good, and failure is the greatest wrong! All other morality flows in a similiar way. Why was it wrong to take advantage of the poor? Proverbs 14:31 "He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." Do you see how morality here is flowing from whether one honors or despises God rather than abstract right and wrong? Why is it wrong to take a life? Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." When God gives permission to us to take the life of all other living things for food, He excludes Man why? Because man is in the image of God. Do you see how it doesn't flow from abstract morality but the honoring or belitteling of God? Why is it wrong to disobey governments? Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Why are we to obey them? Because they are established by God, and to resist them is to resist God Paul goes on to say. Do you see how its not an abstract morality but rather making much or belittling God? I can not cover all possible examples. But I hope this post can turn your train of thoughts onto a biblical course. God is not under some authority, but He is ALWAYS behaving consistent with His holiness, which means He is always working to glorify Himself. Nor could God have chosen for things to be differently, because this morality unavoidably flows from who He is. How great is our God and our savior through whom He is revealed! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
247 | answer step by step | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221272 | ||
Dear Bruno, Yes, I do believe completely what scripture says. I understand though where you are at in your journey in that respect. Scripture will hold up to your questioning of it. However, once you find it reliable, I encourage you to move beyond that youthful questioning to complete trust. You will find that it is in this you be able to begin thinking scriptures thoughts after it and shapping yourself most fully into the image of our Lord Jesus. I do not think that what I said in anyway corresponds to your first option, that God chose what is good and evil. God could not have chosen for Himself to be belittled to be a good thing. My view is fundamentally opposed to either of your options. When I say that I do not believe there is any abstract morality, what I mean is that everything is wrong or right based on its relationship to who God is. Nothing is simply wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me or that it would rob my joy. God could throw me in the pits of hell and it would be perfectly just though it would certainly rob me of my joy! I find it something odd that you disagree with what I said about governments given that all I did was quote a scripture. Do you disagree with the truth of the scripture? I would not suggest that we are to obey governments in an occassion when they command us contrary to scripture. But doesn't this go along perfectly with my post? We hold God above every and all authorities, anything else would be to belittle Him. In the end I think my first post stands. I can think of no way to improve upon it or clarify it, yet I hope this post helps. May God bless you as you study His Word. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
248 | step by step - PART 2 | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221273 | ||
....answered with first post.... | ||||||
249 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221291 | ||
Dear Bruno, We live in a time where the search for truth is considered most noble, but to have dared to suggest you've found it is the ultimate heresy. I refer to your search as "youthful questioning" because it is quite normal. However, viewed from after the fact, once one has made up their mind with certainty regarding where that truth is located, can you not see how a person would look back at the former wanderings as a more youthful point in their life? I do not look to condemn you for your search, however, understand that the point of the search is to eventually make a stand. Do not be one forever searching and never finding. Also, keep in mind that when you joined these forums the terms of use laid out "sola scriptura" as something you agreed to. This means that every person on these forums has agreed that scripture and scripture alone is the final arbiter of what is true. A person might not personally embrace that, but these forums are not the place to debate it. Let us respect our gracious host in that. Let me tell you why I think my view is not only opposed to your three theories, but fundamentally so. The essence of your anterior and simultaneous views, is that morality is not dependant on God or who He is. It is in someway seperate from Him. I say that morality flows directly from who God is. The essence of your posterior view is that God actually decides between various options and picks one to be right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it flows unavoidably from who God is and could not have been different. Hence, each of your views is saying something radically different from what I'm saying. Not because they are anterior, posterior, or simultaneous, but because of WHY each view is suggesting they are. Finally let me tell you that anybody who is a true Christian is so because God has so pursuaded them. 2 Cor 4:1-6 tells us quite plainly that any who has seen the truth has done so because God has opened their eyes to it. This is something that I would urge any person to seek from God in earnest prayer. Also, if you can remember to, please put future responses to threads marked as a "note." This leaves the question section open for true questions. Any time you respond to me I'm e-mailed about that response so no need to worry over me missing it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
250 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221323 | ||
Bruno, You missunderstood my last post, sir. I was not in any way suggesting that you claimed to have found truth. I'm not sure what you are wanting to know with regard to "biblical justice" thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
251 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221335 | ||
Bruno, Yes, I'm sorry you missunderstood me. When I said that we live in a world in which, "It is noble to seek the truth, but the ultimate heresy to claim you've found it." I was not saying that you have claimed to found it but rather expressing what I considered the attitude of the world towards what we are discussing. Concerning governments. First, I do not think that the commands to Israel regarding how their judicial process were to work were mandates to every government that ever lives. Second, how would it logically follow that Western governments not obeying scripture proves scripture false? And third, I will not continue to debate the inerrency of scripture on these forums. In any other place I would gladly defend them, but doing so here I feel violates the terms of agreement you and I both signed upon joining this forum. The authority of scriptures is the "given" of these forums and I ask you in respect to our hosts to discontinue this aspect of our discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
252 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221356 | ||
Bruno, One thing where I'm not sure you are understanding me is regarding when we are to disobey. We do not disobey a government because the government has done something wrong. We are to obey even wicked governments up until they actually tell us to disobey God. At which point we obey God rather than men (acts 5:29.) Beyond that one command, we go back to obeying our governments. Second, are you suggesting that because I can or can not picture myself stoning a man that scripture is false based on that? Of course you would not suggest that. Sir, see that you are not at all appealing to reason but rather your strategy is to tell me that based on how I feel about what the old testament says, I am to judge it right or false. You are not using logic, but trying to horrify me by what scripture says. What is the "factual mistake and/or contradiction" here? My feelings do not trump the word of God! And with all due respect, neither do yours. I would also put forward, if I recall this old testament command correctly, you are misrepresenting scripture at this point. It is not as if somebody disobeyed their parents once and therefore were drug off to be stoned. If I recall correctly, this was a recourse for parents whose child was continually rebellious. But perhaps I am remembering the text incorrectly. In Christ, Bruno |
||||||
253 | Abrahamic Covenant requiring obedience? | Gen 22:16 | Beja | 226627 | ||
montanadove, First, I'd push the problem back even further to Genesis 22:16 where God basis His oath to Abraham on his obedience. Second, I am supposing that you are thinking with some type of covenantal framework to have this degree of a concern. Now in an attempt to help, I would suggest to you that the only theological difficutlty is that it is important that God's promised blessings to Abraham rely on a promise and not something else. And in this we still find the promise to Abraham resting on a firm promise. Now if obedience on his part prompted that promise, it does not at all change that it was a unilateral promise. Point being: The only difficulty is an apparent fuzziness on from what the promise flowed from, the difficulty is not a change from the Abrahamic covenant being based on promise in one passage and Law in another. I can't help but wonder if your theological leanings cause you to interpret the Abrahamic covenant and the New covenant as the same covenant. Imagining that you see it this way and that you are concerned with a shift from promise to Law here is what I'm guessing is the issue. Also, in scripture we see a good bit of the covenant promises being hinged on obedience in a secondary sense, while relying entirely on God's promise in a primary sense. We see this finding harmony in God granting the the obedience. This is how we can say things like "faith alone" and at the same time say to "pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
254 | army killed after circumcised by jews | Gen 34:1 | Beja | 223936 | ||
Dr D, Genesis 34 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
255 | Timeline problem for Perez's offspring? | Gen 46:12 | Beja | 226647 | ||
LGH, Here is what Gill has to say about it. I don't put him forward as any kind of a final authority but hopefully his answer will at least give you some imput. "and the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul; some think that these could not be born in Canaan, but in Egypt; and that they are mentioned among those that went down to Egypt, because they went there in the loins of their father, and to supply the places of Er and Onan, who died before, and have the honour to be here named, because they might be the first of Jacob's great grandchildren born there; though others suppose that Pharez was at this time fourteen years of age, and instances are given of some, who before that age have been fathers of children; the difficulty is not easily solved: the Targum of Jonathan expressly says,"Shelah and Zarah did not beget children in Canaan, but there were two sons of Pharez who went down into Egypt, Hezron and Hamul.'' In Christ, Beja |
||||||
256 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229445 | ||
Jsph, Welcome to the forum. I was looking at the bio you provided. You seem to make an emphasis of "make" verses "set" in the verse you provide. I was wondering what you saw as the significance of that distinction for understanding the verse. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
257 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229453 | ||
Jsph, Thank you for your response. I hope it doesn't offend that I ask some follow up questions to clarify in my own mind what you are saying. With regards to the process. I honestly believe there is a process of salvation that is often poorly understood. The scriptures clearly teachthat the path of salvation is a path of sanctification. However, order here is important and I'm trying to understand your take on ordering in all of this. So here is my question. With regards to justification, and sanctification, what is the ordering. Let me define my terms. Justification, for the purpose of my question, is the state of God having pardoned all of our sins and now views us as if we are sinless with Christ's righteousness for purposes of determining eternal judgement or eternal reward. (I'll defend that definition if needed, but for the moment will let it stand.) Sanctification, for the purpose of my question, is the ongoing and progressive conforming to to the image of Christ, which involves an ongoing and progressive repentence from sin, and a maturing in obedience to God. Now my question is, do you believe justification comes from the fact that we are doing the sanctification part, or do you teach that God causes and accomplishes the sanctification part because we are already justified by faith? Which comes first in this process. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
258 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229456 | ||
JSPH, So you are saying that the process of sanctifying us is in fact the process of justifying us. Correct? Assuming I have you right (and please dont' skip telling me yes or no on that) doesn't that mean you are saying justification comes from sanctification? I dont mean that one finishes and then the other begins. I mean purely from a logical standpoint. If we are being justified through the process of sanctification, then aren't you at least logically if not temporally making justification the cause of sanctification? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
259 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229457 | ||
JSPH, Forgive me, I think perhaps it would be better to say at the end of my last post that you are making sanctification the MEANS of justification rather than cause. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
260 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232827 | ||
elder4yhwh, Two big thoughts regarding your post, next one will be in seperate post due to space limits. 1. What Paul says is God's word. That is one of the foundational convictions we have, the inspiration of the entire cannon. We hold it to be both inerrant and authoritative. That is also one of the views you affirm to work under when you sign into the forum. Now, from my reading of the TOU, that does not mean you actually must believe in the inerrancy of scripture to post here. Rather it simply means that all your posts must agree to work under that assumption. That means we do not divide Paul and Jesus. We seek to see how their words work in harmony. Because our fundamental assumption is that they agree since both are the words of God and God does not contradict himself. Now we then strive to prove their harmony. But we first hold that conviction and then strive towards the proof. Now it seems to me that your dissatisfaction with being answered from the words of Paul hint your rejection of that notion. I hope I'm wrong. There were many things that Jesus either did not teach, or did not teach with plainness during his time on earth. Jesus affirmed this and also assured us that the Holy Spirit would later lead us into all truth. He also informed his apostles as to a right reading of all of scripture and how to understand what had come about. Joh 16:12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. Luk 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. So we understand the apostles, including Paul, to be teaching authoritatively and accurately the things of God. Why do we include Paul? In Galatians and many other places (note the visions he claims in Ephesians and 2 Corinthians) he makes clear that no man taught him the things of God and the gospel but rather God himself has taught him. So that is how we must read the New Testament. I once had a seminary professor express disdain for red letter bibles. His reason was that it implies the red words are more so the words of God than the black words. Now I have no objection to red letter bibles but his point was valid. It is ALL the words of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [40] >> |