Results 361 - 380 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Context versus what is translated. | 1 Sam 25:22 | MJH | 165067 | ||
Abraham is the father of the Hebrews (from Jacob) also called Israelites from the name Jacob received from God when he wrestled with him at Peniel. Judah is one of Jacobs son's and one of the 12 tribes of Israel. When the kingdom split after the time of Solomon, they were referred to as the Kingdom of Israel (9 of the 12 tribes belonged to this group...some Levites as well.) The other tribe was referred to as Judah (but also as Israel at times as well...confusing?). Benjamin was apart of the southern Judah side of the split at this time, but since it was so small it was just lumped into with Judah (interesting story about how that happened). Therefore when the northern tribes, called Israel, were taken into captivity and dispersed widely they became "lost." Most scholars (I believe) claim them to still be the lost tribes, although some others claim to have found them. When Judah was later taken into captivity to Babylon, they were not separated and were aloud some freedom to continue practicing their faith (some freedom). They were now called "JEWS" from the tribe name Judah first in the Bible in Ester. Jews are often now a synonym for Israel and vise versa. Not all of the other tribes were totally lost. When Jesus was a baby a prophetess named Anna from the tribe of Asher prophesized about him to his mother. Does this help? MJH |
||||||
362 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164881 | ||
Kalos, Of course you probably understand that I completely disagree with you....see our discussions from a year ago. :-) I just can't let it slide... Jesus spoke Hebrew and all recent discoveries points to most Jews in Palestine speaking Hebrew as their common tongue. The Septuagint was not translated for Jews in Palestine but rather for a "Librarian" in Alexandria, where a large population of Jews lived. The Jews in the Diaspora used the Septuagint, and the Jews in Palestine use the Targum (Aramaic) for purposes of commentary or dynamic equivalent translation since the Hebrew copies could not contain ANY alteration to clear up changes in the language, or even footnotes/marginal notes. Jesus may have spoken Aramaic or Greek when the audience required it like during the Festivals or when in Greek areas. But among his disciples, Hebrew is a near certainty. See "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" for in depth argument. Or see my previous posts on the matter. MJH |
||||||
363 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164879 | ||
I did not read word for word the site either. It is very long. However, speed reading most of it and reading parts carefully, the author agrees with my standing. However, I hesitate to indorse it in total. I have studied in the Hebrew roots for some time and I have run across a few who seem to make the pronunciation of Jesus’ name almost a salvation issue. They wouldn’t all claim it was a salvation issue, but you wouldn’t know that when you listen to them. YAHshua is not a pronunciation that matches the times of Jesus. (www.jeruselemperspective.com and search for “Hebrew Nuggets”. One of the options is an article on Jesus’ name. These people are experts that the experts consult on Hebrew pronunciation.) Your site quoted the following: “I find the prohibition against saying the name of Jesus a little absurd, considering that the people who have imposed this prohibition, are calling the Messiah by a name that is not found anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Most of their reasoning, is that Jesus is an English rendering from a Greek name, and since all things Greek are pagan, this name should not be spoken, and that no self respecting Jew would have ever uttered a Greek name, and surely would not have written any scripture in Greek.” Quoted from the site you mentioned. www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm All said, I almost always use Jesus when speaking to most of my friends, family, and church members. I use Yeshua when it either is understood by those I am speaking to, or when using the Hebrew pronunciation adds to the point. An example is when Joseph is told to name Jesus “Yeshua” because he will save his people from their sins. Yeshua means “salvation.” As far as those who insist on never saying Jesus, but only Yeshua, or YAHshua… to each his own, and if I had friends who were stuck on that, I’d use the name they wanted when I was around them. These are of course my opinions. I like studying such things, but what matters most is how we treat widows and orphans…. MJH |
||||||
364 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164743 | ||
The name of God is spelt using the four Hebrew letters, Yod, He, Vav, He. These four letters of God's name are also called the HEBREW TETRAGRAMMATON. I can not type Hebrew in the answer here, but you can find it by googling the word Tetragrammaton. The way the word if pronounced is lost to antiquity since the Jews, wanting to honor the 3rd commandment, would not utter the name out loud. It is NOT pronounced Jehovah, this we now know. The best guess is Yahweh. Some simply say the Hebrew letters (which sounds a lot like breathing in and out...so with each breath we take, we are speaking the name of God.) Some translations use LORD in all caps to replace the four letters. Others use Yahweh, or ADONI in all caps (Adoni is the word Lord in Hebrew.) I hope this helps, but I feel it may only complicate. Oh, and by the way, Jesus name is not Jesus but rather Yeshua. Yeshua means "God Saves or Salvation" And thus the passage where the angel tells Joseph to name the boy "Yeshua because he will save his peole from their sins."makes since in Hebrew. Also when Jesus says to Zacheus that he will be coming to his house he says, "Today salvation has come to your house." There is a play on words using Jesus' own name. Some people reject outright the name Jesus and claim it has pagan roots. The use of Jesus comes from translating the Hebrew name of Yeshua into the Greek and then into Latin and then to English. There are no pagan roots, but translation roots to the English name Jesus. MJH - |
||||||
365 | Jesus or Immanuel | Rev 21:3 | MJH | 164724 | ||
Personally I like the book, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It is a good easy read that delves into most areas of dispute that seekers have. It is not so deep and scholorly as to turn people off from the detail. Lee Strobel did not believe in Jesus until his wife came to the Lord and changed her life. Lee set out to disprove the facts of the Bible, only to become one of the pastors of Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. MJH |
||||||
366 | why only one angel help in Daniel 10 | Dan 10:21 | MJH | 164722 | ||
It is a common believe that one angel comes for one message/purpose. An example would be the three that visit Abraham came with three messages. I have read some ancient Jewish "midrashim" (Commentaries) that make this statement and it seemed to me that it was commonly held. Therefore, Michael was sent because there was only one message. This answer is NOT directly from scripture and should not be taken as a definitive truth. The book of Enoch has a lot about angels that the first century Jewish person would have been aware of. This is not a Biblical text, and it was not thought to be authoritative in Jesus day, but it was well known. MJH |
||||||
367 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164721 | ||
Could this passage mean: "For everyone [who is sent to hell] will be destroyed by fire." ? Reasons... The context from (42) causing "one of these little ones who believes in me to sin...", it would be better to be cast into the sea (also known as the abyss) and then if any part of you causes you to sin it would be better to remove that part than to be cast into the valley of Gehinnom. This is followed by the "odd" passage in question. The following are my reasons for interpreting this text as I did above: 1) If the Jews in the first century spoke Hebrew (this works even if you believe they spoke Aramaic as well.) then the Greek of Jesus words are a translation from the Hebrew that Jesus spoke. This passage can be translated word for word from the Greek back to Hebrew without changing the word order. (Which is not common between the languages.) 2) In Hebrew the word salt, from the base "m-l-h" can mean to destroy. (Lot's wife; Is 51:6 the words translated "to vanish away" is actually the words "to salt". Judges 9:45 Abimelech destroys Shechem and "sows it with salt." Deut 29:3, salt is a symbol of destruction. The “salt sea” is also known as the “dead” sea.) All of these are the same in Hebrew. So salting a place or person is often to destroy. 3) Most explanations of this verse have to do with purifications; so much so that some translations of the Bible actually put it in the text. (Always a dangerous thing to put an interpretation into the text of a translation.) They arrive at this from the use of salt in the sacrificial system. 4) Two Dutch exegetes - Hugo Grotius in 1641 and Johannes Clericus in 1714 - proposed this very interpretation. (I am unaware if Clericus got his interpretation from Grotius.) 5) This works the same with Aramaic since the root of the word “salt” is the same. If Jesus was using this term by drawing from either a Hebrew idiom or the Text of scripture that matches the “destruction” of Gehinnom, is certainly is a plausible interpretation. It matches the context of all that came before. THE PROBLEM: The problem I have unresolved is the next verse. If “salt” in verse 49 is to be rendered as “destroy” then verse 50 posses a problem that I have not sifted through. If anyone has some thoughtful comments I would love to read them. I have read several commentaries, so no need to quote them unless it pertains to the discussion. There are after all at least 15 different interpretations out there. I want to hear from others if there is any possibility of this being correct. As you may know, I like to try to get into the mind of the first hearers of the text and hope to hear what they heard. Being western and removed by language culture and 2000 years makes that a challenge….but a fun one. God bless, MJH |
||||||
368 | The actual date of the birth of Jesus? | Luke 2:1 | MJH | 163812 | ||
Christmas was placed on December 25th because it was the winter solstice celebration of the pagan people who converted to Christianity near the 2nd-3rd centuries. Because the people wanted to continue to celebrate their festivals, the leaders of the faith at the time, finding it too hard to get them to stop celebrating the pagan holidays, decided to make them into Christian holidays. When was Jesus born? The true answer is that no one knows. But that being said, I would LOVE to speculate. The census was not a one day deal. There was a period of time when the people had to show up. Since Nazareth was a long ways from Bethlehem, it makes sense that Joseph would have registered at a time when he would be nearby anyway. Scripture tells us that Joseph went to all three festivals every year, so it only makes sense that the birth of Jesus would be near one of the three festival times set aside in the Torah for the men to go to Jerusalem. Joseph would have taken Mary because it was close to the time to give birth. Why wouldn’t he stay and wait to register latter if he had a window of time to register? Because Joseph wasn’t going to miss a festival of the Lord for any reason. He, knowing the significance of this child, was not going to leave Mary behind either. Not to mention the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. In 1st century Judaism, Jesus would have been either a Mamzer (Hebrew for basterd), or at the least a “doubtful mamzer.” The Mishnah (Oral Law, Traditions of the Elders) has many laws about what such a child could and could not do which is fascinating and would have made them outcasts among the devout. There must have been family tensions that Joseph and Mary were happy to leave behind for a while. Why did Mary not find room in a home to give birth? Think about it. Even a stranger would want to give up their accommodations for a pregnant woman giving birth, but for some reason, Joseph can not find room in the small village of his (and Mary’s) own ancestry. This is fascinating. Why do they even go to an Inn if they are in their families home town? Probably because they were outcasts do to Mary being pregnant out of marriage (see pervious paragraph) After the shepherds come and spread the “Good news” to the whole town, Joseph and Mary find themselves in a house according to Matthew. Maybe the family had a change of heart? I believe Jesus was born during the Feast of Booths, was crucified during Passover, sent the Holy Spirit on the feast of Weeks, and the Trumpet will would on the Day of Trumpets, and on the day of Atonement the Lord will return. OKAY, this is very speculative, and no, I do not subscribe to Hal Lindsey, but hey, it’s a lot more logical than December 25th. We know that during the feast of booths (Tabernacles or Sukkot), the people were to spend the week living in “booths” or temporary shelters. This is exactly what a stable would have been. One more thought that supports a birth during a festival. When would the Inn be full? During any ‘ol day of the year, or when hundreds of thousands of Jews from the world over were visiting Jerusalem for a festival just up the road? The Bethlehem Inn was excavated some distance north of Bethlehem (closer to Jerusalem near the main road.) It housed the people on a second floor, and the animals were kept below the rooms. They believe that the best place to find privacy would be in the stable under the Inn rooms. This is a possibility for the birth place as well as the cave theory. This would have been cleaner, had access to clean straw, and provided a place for the animals to move to (I doubt they were in the same room like our nativity scenes show). Of course the early church fathers say it was a cave and that’s some good evidence. MJH |
||||||
369 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163626 | ||
Doc, I would whole heartedly agree with your every word. I greatly appreciate systematic theology and all its good points of which many you mention. What I don't like is approaching God and the study of God in that manner ALONE. Taking him and his revelation apart and looking at it like a scientist can lose sight of the whole of the story or picture. After all, God does not describe Himself as Omni..., but as a Father, a Shepherd, a Rock, a fortress, etc... An example might be: A local junior high school goes to the swamp and gets frogs, cuts them up, and studies their bodies. Another approach would be to go to the swamp and watch and learn about the frogs behavior, his girl friend, his favorite lily pad, etc… It’s the same frog and neither method of study will give the whole picture, but both together will really help us understand “frogness.” So I do love and study the systematic theologies and they are much of what gave my faith roots that last. But recently, I have loved studying who God is using other approaches. (Biblical theology as one example, but others as well.) Like I said, I do agree with your every word in your post. I only want to add more too it. You are right, some like the word "wonder" rather than "mystery" for many reasons. "Wonder" is probably a better word to use given the semantics associated with a word such as "mystery." God bless, MJH |
||||||
370 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163615 | ||
Sonlite. You are in a good place. I joined in on this forum some time ago and it has been very fruitful for me in exploring new ideas and questions about the scripture. Many people hear are wroth listening to. I too have been raised in the church and held pretty much to the same doctrinal views for the first 29 years of my life. After joining a new church and meeting some new people, my views have been challenged a lot. After 4-5 years of this, I now actually have many more questions than before, but my views of God, Jesus, and His Word have become so much more great. The awe and worship of such a great God has changed not just my thinking, but my life and actions. There are MANY benefits for growing up in and staying within the same community of believers (there is plenty of Biblical evidence that this is the ideal.) However, doing so can make one think that "we have it figured out." All questions have an answer that is correct and that's that. But is that possible. Can a finite being understand fully an infinite God? Systematic theology, for all its good points, often removes the "mystery" of God that is so wonderful. I cherish my up bringing and love the church that brought me into the world of God very much. Without their dedication, the roots of my faith would not have been so deep, and the trails I have followed may have uprooted some of my faith, rather that cause it to bloom. I have seen people loose much of their faith because they were knew to Christianity and followed many of the same paths I followed, but did not have that deep root into a faith that has been tested by time, trials, as well as joys. All questions are worth asking, even the "scary" ones, because ultimately, on the other end, your faith will be stronger and you will probably be asking more questions and more questions... MJH |
||||||
371 | The meaning of being Elect? | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163613 | ||
Doc (any anyone else), I check in on this forum about once a month or so now, and it just so happenes that this discussion is very much in line with some reconsiderations I have been having about heaven/hell and election, etc... Have you heard of the idea that just as Israel was elected by God, not because of their own works, but by the grace of God (called out of Egypt) to be a light to the world of the One True God and to be a blessing to the nations. That similarly, God has elected some to be a blessing to the world by bringing His Good News and bringing his redemption and his Kingdom to the lives of those in the world. In this light, those who are elect, are not elect only to salvation from hell (or to Heaven), but elect for an ordained purpose. And likewise, those who are NOT elect are not necessarily sent to hell (I mean on a whole). After all, many joined Israel who were not Israel in the Old Testament. They were not elect, but they received all the benefits of God's mercy just the same. (Ruth the Moabite, Rehab of the destroyed Jericho, etc...) I have not really explored this idea, but I heard it in passing and it has been running through my mind during those times in the day that allow for thinking. Any thoughts from anyone? MJH |
||||||
372 | The Hell questions. | Not Specified | MJH | 162925 | ||
After several years of avoiding the question, I have taken it upon myself to finally address the "HELL" issue in the Christian faith. Since I am only at the start of answering this question (or maybe only finding more questions), I'd like to have some suggestions of resources (books, articles, etc..) that would help me explore all sides of this. My upbringing was from an "exclusivist" view, so anything from opposing views would be most helpful. THANKS, MJH |
||||||
373 | The Hell questions. | 2 Tim 2:15 | MJH | 162930 | ||
After several years of avoiding the question, I have taken it upon myself to finally address the "HELL" issue in the Christian faith. Since I am only at the start of answering this question (or maybe only finding more questions), I'd like to have some suggestions of resources (books, articles, etc..) that would help me explore all sides of this. My upbringing was from an "exclusivist" view, so anything from opposing views would be most helpful. THANKS, MJH |
||||||
374 | What did Jesus mean, "obey My commands?" | John 14:21 | MJH | 162306 | ||
I think MacArthur is correct, but I just don't think that most Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) actually walk it. When the discussion gets down to the specifics, there is so much rationalizing and qualifiers as to WHY we don't have to obey THAT command. Even MacArthur (I hope I am not confusing him with another guy) on his churches web site gives these reasons for some of the commands, none of which I agree with. If Jesus said to obey all the commands, even the little ones, then why don’t we? MJH |
||||||
375 | What did Jesus mean, "obey My commands?" | John 14:21 | MJH | 162122 | ||
Doc, what does Jesus mean by "My commandments?" I hear this passage preached on, but the message usually consists of, "you need to obey God..." without saying what that means. If we love Jesus, and want to obey Him, then what did HE mean by this statement? What did a 1st century Rabbi, whoes "Bible" was only the Tanak (Old Testement) mean when he said to obey His commandments? MJH |
||||||
376 | Sex before marriage and lesbian passages | 1 Cor 6:16 | MJH | 157956 | ||
When I was in my early 20's and working at a factory for the summer, there were men there that boasted of many things. When it became clear that I was a virgin, and they believed me, and that I was proud of it, some of them were amazed. One of them who was probably the most sexually driven asked me privately why I was proud to be a virgin. I had the opportunity to explain what a husband/wife relationship could look like, and that cheating on my future wife was still cheating. But then I said something that really struck him to the heart in a convicting way. I said, "I can be what you are any day I choose. It would not be difficult. But you can never be what I am." To this he had to agree. So, before I was married, I reminded those who thought they were something for having sex, that the REAL triumph was in being able to wait. Anyone can lose their virginity, but only a strong man can keep it for his spouse. MJH |
||||||
377 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157895 | ||
Possibly my lack of knowledge about the languages may have caused be to err. Maybe not, but doing a simple google search on the phrase "etymology of the word Allah" provided some interesting things to read. They are of course just web sites that can say anything, but there seems to be a common thread reflected in the following statement: ----------- In common roots with all Abrahamic religions, ie. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. Arabic Torah, Bibles and Qur'an, the word "Allah" is used where "God" is used in English. Allah is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God". However, Allah is somewhat a unique word grammatically, since it cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. The root word "God" in English, for instance, can be used in similar forms, such as "God", "Gods" or "Goddess". --------- Maybe this helps some? MJH |
||||||
378 | 1 Samuel 15:3 - a loving God? | Ps 115:3 | MJH | 157832 | ||
A fairly good web site that gives answer to this question is found at www.theology.edu/canaan.htm MJH |
||||||
379 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157804 | ||
I believe you are mistaken to assume the Maltese language uses the term "Allah" as a impersonal noun like the words "god" or "theos." "Allah" is a personal name, and not a generic word for "god." If those on Malta are using the term "Allah" as a translation of the word "god" or "theos" as you seem to be stating, then the people of Malta have a serious problem because the name "Allah" is understood across all languages, much like the name YHWH is (only who knows how to pronounce the One True God's name.) It is unfortunate, for example, when the media translates a terrorist’s statement and translates the "Allah" as "god" in English, because it is not correct. The translation should be true to the speaker’s intent and translate "Allah" as "Allah" so there is no confusion. If those in Malta are translating a generic "god" as "Allah" they will also confuse the population. I say this as one who never went to Malta, nor do I know anyone there or anyone who went there. But, to answer your original question, I believe quite strongly that the personal name "Allah" should never be used of anyone but the god of Islam. MJH |
||||||
380 | Did they meet in a house or at Temple? | Acts 2:2 | MJH | 157525 | ||
Has anyone else heard that Acts 2:2 may be speaking about them sitting in the Temple area and not in the "upper room"? The Greek word translated "house" is also the word that is used for the Temple I believe. Also, it makes sense in the context and also answers the critique that 120 people couldn't fit in one single upper room in a house. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [29] >> |