Results 41 - 60 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4549 | ||
There have been a number of responses to this question that seem to me to be stating that anyone who does not recognize the 6 days of creation to be 24-hour periods is refusing to honor the Scripture. There is clearly room for a view that the 6 days were 24-hour periods. However, there is ample room (and significant Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, I believe) for an understanding of the creation days to be unspecified periods of time that took place in sequence, each one ending (evening) and the next beginning (morning) -- with us now living in the seventh day. This is simply another readily defensible view, not some radical abdication of Scriptural authority in order to pursue peace with the pagan world (as it seems to be sometimes painted). Dr. Hugh Ross is probably one of the more prolific, solidly reasoned and Scriptural modern authors who presents this point of view in his books and essays. I would recommend the writings of Ross and his "Old Earth Creationist" associates from "Reasons to Believe" -- alongside those of the "Young Earth Creastionists" at CRI supported elsewhere in these responses -- for a more balanced opportunity to examine both of these views. Reasons to Believe can be found at http:\\www.reasons.org\, which has links to their materials. Ross has appeared on "The Bible Answer Man," and in other well-respected forums on Biblical truth. |
||||||
42 | Flood in the air? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4551 | ||
It also solidified (or perhaps re-solidified) into huge masses of ice at the north and south extremes, and dissipated into the earth in most other places. The current existence of large amounts of such frozen and underground waters is a recognized observable fact by all -- whether the Scriptures directly state the obvious in this case or not. | ||||||
43 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4577 | ||
I think I understand what you're saying. Thanks for responding. There's nothing in the text that would indicate the first day (of the creation sequence) beginning after the formation of the heavens (with the 6 days referring to only the creation of the earth and what is on it), but this is a possible interpretation, and it may allow for reconciliation between observational data and the text; this is the first I've heard of this view, but there may well be others with a similar view. There is disagreement amongst those scholars and researchers who are investigating these events. There is obvious room for disagreement and discussion among those who are recognized as orthodox in their other beliefs and their general life and witness as Christians, as to whether the "SIX days" you refer to from Gen 1:3 onward (and-or the 6 days from the beginning of the first creation to its conclusion) are 24-hour days or sequenced blocks of time. |
||||||
44 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1890 | ||
Were the sons of God angels? This is one theory. However, to take such a vague reference as this and expand it with several layers of (potential, not definite) logic to arrive at a point of declaring that demons can procreate with humans is WAY BEYOND anything indicated in the Scriptures and is very poor hermeneutics. The idea that the "sons of God" here were angels is complete speculation -- as are other theories about the origin of the Nephilim. The most logical speculation, based on the evidence available to us, is that the "sons of God" is simply a reference to powerful lords of great strength and-or cunning who gave themselves that term in order to advance and raise themselves above the people; Nimrod could easily have become one of these later, as well, if it hadn't been for God's intervention at Babel. This would be a corrupting influence and would fit with the context. There are also MANY examples of leaders in more recent history that have declared themselves to have (or have been treated as having) divine ancestry. For example, the Japanese Emperor was considered divine until he officially declared himself otherwise in 1945 -- and only when his military was left with absolutely no other choice. The Antichrist will, likewise, claim divinity. This makes much more sense than starting a slide down a hill (with no real evidence of corresponding parrallels in other written history) leading to sensational (and completely speculative) stories of demons procreating with humans. Another purely speculative idea is that Adam and Eve had other children before the fall, who were then removed from them when their parents sinned. If there had been such children, who didn't fall into sin as their parents had, they could have been adopted by God -- thus "sons of God" -- and the males may have (unsuccessfully) tried to help limit the spread of evil by marrying with the women prior to the flood, then returned to the garden and left to be with God in heaven when the garden was destroyed. This is interesting fantasy but is also completely without any Biblical support and is thus purely speculative with no evidence of anything parrallel in other times. Once again, the most logical speculation, which fits best with other recorded historical experience, is that the "sons of God" were simply very powerful men who took (or were given) that term falsely as a claim or indication of their earthly greatness. |
||||||
45 | Nephilim Humans? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1925 | ||
The bad hermeneutic is to take a passage with an obscure meaning, choose a speculative interpretation and then build additional expanded theories upon it. This can hardly be called Biblical interpretation at all. It's more a matter of reverse deduction. Most of us, including myself, have probably done this at one time or another, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or meaningless. The idea for this kind of hermeneutical sequence might flow something along the lines of, "I think this (e.g. demons having sex with women) might be able to happen, and this is the closest thing in the Bible I can find to even vaguely and minimally support its existence; therefore, I'll use this as my verse for it." This is kind of like building a reverse pyramid, with a very narrow base and a wide top. The foundation is completely incapable of holding up anything, yet an expansive building rests upon it. |
||||||
46 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1927 | ||
Again, it's more accurate to say that many conservative scholars postulate that they are angels. There's nothing particularly dangerous about this in the book of Job, and it's typically such a minor point as to cause no problems. I doubt it's a stand that virtually any conservative scholar would be willing to die for; they just agree on what appears to be the most logical meaning in an unclear reference within the context of Job. The problem comes when some charlatans start traveling around the nation or the world telling sensationalistic tales about holding down women who are being violently raped by invisible demons while they and their cronies are casting the demon out. |
||||||
47 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1933 | ||
p.s. I agree with your last paragraph. You'll have to get another fantasy, Charis; I think the one about other people being actually created by God is probably ruled out by this verse that InHzSvc quoted (Genesis 3:20). p.p.s. Is my CAPITALIZATION OK? ;-) |
||||||
48 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1976 | ||
Sorry, Charis. There was no rudeness intended. It was just meant as a joke in this case. We had both agreed that it was speculation, and I'd already used the term "fantasy" primarily to refer to my own idea about Adam and Eve having children before the fall who were then adopted by God, so I didn't mean anything demeaning by using that word. I was just jokingly saying that you'd have to let go of it. I'm sure you're aware that even a fantasy should be dropped completely if there is actual contradiction in the Scripture and was just joking with you. I apologize for any indication of belittling or condescension. This was never intended, but I probably should have been more clear. (I guess that's what happens when I try to get away with a short reply.) Sorry, again, brother. |
||||||
49 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1977 | ||
Sorry for the further offense, guys. I capitalized your names because they're screen "names", and the question about capitalization was an allusion to the earlier threads where people were disputing when and when not to capitalize. I think I'll just stay off the list for a while, before I offend too many more people. Sorry again, brothers. |
||||||
50 | Whose bad hermeneutics? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1992 | ||
-- | ||||||
51 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 2090 | ||
Thanks for your response, brother. Sorry I didn't respond more quickly. I had decided to get off the list temporarily because I needed to consider my level of intensity and the offenses I might be causing. I decided not to wait a week, after all. I'll probably maintain a similar intensity in my postings (like the one I just posted on Jesus' brothers and sisters), but I'll try to be (somewhat) more careful with my humor. | ||||||
52 | what is "pass the place of repentance" | Gen 27:38 | Brent Douglass | 2623 | ||
I'm not sure if there are any references at all to a point of beyond "beyond repentance" -- unless that is the meaning of the blasphemy of the Spirit. This passage is not referring to this, however. This passage is not at all talking about Esau not being able to repent. It is talking about his father being unwilling to change the blessing he had proclaimed to Jacob. This passage is referring to Esau's selling of his birthright (as the elder son) to his younger brother. Jacob then stole his blessing, as well, and Esau tearfully asked for his father Isaac to give him the blessing. Isaac refused to take back (repent of) the blessing he had given to Jacob and give it to Esau. Jacob was thus blessed by his father with dominion over Esau. |
||||||
53 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230595 | ||
The narration of the sequence by which Laban searched the tents seems very carefully descriptive: First the tent of Jacob, then Leah, then the tent of them maids, and then Laban emerges from the tent of Leah (not the tent of the maids) before searching Rachel's tent. Is the maids' tent connected to or behind the tent of Leah? It seems so, but what does this indicate based on practices of the times? Is Rachel truly in her menstruation and kept separate? Is Leah treated as the higher wife positionally and thus has the maids more quickly at her disposal? Or is Rachel treated as the higher wife positionally and thus given a tent away from the others as is Jacob? Is there any research available of practices of the time, or only speculation? |
||||||
54 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230605 | ||
The care with which the narration describes Laban's process gives the impression that there was something significant to it that would be understood by people of the time -- presumably recorded in Moses' time. Are there any indications of practices of the time that could shed light on this, or are only unsupported speculations available (such as the three potential, mutually exclusive, and completely unsubstantiated interpretations I offered in the initial question)? | ||||||
55 | Why are the Midianites called Ishmaelite | Gen 37:28 | Brent Douglass | 4368 | ||
Another possible explanation is that the term "Ishmaelites" referred only to descendants of Ishmael (who were apparently wandering traders); I don't believe there is a "land of Ishmael" mentioned anywhere in Scripture. In contrast, the term "Midianites" appears to have a broader meaning referring to people living in the land of the descendants of Midian -- just as the "Canaanites" lived in the land of Canaan. This seems supported by the fact that Moses father-in-law Jethro-Reuel was "Midianite" yet not offensive to God (Numbers 10:29). Moses married his daughter Zipporah (Exodus 2:21), and invited his son Hobab to come with the Israelites (Numbers 10:29). Yet an Israelite was later slain for having relations with a Midianite and the Midianites were considered enemies of Israel (Numbers 25:6-18). There were clearly 2 working definitions for "Midianite". Since there's no indication of sufficient relationship between Joseph's brothers and the traders to indicate actual knowledge of their ancestry, it appears that they were dressed and-or spoke like Ishmaelites and were coming from Midian and-or spoke like Midianites. The exact identity of the traders does not appear to be of particular importance. Rather it is their function-vocation as traders traveling to Egypt who would be willing to purchase and sell slaves. |
||||||
56 | Beginning of Bondage | Gen 47:20 | Brent Douglass | 1513 | ||
Joseph's brothers did not have to sell themselves for their food. They brought payment each time, and it was returned to them. They were given land apart from the Egyptians in which to live and raise their livestock. All the land of Egypt had reverted to Pharaoh, and all Egypt was taxed at a 20 percent flat tax (Gen 47:26), but this was not slavery and was not specific to the Hebrews; it's even arguable that they didn't have to pay this tax (at least at first), since their land was apparently given TO them (rather than being sold BY them TO Pharaoh). Joseph brought great honor upon his family from the Egyptian leaders of his time, as demonstrated by their representation at Jacob's funeral (Gen 50:7). The slavery of the Hebrews didn't start until a Pharaoh arose who was not acquainted with Joseph and the great service he had rendered to the power of Egypt and to the line of the Pharaohs (See Exodus 1:6-14). They became increasingly harsh until Pharaoh finally issued progressive edicts requiring the killing of the Hebrews' newborn boys (Exodus 1:15-22). This is the setting into which Moses was born. |
||||||
57 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230600 | ||
Our relationship with God was broken by our sin and our sinfulness. For the one who trusts Christ, the debt has been paid with God by Christ, the barrier to relationship with God has been removed through Christ's sacrifice, and our relationship has been restored through the merit of Christ's perfect life. However, this does not remove the barriers that our sins have placed between us and others or the barriers that others' treatment of us has caused. We can forgive others their sins, and we can show repentance (including restitution when possible) for our sins against others. This is the heart of God toward us -- providing for us the restitution for our sins. As we seek to honor God, and as He develops His heart in us, we will want to restore relationships with others - so far as it depends on us. Therefore, we should show restitution and repentance -- valuing the others we have hurt as much as we value ourselves. See also Romans 12:17-21. |
||||||
58 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230621 | ||
Hi Rhonda, Bill responded to my post, but I wanted to answer to you, so that you can see this directly. I think Bill had a lot good to say about the importance of obedience -- which should be a natural result of our salvation, since the Holy Spirit indwells us and empowers us to be able to obey once our relationship with God has been restored through faith. (John 1:12,13; John 7:37-39) However, I can not fully agree with the following statement by Bill, and I think it important for you to see the distinction: 'Now on the other question about repentance as one of the steps in getting salvation. Throughout the Bible the concept of repentance has always included the attempt of restoration. Thus a theif must return the stolen goods to their rightful owners or do his best to do so. A murderer should feel obligated to ask forgiveness from the family and attempt to restore the manpower as represented by his victim to that family, again as best he/she can within his/her ability. Why is this necessary? God's basic Principle of "Reaping what we've sown in life."' I believe Bill has gone too far in applying demonstration of repentance toward others (through restitution) as being potentially necessary to salvation. Salvation is the restoration of our relationship with God, not others; only Christ can and does provide our restitution before God. Once saved, God desires us to do all that we can to restore our relationship with others, and He can/will convict us of areas in our lives where He wants to continually make us more like Him -- this being one of them. This is much of the point of James (and 1 John for that matter.) Our lives should be transformed, and this is part of the outward testimony to others that Christ has come into our lives and made us alive. Without increasing obedience, our testimony is minimal. However, this is a result of salvation, not a part of it. As I said, salvation restores our relationship with God through Christ. As David said to God after his sin with Bathsheba (which included adultery, deception, and murder against others), "Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Psalm 51:4). Repentance and trust before God brings us to dependence upon Christ and restores our relationship with Him. All that we owed and all of our guilt has thus been removed from before Him by the payment and merit of Christ alone. Once that has been done, but not as pre-condition, He will begin to show you how He wants you to act toward others. This obedience of demonstrating repentance to others (including restitution) is done from a response to what Christ has done and as a witness to others of His work in you. It is not part of the repentance and faith that leads to salvation. It is a resulting good work that comes afterward. (See Ephesians 2:8-10.) Do not let someone tell you that you are not saved if you have not reimbursed someone. The question of your faith and salvation is between you and God, and it can not be judged on the basis of one action -- since we all continue to have a sin nature but also now have the Spirit. Nevertheless, ask God what He would have you do as His beloved child -- for His glory and because of His grace (and even for greater riches in Heaven for your faithfulness)-- but not to merit His approval or salvation. Salvation is between you and God, and Christ is your full and only possilbe restitution. Restitution toward others is a separate and later issue, initiated by God but between you and the other person/people involved. |
||||||
59 | Seething a kid in its mother's milk? | Deut 14:21 | Brent Douglass | 241625 | ||
Most commentators I have read suggest that there was likely a pagan ritual associated with this use of a mother's milk to boil its young, since the context is consistently associated with the commands of the festival sacrifices. However, I do not believe the specific ritual has ever been verified in any writings currently available, so this is to a large degree speculative. On the face of it, however, the image itself is also repulsive, and any such ritual by the pagans would no doubt add to this repulsion. In the animal kingdom especially (and with humans as well), a mother's milk is the dearest form of caring for her helpless infant suckling, providing its most basic nourishment in the most intimate and endearing way imaginable from her own breast. (Consider the tender imagery of Isaiah 66:10-13, Psalm 22:9, and Matthew 23:37.) Therefore, to take a mother's milk and use it as the means of boiling her own child to tenderize it for the consumption of the priests (or the morbid appeasement of a false god) is to take that which God has given by design as a means of sustenance and intimacy between a mother and her young and turn it into an abominable celebration of abuse of power over another. If this was done in pagan worship, this would seem to be the symbolism invoked. I do not believe it is a significant stretch to apply this personally to forbid the abuse of another's tenderness or maleability (due to concern for others) evilly against them to lead them into sin, to draw them to ourselves selfishly and separate them from others whom they love, and/or to otherwise use their vulnerability for our own benefit or sport. However, this command, although repeated three separate times, remains quite obscure as to any significant application beyond basic obedience to the command itself and the image of corrupting the beauty of mother-child intimacy (and tender care of the mother for her helpless infant) into something hideous. To go further in exploiting such a currently non-contextual command with illustrations or application toward other doctrines of personal interest would seem similarly inappropriate. |
||||||
60 | TV Show "Crossing Over" - Dead Speaks? | Deut 18:11 | Brent Douglass | 773 | ||
It's interesting that you picked out Deuteronomy 18:11 in asking this question. The surrounding passage is clear that we are not to pursue or dabble in these things. The reason is given in verse 12: "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." While we are now under a "testament" of grace, God's attitudes have not changed, for he does NOT change. If something was detestable to him then, it is detestable to him now, no matter how appealingly presented. The effect is to replace the need for God with something else. While we want to encourage people and bring relief to those weighed down, evil means ("detestable" before God) can not be justified by temporary ends or apparent harmlessness. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |