Results 341 - 360 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | description of lucifer | Isaiah | biblicalman | 227905 | ||
Strictly of course the name Lucifer does not appear in Scripture. It is the Latin name for Venus, arising long after Isaiah's day. Isaiah used the term heylel, meaning 'shining one', a term which indicated a star. As the King of Babylon had claimed that he would 'exalt his throne above the stars of God' it is a reasonable assumption that he saw himself as a special star, a 'shining one', especially as the Babylonians worshipped 'the host of Heaven'. Certainly God would not give him this name. He was hardly a genuine shining one. Nor would Isaiah except in sarcasm. Thus we must choose between the king of Babylon and his people as the originators of the name which Isaiah took up in order to mock him. Certainly the Old Testament never gives any hint that Satan is to be seen as a shining one. Thus the clear assumption is that it was the exalted title applied to the particular king of Babylon by his people, exalting him to a place among the stars of heaven, the 'host of heaven', a title taken up by Isaiah in mockery. As D J Wiseman puts it, 'it is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon who in his glory and pomp had set himself among the gods'. | ||||||
342 | description of lucifer | Isaiah | biblicalman | 227897 | ||
It depends if you mean Lucifer or Satan. Lucifer was a name applied to himself by the king of Babylon. It means Light-bearer. It is describing how one king of Babylon saw himself. It is found in Isaiah 14. There are no good grounds for seeing Lucifer in Isaiah 14 as Satan. It is to take it out of context because we want answers to questions God did not answer. | ||||||
343 | what does the 144,000 mean? | Rev 14:1 | biblicalman | 227895 | ||
You have to recognise that the answer to your question is hotly disputed. In my view the 144,000 (12 x 12000) represents the Israel that Jesus founded on Peter's statement about His Messiahship, His congregation. 12 represents the 12 tribes of Israel.12 x 12 is 12 intensified. This Israel (the true Vine John 15.1-6) began to be built up by Jesus Himself, was further built up by the Apostles, expanded as a wholly Jewish believing remnant and was expanded by accepting Gentile proselytes as Israel had always done. Paul made clear that the church was the true Israel. (Romans 11.16-24; Ephesians 2.11-22; Galatians 3.29; 6.16. See also 1 Peter 2.9. James 1.1 calls the church 'the twelve tribes'. It is not a replacement Israel. That is an American conception. It acually IS Israel founded on the believing remnant of Israel who believed and followed the Messiah. Thus in my view the 144,000 represents the whole true believing church of Jesus Christ as numbered and sealed by God. |
||||||
344 | transgression, iniquity, sin | Romans | biblicalman | 227889 | ||
Iniquity is sin that results from the sinful inward nature, transgression is to break the law, to miss the mark, sin is wrongdoing. | ||||||
345 | wife left doing drugs adultery help | Matt 19:9 | biblicalman | 227885 | ||
You could try a period of prayer and fasting. You should ask her Christian friends to approach her, then you could ask the leaders of her church to speak to her and pray for her (Matthew 18.15-17). If she still refuses to repent and IF she has committed adultery you will have sanction to divorce her (Matthew 19.9; 18.17). | ||||||
346 | What's the significance of the number 40 | Gen 7:4 | biblicalman | 227883 | ||
The number 40 indicates a period of judgment. The rains and the overflowing seas were to last 40 days and forty nights at the Flood (Genesis 7.4,12,17). Noah waited forty days for the flood to subside before sending out the raven (Genesis 8.6). Israel would be left in the wildernss for forty years (Numbers 14.33; Deuteronomy 2.7). Forty stripes was a standard maximum punishment (Deuteronomy 25.3) Goliath challenged Israel for forty days (1 Sam 17.16). Jonah declared that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days (Jonah 2.4). Forty days and forty nights is a period of consulting God (Moses - Exodus 24.18; Jesus - Matthew 4.2). God strengthened Elijah for forty days and forty night as he journeyed to Horeb to meet with God(1 Kings 19.8). Thus forty indicates a period when God deals with men |
||||||
347 | can God act wickedly? | Job 34:10 | biblicalman | 227874 | ||
Yes you are quite right, it means that God cannot do anything wicked because He is wholly good. But the very fact that He is wholly good means that He must punish sin. The truth is that God would be behaving wickedly if He did not demand full punishment fior sin. If we receive what we deserve we will all be sent to Gehenna (Hell). But what God's goodness did accomplish was a way by which we might be saved from Gehenna. And He did it by coming Himself and dying for us on the cross, bearing our sin so that we need not bear it. He knew how wicked we had been He knew that God must punish sin. And in His mercy Jesus said, I'll bear their punishment instead. On the one hand God must punish sin, and on the other He took the punishment on Himself. He was made sin for us, He Who knew no sin, that we might be made as righteous as God in Him (2 Corinthians 5.21). And we obtain this benefit by putting our trust in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord. |
||||||
348 | How old was josheph when he died | Gen 50:1 | biblicalman | 227873 | ||
110 years old | ||||||
349 | I would like to know | Heb 11:1 | biblicalman | 227870 | ||
in the same way as He does with us today, through His word by the Spirit of God | ||||||
350 | Does the Bible refer to Peter being hung | NT general | biblicalman | 227860 | ||
No, that is found in the Acts of Peter a late second century apocryphal work. The only indication in the New Testament is John 21.18. | ||||||
351 | satin on earth Why | James 4:7 | biblicalman | 227826 | ||
God did not 'send Satan to earth'. He cast him out of the heavens because of sin and because of his activities. Like all angels Satan was created by God. We do not know why angels fell and sinned (they too had free will) but we have examples in 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6. Satan was clearly one of the chief angels. And he sinned. But we must not see him as 'almost as powerful as God.' Like us he is helpless in God's hands. From the moment he fell he was doomed and he became the enemy of God and of His people. LIke sinful man, sinful angels were not immediately destroyed. That awaits the judgment. But all is made by God to work to fulfil His purposes (Romans 8.28). However, God's true people are protected from Satan's worst excesses, and we can fight him by submitting to God (James 4.7). With Michael the archangel we have to say 'The LORD rebuke you' (Jude 1.9) |
||||||
352 | explain meaning. | John 20:23 | biblicalman | 227824 | ||
The giving of the Holy Spirit in John 20.22 was unique to the Apostles. It was fulfilling the special promises of John 14-16 (in contrast with Acts 2). In consequence their eyes were opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24.45; John 16.13). And in consequence they received the gift of discernment. It was this gift that Peter used in his dealings with Ananias and Sapphyra (Acts 5). In the earliest days of the church it was important that genuine repentance be recognised. We have only to consider the incident of Simon Magus to recognise how important that was (Acts 8). But it should be noticed in the latter case that Peter did not dispense forgiveness, he told Simon to pray to God for it (Acts 8.22). He had used his discernment to 'retain' his sins. Thus here in John 20 Jesus gave to the Apostles the ability to discern true repentance so that they could declare forgiveness. His words are literally, 'He whose sins you forgive, shall have been forgiven. He whose sins you retain shall have been retained.' In other words, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphyra, they were able to pronounce on the genuiness of people's faith. They recognised cases where God had forgiven and were able to pronounce on the fact. But they did not forgive sins. They announced God's forgiveness. They recognised that God had forgiven and pronounced that forgiveness. Compare how Jesus used this ability with the paralytic in Mark 2.5. He pronounced God's forgiveness. There is no one alive today with this gift, nor has there been throughout church history. We can only say if u truly repent and believe you will be forgiven. But it will be noted how, after the early days, we have no example of the Apostles using this gift. They rather called on men to believe and be saved. | ||||||
353 | Why is it too sacred to pronounce today? | Deut 6:5 | biblicalman | 227818 | ||
I must confess I fail to see how Jesus could have used the tetragrammaton in John 8.56-58 or that he used it anywhere else. He could not have said 'before Abraham was YHWH'. If He was speaking in Hebrew (which is unlikely) He used the first person as in Exodus 3.14 (EHYEH). Certainly it is based on the tetragrammaton but it was in no way the actual Name of God. It was an interpretation of that Name. Thus Jesus never taught the way to pronounce YHWH. His hearers took it as blasphemy because they gathered the inference of what He was saying, not because He used the Name of YHWH. That does not of course in any way invalidate Calvin's comments. | ||||||
354 | How were Peter and Paul martyred? | 2 Timothy | biblicalman | 227816 | ||
Such details of the death of Peter are found in The Acts of Peter, a late second century Chrisitan work For Paul's death see The Acts of Paul, another late second century work but earlier than the Acts of Peter. The fact of their martyrdoms in Rome is confirmed by Clement of Rome in 1 Clement (c. 95 AD). The two Acts are to some extent legendary but may contain a core of truth |
||||||
355 | Why is it too sacred to pronounce today? | Deut 6:5 | biblicalman | 227805 | ||
The ban on pronouncing the sacred name of God came about after the Exile. It is not strictly a Scriptural ban but it is noteworthy that neither Jesus nor His followers used the name YHWH to our knowledge. In the case of Jesus that was probably because to have used it would have caused great offence. However had He felt it important He would have said so. He also followed the practise of not overusing the title God, replacing it with another noun e.g 'the right hand of Power'. Using the name GOD can become blasphemous simply because we use it carelessly. However, it was a good practise to call God GOD, as it made clear that there is only one God. It was because of the Jewish practise that we do not know how God's name is pronounced. If we do not know how to pronounce it then we are not certainly using the name of God however we pronounce it so we do not need an excuse not to use it. It is just common sense. . |
||||||
356 | origination name yahwey and GOD | Deut 6:5 | biblicalman | 227796 | ||
The name of God is expressed in the Hebrew as YHWH. In ancient Hebrew there were almost no vowels in the written language. Thus any vowels added were added after the time of Christ. In Hebrew words have two syllables. Any seeming extra syllables are prefixes or suffixes. Thus YHWH is to be pronounced either Yahweh (He will be) or Yohweh (He causes to be). Jehovah is an impossiblity in Hebrew. It arises because the vowels of adonai (lord) were applied to YHWH so that anyone reading aloud would recognise that they had to say adonai and not pronounce the sacred name of God. An experienced Hebraist would immediately recognise that the word Jehovah was not an acceptable word and would thus be warned not to pronounce it. The prefixes and suffixes Ye, Yah and Yahu are all variations of YAH the shortened form of YHWH occasionally found in the Old Testament. | ||||||
357 | Please Explain Gods Chosen People! | Romans | biblicalman | 227795 | ||
As Paul makes clear the Jews are not God's chosen people. God's chosen people are the elect whom He has chosen (Romans 9.6). See Paul's whole argument in Romans 9-11. In His covenant God called the people who had come out of Egypt, many of whom were foreigners (Exodus 12.38) to respond to the covenant. Those who did so would be blessed (and prove themselves elect), those who did not do so would be cursed (Deuteronomy 27-28). Their whole subsequent history demonstrates this. When the promised Messiah came the true Jews believed on Him. The remainder were accursed (Romans 11.3). Thus Jesus established the true Israel (not a replacement Israel) made up initially only of Jews (John 15.1-6; Matthew 21.43). Later Gentile proselytes were incorporated into Israel (as they had always been). The difference was that they were not required to be circumcised because they had already been circumcised through participation in the death of the Messiah (Colssians 2.11 ff). Thus it is now believers in the Messiah who are genuinely the true Israel (1 Peter 2.9; Ephesians 2.11 ff) based on the foundation of the the initial true Jewish believers in the Messiah. Jews who do not believe in and respond to the Messiah are thereby accursed. | ||||||
358 | What is the main message of Isaiah 53:1 | Is 53:1 | biblicalman | 227737 | ||
this could be translated as, 'who could have believed what we have heard, and who could have seen in this the arm of the LORD?' that expresses well the meaning. it is a question expressing astonishment. it is bringing out that it is almost beyond belief (but not quite) to see in what follows the LORD's doing.. | ||||||
359 | salvation | John 10:28 | biblicalman | 227728 | ||
lol Doc i read mine again and i read yours prior to it. It seems to me your answer was more subjective than mine. However i was not expecting in four lines to deal with the whole question of salvation, I was merely dealing with the fallacy of speaking of salvation as though it was ours to gain or lose of our own choice. | ||||||
360 | book of mormon? | Mark 7:8 | biblicalman | 227725 | ||
The basic problem with 'the traditions of men' was that they resulted in a false interpretation of Scripture and distorted Scripture. They 'made void the word of God'. It is true that that is what Mormons and JWs do. But it can equally be true of all Christians if they take the traditions of their church and make Scripture fit into them, rather than the other way round. Our lives are full of 'tradition' but it only comes within the purview of Jesus' teaching on the subject when it results in misinterpretation of Scripture. Thus there are good traditions like holidays which do not affect the teaching of the Bible one way or another. To celebrate Easter is to celebrate the Passover in its new significance as pointing to Christ. If it makes us recognise the truth of the Bible, and celebrate Christ's death and resurrection, it is a good tradition. It is only if we allow it to distort Scriptural teaching that it becomes false tradition. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [19] >> |