Results 261 - 280 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | What Happened To The Tribe Of Dan? | Rev 7:5 | bowler | 206334 | ||
I would like to know what happened to the tribe of Dan? Revelation chapter 7:5-8, lists the tribes as those from among whom the 144,000 were to be choosen as the following although I have reversed the order because of the order elswhere in the Bible - 1)Reuben 2)Simeon 3)Levi 4)Judah 5)Zebulun 6)Issachar 7)Gad 8)Asher 9)Naphtali 10)Joseph 11)Benjamin Numbers 1:20-47 lists the tribes as a list of tribes as warriors, excluding Levites as warriors, but mentioning them as - 1)Reuben 2)Simeon 3)Levites 4)Judah 5)Zebulun 6)Issachar 7)Dan 8)Gad 9)Asher 10)Naphtali 11)Joseph 12)Benjamin 13)Manasseh Genesis 49:3-27 1)Reuben 2)Simeon 3)Levi 4)Judah 5)Zebulan 6)Isaachar 7)Dan 8)Gad 9)Asher 10)Naphtali 11)Joseph 12)Benjamin So by the time we get to Revelation, what has happened to the tribe of Dan? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
262 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206332 | ||
Doc I do hope I have not offended you in some way, but I respect if you are done, no need to reply. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
263 | When and where, Last Words of Christ? | John 19:29 | bowler | 206331 | ||
Steve I had replied to lionheart but for some reason it got pulled. I tried there in keeping with clarity and in the spirit of Christian fellowship to say the following - My question was not about where in scripture we find the seven last words as the Biblical historical inception of them. My question was where in the history, say in the middle ages, did the preaching of the seven last words begin, where and when did this fine tradition of the church of preaching the seven last words begin? This is a Biblical question including a scripture as an example of what one of the seven last words was. In the Spirit of Christ. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
264 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206329 | ||
Doc I would like to take as my priciple that where the Bible leaves us no choice but to take something figuratively, like when Jesus says eat my flesh, and drink my blood - in other words when the Bible is clear that it is making an anaology then it is. But where ever we can take the Bible literaly we should take it literaly when it is being straight forward. If we don't do this then things like the lake of fire could be an analogy also. Jesus mentioned this book of life as well as others. I went and borrowed the book from an elder that you mentioned some time ago and have yet to return it. I agree that we need to interpret Biblical literature according to its Biblical genre. I agree with Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart the following - How To Study The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, page 202 - Upon reflection, one can see that Paul is driving at an anaology. He is saying, in effect, "That the rock was to them as Christ is to us - a source of sustenance in the same way Christ at his tables sustains us." Paul's language is metaphorical. We, however, are not simply inspired writers of the Scripture. What Paul did we are not authorized to do. The allegorical connections he was inspired to find between the Old Testament and the New Testament are trustworthy. But nowhere does the scripture say to us, "Go do likewise." However I disagree with Gordon D. Fee's statement, as he is the NT writer and as Douglas Stuart is the OT writer in compiling information for their joint book, that - pages 262 through 263 - The fall of Rome in chapter 18 seems to appear as the first chapter in the final wrap-up, and many words or ideas that also imply the final judgment are interlaced with words or ideas that also imply the final end as part of the picture. Here we have the writers of the book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, taking the fall of Rome as being the fulfillment of prophecy, without qualifying that John unequivocaly meant Rome to be the object of the scripture, thus relegating John's description to John's knowledge of Rome as an oppressor, rather than on John simply recounting what he is being told to recount as it states in chapter one he is doing. They go on to say the following - 1. We need to learn that the pictures of the future are just that - pictures. The picture expresses the reality, but are not themselves to be confused with reality, nor are the details of every picture necessarily to be "fulfilled" in some specific way. Thus when the first four trumpets proclaim calamities on nature as a part of God's judgment, we must not neccessarily expect a literal fulfillment of all of these details of these pictures. The question must raise at this point of what the nature of prophecy is - is it a depiction of future real events in figurative language, or is it pictures of the future that do not have to come true in the details because they are only pictures? There is not one prophecy of scripture that has not come true, however picturesque the language may have been, the details all did come true. Now, here for me, becomes a problem of interpretation, where the authors of the book declare that we cannot take the liscence to take scriptures and be "inspired" to redefine terms, or draw analogies, or to render certain uncertain aspect, or to render all things in a prophetic presentation in scripture to be pictures that may not come true in their parts. Paul can and Jesus can and even John could, but we cannot. They themselves now take prophecy, call them pictures of the future and declare that we cannot expect them to come true in a specifc way as described by scripture. While we can probably all agree that Revelation uses figurative language, the authors do not seem to quite agree that the prophecies clothed in figurative language will come true as to the details promised in the Revelation. I find this somewhat objectionable and do not see the difference between this view and taking "inspired liscence" in redifining what prohpecy is in scripture. But I found what you presented as your own understandings and the links to be most engaging and interesting reading and have most thoroughly enjoyed your posts on this subject and on others. I happily agree to disagree with you on this and would like to end the discussion from my end, but would not mind at all hearing more from you or anyone else on it and would receive it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
265 | When and where, Last Words of Christ? | John 19:29 | bowler | 206318 | ||
I have been trying to understand when and where the tradition in some churches of preaching "the seven last words" about on Good Friday came about. I searched to no avail through the web for the inception of this fine tradition of the church. Where and when did this tradition of preaching the last word of Christ our glorious Lord begin? blessings abuond, bowler |
||||||
266 | Please explain this verse? Mark 15:34 | Mark 15:34 | bowler | 206316 | ||
biblesawyer I looked this up and what you are looking at here is called the Hypostatic nature of Jesus Christ as being fully God and fully man. Hypostatic means constituting a distinct personal being or substance and theologicaly one of the three real and disinct substances in the one undivded essence of God and the one personality of Christ in which His two natures human and divine are united. It is the last one which you are dealing with here. Here is what I found by reading more than a few theologians, I will not quote, it is too long, I will summarize what I found. Some heresies about the nature of Christ - Docetism - Jesus only appeared as a man, he wasn't really one. God could not become material because material is evil. Nestorianism - Jesus was two separate persons. Eutychianism - Jesus was not fully human and not fully divine but had one single mixed nature. Kenosis - Jesus gave up some of His attributes when He became a man, contradicted by Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. Orthodox Hypostatic Union - 1 Timothy 3:15 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness; He who was revealed in the flesh, was indicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. The premise they take away is that in the union of the two natures although they were separate the did not operate separately, didn't act as human sometimes and as God other times. Christ became fully human being a real man, but He was still fully God but decided not to have an independant use of His attributes as God without actually giving up those attributes. Example - Mark 9:21 and Mark 13:32 - here although He was fully God with the attributes of God He chose as fully human not to excersize His powers as fully God to know certain things. But we can't understand this by viewing the traditional concept of what humanity is because Christ was the ultimate human who experienced all of being human with pain, sorrow, loss, separation from God the Father, and death, but without sin. Although Christ cried out "why have you forsaken Me?" and was suffering the physcial sufferings of a human as fully human and He was still fully God, as the Son of God who is God. Having never been separated from God as being God or being human, He experienced a temporary separation from God as human and God in order to bear our sin as fully human and fully God. If He stopped being fully God on the cross then He does not have the power to save sins, if He stopped being man on the cross then He is not the perfect sacrfice for sins. He had to keep on being both, or we were still lost in our sins forever. See Philippians 2:6-8 about this as well as Colossians 2:9-12 these two verses together show what Christ did in coming as a man, but remaining as God. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
267 | Best commentary on Revelation? | Revelation | bowler | 206314 | ||
Gbzones I would agree that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the passage of Revelation or any other passage. However, it would be wise to stop and consider that the theologians who were mentioned as having given commentary on the subject of Revelation took a tremendous amount of time doing the very thing you point out, praying to have the scriptures illuminated to them by the Holy Spirit. Many of them udoubtedly incorporate what the other scriptures would have to say about Revelation as that is part of writing good commentary. Not having studied it to as great a length, how do we then do we say that those who have studied such things at great length, have not arrived at the truth without studying both the Bible and their work at length to say such things of them? The studying of the various works of commentators is not about a confusion of interpretations, each one has taken the time to do the excursions into the arts of exegesis and hermeneutics to arrive at his conclusion. We should endeavor to do the same to the best of our abilities in both our own private study of Revelation and in reading their works. The criteria for determining the truth, as you call it, or the meaning, as I would call it, of Revelation should be a thorough examination of the scriptures to arrive at the meaning. I think the term truth is a little off the mark here as appplying that to the conclusions of these men, as all scripture is truth and studying it is the garnering of the meaning of it. What we try to do in studying it is to arrive at the meaning of that truth. I have a question for you, and this is not to foster ill will, nor is it for argumentation sake. What does Genesis have to do with interpreting Revelation other than to understand the fall? What other clues could one garner from Genesis that could possibly help us understand Revelation? It seems, though perhaps only to me, that Daniel would yeild more clues about Revelation than any other book. For your consideration. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
268 | questions for use in leading bible study | Genesis | bowler | 206312 | ||
klowry Wouldn't you need to have a scripture or passage in mind first? Your question can't realy be answered without first choosing a scripture can it? The questions should all come from the scritpure or passage. A good little book to study about how to lead a Bible Study is John Stott's, "Christ Basic Christianity", published by InterVarsity Press. This book contains six examples of how to lead a small group Bible Study. You need to be led by the Holy Spirit in order to lead one though. On pages 45 through 49 are guildelines for leaders. Here are some of them - Christ Basic Christianity, by John Stott, pages 45 through 49 - Ask God to help you understand and apply the passage. Get an overview of the passage at hand in order to explore the issues. Be ready for "open questions". Meditate and relect on the verses and consider how you would respond to questions. Don't skip over application questions. Here is something else to consider about forming the questions - The basic English questions of any type of writing or reading - Who is in the passage? What is going on in the passage? How is the event happening? Where is the event taking place? Why is this event taking place? And one extra question - Why does this matter? You can come up with plenty of questions if you just start there, more than ten. But you need to pick that passage first or you won't have any questions at all and the questions will be different from passage to passage. 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved of God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
269 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206300 | ||
Doc With all due respect to both you and to Arthur Pink the very great and respected theologian by many and now by me I am having trouble with his concept that the book of life is truly a figure of speech. Now, this is submitted in the spirit of a desire to arrive at a literal interpretation of the Bible and is not meant to be sent to you by way of starting argument or debate. This is just an obeservation on what the immenent theologian Aruthur Pink wrote on the subject at hand. Aruthur Pink 3. Its Grand Original, http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Election/election.htm Pink writes - This expression "the Book of Life" has its roots in Isaiah 4:3, wherein God refers to His chosen remnant as "every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem," and it is this which explains the meaning of all the later references thereto. God’s eternal act of election is spoken of as writing the names of His chosen ones in the Book of Life, and the following things are suggested by this figure. First, the exact knowledge which God has of all the elect, His particular remembrance of them, His love for and delight in them. Second, that His eternal election is one of particular persons whose names are definitely recorded by Him. Third, to show they are absolutely safe and secure, for God having written their names in the Book of Life, they shall never be blotted out (Rev. 3:5). Isaiah 4:3 is not the first reference to the book of life in the Bible as the roots of that concept as Pink states. Exodus gives us the roots and the first account of a book owned by God that contains the names of those belonging to God – Exodus 32:32, 33, and it is not in that scripture a figure of speech as it is in Isaiah. The next account is Psalm 69:28 which specifically says the words the book of life and that the wicked shall not be recorded with the righteous. According to Moses account we cannot assume that the book is merely figurative because the words written and scrolls are used, similar things can be said of Psalm 69, as is true in Revelation in several places concerning the book and names being written. Pink gives no scriptural reasoning for why the book of life should be considered to be a figure other than the wording in Isaiah 4:3, and based on that one scripture, he calls it a figure. There is no reason to question that the book of life is the Lamb’s Book of Life based on the collection of scriptures on the subject. I will not get into here the various things I saw that I do not quite agree with that Pink says about election. Nothing major, like sovereignty, but various observations about process as he describes it. Respectfully and in the Spirit of Christians fellow ship, blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
270 | age 80 borrowed time | Ps 90:10 | bowler | 206291 | ||
Jazz1946 I found a verse, but it does not say we are on borrowed time, it speaks of the pride of life and of the fleeting quality of life. Psalm 90:10 As for the days of out life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; for soon it is gone and we fly away. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
271 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206286 | ||
Doc I am well aware and understand the doctrine of election as being that God elects those whom He has foreknown and predestined to be saved. I will read all that theologian Aruthur Pink has to say on the matter simply because you suggested it and because I am interested in what this man is teaching that you admire so much in an effort to see how the book of life is just a metaphor. I would like to take the Bible literaly as much as possible and do not see how the book of life is a metaphor, although I believe other things in Revelation are figurative language for real things and events. Honest question not meant to foster a debate - If we do not take the book of life as being a literal book, then what is to prevent us from taking the lake of fire figuratively? However, I will also read Arthur Pink on this. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
272 | Praying to the Holy Spirit? | John 14:14 | bowler | 206285 | ||
Wild Olive Shoot My apologies to all! I missed this in what was sent to me by another. Having some trouble with theologian Arthur Pink's writing here. Aruthur Pink 30. Pray For Love Toward God Then had followed the prayer in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 that they might be comforted and established by an effectual application to them of the glorious contents of the gospel. Next he had solicited their prayers for himself and fellow ministers (2 Thess. 3:1-2), after which he had declared, "But the Lord is faithful, who will stablish you, and keep you from evil. And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you" (2 Thess. 3:4). Note, the apostle did not say, "We have confidence in you" but "We have confidence in the Lord touching you." Paul was assured that God, having begun a good work in them, would graciously complete it. The Addressee of This Prayer Let us now consider the Addressee of this prayer. Who is meant by "the Lord" here? We answer unhesitatingly, the third Person of the blessed Trinity, the One who is designated "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 12:5, and "the Spirit of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 3:18. First, this is clear from the fact that in our present verse He is definitely distinguished from "God" and "Christ," so that reference is here made to the Eternal Three. I understand his reference to another passage that the Holy Spirit is in the Godhead and deserves worship. What I am trying to see is his take on 2 Thessalonians 2:16, 17 because the prayer mentions Jesus and the Father but does not mention the Holy Spirit and then ends. Then Pink metions chapter 3 as if the prayer is continuing, with the Holy Spirit as the object deserving attention as the recipient of a prayer, but now Paul is speaking of asking the brethren to pray and is no longer praying, he stopped in chapter 2. I don't think I am a theologian by any means, and all credit due to the great men of yesteryear. I do however, respectfully wonder sometimes how they come to the conclusions they do. I appreciate, though reading him, and you sending the link. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
273 | Praying to the Holy Spirit? | John 14:14 | bowler | 206284 | ||
Doc Thank you for more links! So very helpful! An asnwer to prayer. Actualy I was so fascinated with theologian Arthur Pink, whom I had never heard of before that I did take the time to read through it, although I admit to skiming through some of it to try to find what I was looking for, but I did go through it all in about 4 hours at one sitting. I should actualy go back and read it more thoroughly and see if I missed what you were referring me to. Laugh at me, I am. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
274 | Praying to the Holy Spirit? | John 14:14 | bowler | 206265 | ||
Doc Enjoyed the link, nothing there on praying to the Holy Spirit, thanks. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
275 | jews,gentiles,ethninticity??? | Gen 29:35 | bowler | 206247 | ||
believer32315 This link should help you out it is short but comprehensive about Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, and Gentiles, apparently Jews, Israelites, and Hebrews are not all quite the same thing, to hard to explain, see the site. http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050219.htm Cush was most likely the first Ethiopian and perhaps dark, son of Ham, founder of the Cushites. Found that looking on the web, but this is not a quote. Somewhere in Acts is a verse, I can't remember where of something about the blood of the nations as coming from one man Adam, or such. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
276 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206244 | ||
John I can agree with this on several levels - the water of life as the word, the water as a sanctifying work of the word, the speaking of spiritual and not temporal things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
277 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206243 | ||
CDBJ I like this particular analogy you make here because it fits within a theme of things being born and because one has to be washed with the word in order to receive the spirit. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
278 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206238 | ||
Steve More so than to hear more about my predeliction to my present stance. I think it would be far more profitable to hear what you think about what the water means? As I have no more on my own thoughts on this, and you know mine, I would be more interested on yours? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
279 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206237 | ||
Doc Interesting url, trying to see how it answers whether or not the names of the wicked were ever in the book, or just the elect? Perhaps you have more links? Truly interested in this. Enjoyed all your other links and thread numbers so far. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
280 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Ps 69:28 | bowler | 206236 | ||
Exodus 32:33 The Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book". Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and may they not be recorded with the righteous. Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. But look what this says; Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. And this; Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. This is a most nettlesome question indeed. We have here some scriptures saying that names were written in the book of life that could be blotted out. But then we have other scriptures showing that the names of the elect were written before the foundation of the world that cannot be blotted out. It is possible by putting the varying scriptures together to say that everyone's name was originaly in the book because we cannot undo the record of God speaking to Moses in Exodus, and recognizing that only the elect of God's have their names ultimately not blotted out and transfered to the many books recording all the deeds of the wicked who will undergo eternal punishment. But this veiw loses credibility when you consider that one set of scriptures says that "whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world". I think this is one of those mysteries of the Bible that may not be able to be resolved looking from this finite point at things of eternity and the end of things and the foundation of the world. The Exodus verse does not say the book of life, while the Psalms verse says the book of the living. I do not think that there were two different books for those who make it though, only one. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |