Results 41 - 60 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jalek Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240029 | ||
Greetings, Is this not the same topic that Paul speaks of in the passages I mentioned in Ephesians? After all, he speaks of the same thing, and uses similar terminology as in ephesians 3. Jalek |
||||||
42 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240016 | ||
Greetings, First off, is the mystery that Paul is speaking about his own gospel or something else? Paul speaks about this mystery at length in his epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:3-14 and 3:1-21, Paul talks about the mystery. In Ephesians 1:9, he calls it "the mystery of His (God the Father's) will". Later in Ephesians 3:4, he calls it the "Mystery of Christ". He's talking about redemption. It was hinted at in the Old Testament, promised, and prophesied, but it didn't become a reality and fully explained until Christ came and died on the cross. That is the mystery. It's redemption. However, it's not just redemption. In the Old Testament, almost everything about God's promises are focused upon Israel. In fact, the early church didn't think that gentiles, or non jews, were even worthy to hear the Gospel. It was two people who changed the early church's mind on that. The first was Peter, who had a vision in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he uses the vision as a defense to uphold the position of teaching gentiles the Gospel. The other place is in Acts 18. Paul has a vision from God after he makes a decision to teach the Gentiles. This vision reassures Paul that he won't be harmed as long as he's in the city and teaching. So, I think the mystery isn't just about redemption, but the redemption of both Jews and Gentiles alike, which hasn't been ignored. Jalek |
||||||
43 | HOW MANY DAYS WAS NOAH ON THE ARK | Gen 6:15 | Jalek | 239997 | ||
Greetings, According to Genesis 7:6, Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. According to Genesis 8:13, Noah was 601 years old when the flood waters receded, and he left the ark about a month later. If you calculate the time listed in between those verses, Noah and his family were on the Ark for every bit of a year, at least 250 days. Jalek |
||||||
44 | how long was noah on the ark | Gen 6:15 | Jalek | 239994 | ||
Greetings, Putting the Ark into modern day measurements: 450ft long x 75ft wide x 45ft high. Now, to put this into perspective: NFL regulation Football field: 360ft pylon to pylon NHL regulation Hockey Rink: 85ft wide Commercial building Story: 10-15 ft. Furthermore, the Ark would have contained 1,500,000 cubic feet of space. This is equal to approximately 570 standard American Railroad Boxcars, each capable of holding 240 sheep each, which is the size of the average animal. Now, the bible doesn't say that Noah took adult specimens, and he was on the ark long enough for many of them to mature if he took young animals. It is estimated that about 30k to 50k of animals would be needed to save enough animals to repopulate the earth. Of the given space, Noah would have used only 30-40 percent of the space for animals, leaving 60-70 percent for food and supplies. Jalek |
||||||
45 | God's instructions only AFTER the Dove. | Gen 8:16 | Jalek | 239973 | ||
Greetings, You answered your own question. To see if the water had gone down enough to disembark. However, Noah still remained on the Ark. Why? That should be obvious. God didn't tell him to. God told Noah when it was safe to leave. Jalek |
||||||
46 | how so many races-only one on the Ark? | Genesis | Jalek | 239968 | ||
Greetings, If I recall correctly, the three sons of Noah and their descendants each went their own ways to eventually grow to become the separate races. This separation was further enhanced by the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, and the separation of the continents in Genesis 10:25. Jalek |
||||||
47 | Noah's exit from the Ark. | Gen 8:16 | Jalek | 239964 | ||
Greetings, Actually, he did tell Noah when it was safe in Genesis 8:16. Jalek |
||||||
48 | was timothy an apostle | 1 Timothy | Jalek | 239896 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't aware of it either until I did some research for the question about Timothy being an apostle. Please keep me updated on your findings. It'll be interesting to see someone else's findings on the topic. Jalek |
||||||
49 | was timothy an apostle | 1 Timothy | Jalek | 239878 | ||
Greetings, Timothy was one of Paul's companions, and one of his most promising students along with Titus. So, no, he wasn't an apostle per se, even though the Eastern Orthodox Church venerates him as an Apostle. However, despite this, Timothy is listed as a co-author of 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He was also the pastor of the church of Ephesus in the later half of the first century. According to "the Acts of Timothy", he was stoned to death in 97 AD by pagans when he tried to stop the worship of the Roman goddess Diana, which was popular in Ephesus. Jalek |
||||||
50 | Anyone take notes during Yashua's life? | NT general | Jalek | 239870 | ||
Greetings, Something else to consider, in a time and place where paper may not be readily available, how do you retain knowledge? You pay attention and memorize what was said. Jalek |
||||||
51 | Did Christ die only for the elect? | John 10:15 | Jalek | 239864 | ||
Greetings, Normally, I agree with much of what Doc says. However, Doc seems to imply that Christ died for the Elect only. This I disagree with, and here's why. 1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for out sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John makes it clear that Jesus's death was the propitiation (ie: Appeasement or Satisfaction) of our sins as well as the sins of the whole world. Now, he doesn't limit it to the sins of just those who would become Christians around the world. Another place is in Titus 2:15 Titus 2:15 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," As Paul shows here, Salvation is available to all. However, the Bible is clear that not everyone will be saved, despite God's will as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 "Who (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of Truth," and a couple verses later, Paul says this about Christ's sacrifice. 1 Timothy 2:6 "Who (Jesus) gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." Even in John 3:17, Jesus tells Nicodemus "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Many who claim that Christ died only for the elect will twist these passages to say that the writers meant that it was for the elect only, but the passages don't say that. They say "whole world", "All Men", "for all", and "the world". Even in the greek, to imply that these passages are referring to only the elect would be reading into the text what isn't there. Now, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not advocating that everyone will be saved, but that the option to be saved is possible if everyone chooses to be saved. God created hell for those who would reject Christ and salvation. Jalek |
||||||
52 | Anyone take notes during Yashua's life? | NT general | Jalek | 239848 | ||
Greetings, Pardon me for interjecting here. I wanted to add a bit of insight. The idea of a "Q" document is just that ... an idea ... a hypothesis with no real support beyond comparisons between the Gospels. However, Doc did touch on a far more likely and feasible explanation. The problem with the "Q" document is that there is precisely zero mention of it in the Bible, non-biblical sources of the era, and the early church fathers. Something as important as a collection of notes from the three years during the ministry of Christ would have been precious and cherished, as well as preserved. Especially if any of that was written by Jesus himself. What is mentioned is that there were eye witnesses still alive throughout the first century. When you take in the abundance of eye witnesses, you don't need some mysterious and unmentioned "Q" document. This is especially true when the majority of the eyewitnesses are jewish, which Doc pointed out had a strong oral tradition of memorization. Jalek |
||||||
53 | what does Leviticus 19:31 means | Lev 19:31 | Jalek | 239820 | ||
Greetings, It should be straight forward. This is a warning to not mess around with the occult, witchcraft, sorcery, tarot card, and the like. The Bible paints a dim view on such things. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 goes into greater detail about this. Basically, such mysticism takes one's view and faith away from God. While they may have religious symbolism to them, they aren't Godly nor Christian. In fact, the passage in Deuteronomy says that such practices corrupt and defile a person. Despite the attempts of Hollywood to paint a pretty picture of sorcery, witchcraft, and similar practices, such things lead to nothing good. Jalek |
||||||
54 | time lapse between Gen 1:1 and G | Gen 1:1 | Jalek | 239771 | ||
Greetings, I'm a literalist. So, this is day one, which I believe took 24 hours to complete. Jalek |
||||||
55 | Rahab Mother in law of Ruth? | OT general | Jalek | 239769 | ||
Greetings, There is a theory called the "Open genealogy" theory that claims that the genealogies listed are listing the more well known members of the line, like the family leaders and so forth. There's an article about it in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. It does have merit, especially when you compare genealogies together, such as Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:11-12, and 1 chronicles 6:6-14 with Ezra 7:2. Also, if you do the math in Genesis 5-11 and assume there are no gaps, then you come to some implausible conclusions, which can only be explained away via an open genealogy. This theory is not without objections. The primary objection being that some think it takes liberties and uses more isogesis (reading into the text) instead of exegesis (reading out of the text). Jalek |
||||||
56 | Genesis angels creating giants? | Gen 6:2 | Jalek | 239765 | ||
Greetings, You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment. I have a little more time to elaborate on what I said before. One thing I do want to urge caution about is that some translations do have "Angels" or "Spiritual beings" or "heavenly spirits" in the passage instead of "Sons of God". This is because they follow the false interpretation instead of the literal text. This is common with dynamic translations such as Contemporary English version, the New Living Translation, and in paraphrases such as the Good News Bible and the Living Bible. As I said before, this is a false interpretation, and it's why I don't put much faith in Dynamic Translations and Paraphrases. If you look at the chapters leading up to and following this passage, you have Mankind growing and getting progressively worse. In chapters four and five, you have the genealogies of Cain and Seth. You'll notice upon careful examination that there are names in both lists, such as Enoch and a few others. This leads many, such as myself, to conclude that the two lines intermarried, and that Genesis 6:1-4 is describing why and when. Also, the context is all about Mankind and specifically God's reaction and interaction with Mankind. Putting angels or spirit beings into this passage disrupts the flow of the context in these early chapters of Genesis. As far as the belief that Angels created giants, that is nothing but pure ignorance and lack of observation. As I pointed out before, the text clearly indicates that the Nephilim were already in existence when the Sons and the Daughters came together. It is impossible for the Giants to be their offspring. The only conclusion that makes sense is that the Giants comment is to establish a timeframe for the intended audience. Now, as to specifically what or who the giants were, we can only guess. I give serious doubt that they were the same giants as mentioned in Numbers 13 due to the flood killing all of mankind except for Noah's family, who aren't called Nephilim. That indicates that the term is descriptive instead of a proper noun. There are too many possibilities as to the identity of the Giants to speculate accurately. Jalek |
||||||
57 | Why were Midianites enemies and killed? | Num 25:18 | Jalek | 239760 | ||
Greetings, This is about the evil acts of the prophet Balaam, who is the most vile and hated prophet of the Bible. He came under the pretense of being a true prophet, but gave into greed. He worked with Balak to corrupt the Israelites into being idolatrous against God's command. This happened at Peor, which is a location. As a result, God ordered that the Midianites be slain from the leadership down. Cozbi was one of the women leaders involved. Jalek |
||||||
58 | Genesis angels creating giants? | Gen 6:2 | Jalek | 239758 | ||
Greetings, It's a misinterpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. The phrase "Sons of God" is interpreted by some to mean "Angels". However, the context of the book of Genesis doesn't support it. What the context does support is that the Godly line of Seth and the Ungodly line of Cain intermarried. As for the giants, that is a misreading of verse 4. The verse reads that the Giants or Nephilim "were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the Sons of God came in to the Daughters of Men,". The indication being that the Giants existed before the two groups came together. Therefore, the giants cannot be the offspring of the Sons and the Daughter. It is my personal belief that the Giants are mentioned as a time reference, as if to speak of sports history and say that "The Rams football team was still in California". Anyone familiar with the giants, or the football team in the example given, would know when the event took place. Jalek |
||||||
59 | Jesus is Jewish, | John 5:18 | Jalek | 239728 | ||
Greetings, The jews who sought to kill Jesus didn't see him as the Messiah. 1) They saw him as a Sabbath breaker. In John 5:1-17, Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, and told the Man to carry his pallet away. The jews saw this as a direct violation of the mosaic laws on honoring the Sabbath. 2) They saw him as a blasphemer. Later in the same chapter, Jesus makes the claim of being the Son of God. In the Jewish belief system, Jesus's claim of being the Son of God, true or not, was blasphemous. That's why they tried to stone him nearly every time he tried to claim to be the Son of God. 3) They feared how influential he would become. John 11:48 talk about one of the final plots to kill Jesus, and one reasoning given is that they feared how the Romans would react to Jesus's growing influence and power. Jalek |
||||||
60 | NASV translation accuracy | Bible general | Jalek | 239725 | ||
Greetings, I've heard of Frank Logsdon, but only barely. I've not read any of his works. As far as the claim about the defection of one man invalidating the NASB, that seems a little far fetched to me because the NASB wasn't translated by one man. However, I am familiar with the KJV only movement, and have studied it to a good degree to know the basic premises of the belief. First, KJV only activists claim that since the NASB, and other modern translations for that matter, are based off of greek manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus, then they are untrustworthy. This is specifically directed towards the Alexandrian textform manuscripts. Apparently, there is an obscure warning in the Bible not to trust anything that comes from Alexandria. Thing is, the only passage I find that says something negative about the place is Acts 6:9 when men from Alexandria and other places stoned Stephen. Thing is, other places are mentioned also, and it is my belief that the KJV claim about the Alexandrian text forms are based off of passages taken out of context. Now, aside from this, there is one question that so far every KJV only supporter has yet to answer. If the King James Version is the only inspired word of God, then what was the inspired word of God before 1611? Paul says in 2 timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed. How can this be referring to the King James Version only if Paul wrote it some 16 centuries before? Second, another common claim, and misconception, is that the modern translations leave out passages or change the meanings of the words. That simply is not the case, and shows the ignorance of the King James Version Only believers in terms of Textual Criticism. Take 2 Timothy 2:15 for example. Now, in the King James, it says "Study to Show thyself approved". However, the NASB has it rendered as "Be diligent to present yourself approved". KJV only people will turn to this and say that the NASB is saying to no longer study the Bible. However, that's not what Paul was saying to begin with. The term "study" and "be diligent" in the greek comes from the same root word that means "hasten" or "Be eager". Paul is advising his pupil to always be ready and always handle the word of God accurately. So, the NASB actually has the more accurate translation. So, what about the King James? Well, it too is correct from a certain point of view. This passage shows the second primary flaw in the King James Version Only belief: Age. The English dialect used in the King James is no longer spoken actively anymore. Thus it is a dead dialect. Words have changed meaning across cultures and time. 400 years ago, "Study" actually meant "to devote oneself to" or "to be busy with". It didn't mean then " to acquire knowledge through reading and investigation", which is what you'll find in the modern dictionary. So, from the old English definition of "study", the King James is correct also, but it isn't correct with the modern definition of "Study". The final part about this is that not only does the age of the King James show differences in meanings of terms used, but older manuscripts have been found in the past 400 years that are far older than the manuscripts used to translate the King James. As a result, these older ones are closer to what the original texts would have included, and shows passages that appear to have been edited in by copyists and scribes. The perfect example is Mark 16:9-20. This passage is not included in the oldest existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. However, this doesn't change any doctrines or beliefs we as Christians hold to because the teachings and events found in this passage are reflected in other places throughout the Bible. I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer your primary questions, but I do hope that I provided some insight into the KJV only debate. There are other issues and concerns not addressed here, and there are further details in the issues I covered that I didn't address simply due to time sake. I merely intended to give an overall summary of what the KJV only view was all about from an objective and unbiased viewpoint. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |